9.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/1

9.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/2

—

having regard to the 2012 Annual Report of the European Investment Bank (EIB),

—

having regard to Articles 15, 126, 175, 208, 209, 271, 308 and 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Protocol No 5 thereto on the Statute of the EIB,

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2012 on innovative financial instruments in the context of the next Multiannual Financial Framework (1),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on regional Development on risk sharing instruments for Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability, its position thereon of 19 April 2012 (2) and in particular the opinion of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs,

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 February 2013 on the 2011 Annual Report of the European Investment Bank (3),

—

having regard to the report by the President of the European Council of 26 June 2012, entitled ‘Towards a genuine economic and monetary union’,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 28 and 29 June 2012, which, notably, foresee an increase in EIB capital of EUR 10 billion,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 27 and 28 June 2013, which call for the creation of a new investment plan to support SMEs and boost the financing of the economy,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 22 May 2013, which set out the objective of mobilising all EU policies in support of competitiveness, jobs and growth,

—

having regard to the Commission’s communications on innovative financial instruments: ‘A framework for the next generation of innovative financial instruments’ (COM(2011)0662) and ‘A pilot phase for the Europe 2020 project bond initiative’ (COM(2011)0660),

—

having regard to the capital increase of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), notably in relation to the question of relations between the EIB and the EBRD,

—

having regard to the decision on extending the scope of the EBRD to the Mediterranean area,

—

having regard to the new Memorandum of Understanding between the EIB and the EBRD signed on 29 November 2012,

—

having regard to Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) on the EIB External Mandate 2007-2013,

—

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

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0137/2014),

A.

whereas the EIB was set up by the Treaty of Rome and, under Article 309 TFEU, its task is to contribute, by having recourse to the capital market and utilising its own resources, to the balanced and steady development of the internal market with the aim of helping to realise the Union’s priorities by selecting economically viable projects for investment by the EU;

B.

whereas in these particularly difficult social and economic circumstances, marked by public budgetary restrictions, all EU resources and policies, including those of the EIB, need to be mobilised in efforts to sustain economic recovery and identify new sources of growth;

C.

whereas the EIB also acts as the financing arm of, and complement to, other sources of investment by substituting or correcting market gaps;

D.

whereas the EIB is helping the EU to maintain and reinforce its competitive edge on a global scale;

E.

whereas the EIB will continue to be the cornerstone for, and catalyst of the development of, EU policies, providing for the continued presence of the public sector, and offering investment capacities, while ensuring the best possible integration and implementation of the EU 2020 flagship initiatives;

F.

whereas the EIB, as a core stability instrument, will focus on playing a counter-cyclical role, acting as a reliable partner for sound projects throughout the EU and beyond;

G.

whereas the EIB is supporting the key drivers of the growth and jobs objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, such as growth-driving infrastructure, cutting-edge innovation and competitiveness;

H.

whereas there is a crucial need to ensure that the EIB keeps its triple A credit rating, in order to preserve its access to international capital markets under best funding conditions, with subsequent positive impacts on project life and for stakeholders;

I.

whereas in June 2012 the European Council launched a Compact for Growth and Jobs comprising a range of policies aimed at stimulating smart, sustainable, inclusive, resource-efficient and job-creating growth;

J.

whereas the use of innovative financial instruments is seen as one way of extending the scope of existing tools, such as grants, and of improving the overall effectiveness of the EU budget;

K.

whereas it is crucial to restore normal lending to the economy and to facilitate the financing of investment;

L.

whereas international financial instruments provide a new space for collaboration opportunities among all the institutional players and offer real economies of scale;

M.

whereas the EIB’s operations outside the EU are undertaken in support of the Union’s external action policies and should be in line with, and promote, EU objectives, in accordance with Articles 208 and 209 TFEU;

N.

whereas the EIB’s activities are complemented by specific instruments provided by the European Investment Fund (EIF) that focus on providing both risk finance, for the benefit of SMEs and start-ups, and micro-finance;

O.

whereas the capital increase has strengthened the EIB balance sheet, allowing for ambitious operational lending targets;

P.

whereas specific effort has been made to undertake more joint interventions (combining EIF guarantees with EIB loans for SMEs);

1.

Welcomes the EIB Annual Report 2012 and the attainment of the agreed operational plan to finance some 400 projects in over 60 countries for an amount of EUR 52 billion;

2.

Welcomes the EIB Board of Governors’ approval of a EUR 10 billion capital increase, facilitating an additional EUR 60 billion (amounting to a 49 % expansion of lending targets) for long-term lending for projects in the EU in the period 2013-2015;

3.

Asks the EIB to keep the anticipated targets in relation to its additional activity and to unlock EUR 180 billion in extra investments across the EU for the aforementioned period;

4.

Recalls that for projects in the EU, prospects are particularly interesting for a number of priority thematic areas under the ‘Europe 2020’ strategy: innovation and skills, including low carbon infrastructure, investment in SMEs, cohesion, resource and energy efficiency (including the shift to low-carbon economy) ‘packages’; notes that these focal areas have been duly identified in the EIB Groups’ Operational Plan for 2013-2015, and welcomes the allotment of an additional EUR 60 billion in lending capacity in order to finance their implementation;

5.

Strongly believes, however, that within these broad priorities greater focus should be placed on investing in long-term growth and job creation and on generating a durable and visible impact in the real economy, and calls, therefore, for a comprehensive evaluation providing viable figures on the long-term employment created through, and the impact on the economy as a result of, EIB lending, in all areas, following the financial crisis;

6.

Welcomes the launch of the Growth and Employment Facility (GEF), which will enable the EIB to monitor in greater depth the employment and growth impact of the projects it finances;

7.

Calls on the EIB to continue to support the EU’s long-term priorities for economic and social cohesion, growth and employment, environmental sustainability, climate action and resource efficiency, through further development of new financial and non-financial instruments designed to address both short-term market inefficiencies and the more long-term structural gaps of the EU economy;

8.

Encourages the EIB to negotiate and conclude memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with regional development banks active in its regions of operation in order to foster synergies, share risks and costs, and ensure sufficient lending to the real economy;

9.

Regards the Compact for Growth and Jobs as an important but not sufficient response to the challenges facing the EU, noting that the EIB capital increase and an enhanced recourse to joint Commission-EIB risk sharing instruments, coupled with synergies between EIB and EIF specialised activities, are key elements for its success;

10.

Asks the EIB to prioritise its financing on projects that contribute strongly to economic growth;

11.

Recalls that the Commission presented, together with the EIB, a report on the opportunities and targeted priorities to be identified through the implementation of the Pact for Growth and Employment, especially with regard to infrastructure, energy efficiency and efficient use of resources, the digital economy, research and innovation and SMEs; calls, on the basis of this report, for a political debate in Parliament to be attended by the Presidents of the European Council, the Commission and the European Investment Bank;

12.

Is particularly concerned that finance in Programme Countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus) remained low in the course of 2012, representing roughly +/- 5 % of overall EIB investment; notes that the EIB’s targets of investment in Programme Countries for 2013 represent up to EUR 5 billion, out of an overall EU target of EUR 62 billion;

13.

Is concerned that the EIB has maintained a somewhat risk-averse policy in its lending, thus limiting the scope of potential borrowers to meet EIB’s lending requirements and, subsequently, hindering the value-added of loans;

14.

Demands that the EIB increase its internal risk-taking capacity by ensuring that its risk-management systems are adapted to the current environment;

15.

Acknowledges that it is fundamental for the EIB to maintain its triple A rating in order to preserve its financial strength and capacity to inject money in the real economy; urges, however, the EIB together with the EIF to consider increasing its engagement in more risk-related activities, in order to safeguard a reasonable cost-benefit perspective;

16.

Notes the increase in the EIB’s higher-risk special activity targets to EUR 6 billion in 2013, the increase in funding for risk-sharing and credit enhancement initiatives to EUR 2,3 billion, and the recent launch of the Growth Financing Initiative (GFI) easing access to finance for innovative mid-cap companies;

17.

Calls on EIB to increase its activity under the Risk Capital Mandate (RCM) and the Mezzanine for Growth (MFG) mandate provided by the EIB to the EIF;

18.

Welcomes the EIF’s increase of its EIB-funded risk capital resources mandate with EUR 1 billion, with particular focus on higher-risk mezzanine financing as part of the joint EIB-EIF actions to tackle financing constraints for new innovation and growth plans of European mid-sized businesses;

19.

Invites the EIB to be more proactive in providing its technical expertise in all key areas of activities with high growth potential throughout all Member States; recalls that technical and financial advice is an efficient means of helping project delivery and speeding up disbursements and real investment; believes, therefore, that EIB expertise should be augmented and made available at early stages in projects co-financed by the EU and the EIB, and in ex-ante appraisal of large scale projects, including through the Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions (JASPERS) instrument;

20.

Urges the EIB, in the current context of critically low absorption rates in many Member States, to enhance efforts to support Member States’ absorption capacity of EU resources, including Structural Funds, by further developing additional joint risk-sharing instruments and by adapting the existing ones already funded by the EU budget;

21.

Calls on the Member States, where appropriate, to work with the Commission in using part of their Structural Fund allocations in order to share the EIB loan risk and provide loan guarantees for knowledge and skills, resource and energy efficiency, strategic infrastructure and access to finance for SMEs;

22.

Appreciates that unused structural funds can now be used as a special guarantee fund for EIB lending, especially in Greece;

23.

Notes that in 2012 the Bank signed Structural Programme Loans (SPL) to a value of EUR 2,2 billion, enabling support for numerous small and medium-sized schemes in line with the priorities of the Cohesion Policy in various sectors;

24.

Calls on the EIB, in light of the different economic and financial conditions that prevail within the EU, to develop, in close cooperation with the Member States, result-driven investment plans that are properly adjusted to national, regional and local growth priorities, taking into due account the horizontal priorities of the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey and the European Semester for economic governance;

25.

Encourages the Bank to explore possibilities of expanding its involvement by pro-actively participating in partnership agreements between the Commission and Member States;

26.

Notes the decreasing trend in the number of public-private partnerships (PPPs) during and following the crisis, and recalls, at the same time, the particularly important role they play in investment, especially in transport networks and in research and innovation; notes that while the EU PPP market has grown in value, it has recorded significantly fewer transactions;

27.

Believes State guarantees (SGs) to be valuable instruments in addressing market imperfections that may hold up the delivery of PPP programmes and projects; drawing on EIB’s expertise in this field, calls for the increase of its participation in the loan guarantees provided to the PPPs via the SGs;

28.

Believes, moreover, that the EIB advisory capacity, based on expertise gathered in the European PPP Expertise Centre (EPEC), could be used to provide targeted technical and specialised assistance at government level and where appropriate also at regional level, in order to facilitate proper assessments regarding the benefits of involving a SG in a PPP programme;

29.

Recalls the launch in 2012, by the EIB and the Commission and with the support of Member States, of the pilot phase of the Project Bond Initiative, which aims at boosting the funding for key-infrastructure projects by attracting institutional investors;

30.

Welcomes the Projects Bonds Pilot Phase first six-monthly report indicating the approval of nine projects in six countries; calls for the continued and increased use of such bonds and for a regular review of their efficiency in order to boost viable investment in debt instruments that channel private capital into the transport, energy and ICT infrastructure projects that are needed, especially those with a cross-border dimension; believes, however, that the EIB should conduct better evaluations as to the projects in which it wishes to invest, including evaluations of the safety and risk profiles thereof; recalls that the EU budget is providing EUR 230 million in support of EIB credit enhancement activity for infrastructure investment in the transport, energy and communications sectors;

31.

Demands that it be informed about the selected projects in an appropriate manner and in due time;

32.

Notes with concern that key challenges (e.g. turning interest into commitments, limited experience with bond solution from procuring authorities, hesitation to engage from institutional investors, concern over costs from sponsors) remain; invites the Bank to assess properly the possibility of co-investing in early bond deals in order to reassure investors and sponsors; calls on the EIB to ensure that the Project Bond Initiative is consistent with the EU long-term climate target, i.e. that it focuses on low-carbon infrastructures;

33.

Is concerned about the poor project performance in relation to the Castor Project; demands that the Bank provide details on the soundness of its due diligence and to deliver information on whether the geological studies carried out indicate the possibility of a seismic risk or not, what the percentage was and how it was addressed;

34.

Awaits the final evaluation report concerning the PBI Pilot Phase, expected in 2015;

35.

Welcomes the EIB’s new energy policy, introducing new energy lending criteria that reflect the EU’s energy and climate policies as well as current investment trends; demands that EIB energy investments be made public and be analysed on an annual basis, showing what energy sources are supported by the EIB; wishes to emphasise, however, that the EIB’s investment policy ought to focus even further on sustainable projects; recalls, nevertheless, the need to present a comprehensive phase-out plan for lending for non-renewable energy;

36.

Welcomes the introduction by the EIB of a new Emissions Performance Standard, to be applied to all fossil fuel generation projects in order to screen out investments with projected carbon emissions exceeding a threshold level; calls on the Board of the EIB to keep the Emissions Performance Standard under review and to consider more restrictive commitments in the future;

37.

Urges the Bank, in view of the 2030 climate package, including its decarbonisation priorities, to step up its low-carbon investment efforts and to work on policies leading to more ambitious climate targets; requests that the EIB perform a climate assessment and review of all its activities in 2014, leading to a renewed climate protection policy, e.g. through project assessment and an integrated approach to smartly combine sector-specific policies for key sectors; calls on the EIB to annex this review to its next annual report;

38.

Recalls the important role played by the EIB in financing public and private sector investment in energy infrastructure and in supporting projects that contribute to achieving EU climate and energy policy goals; recalls its 2007 resolution calling for an end to public funding for fossil fuel projects and a shift to energy efficiency and renewable energies; believes that the EIB, in cooperation with the Commission, should, in line with Union and international climate change objectives and the best international standards, update its climate change strategy as regards its financing operations before the end of 2015;

39.

Calls for the EIB’s resources and expertise to be boosted in order to provide for climate change adaptation;

40.

Demands that the EIB enforce the best international standards regarding hydropower, namely the World Commission on Dams guiding principles and the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol (HSAP), which means investing only where countries have put in place a legal framework establishing energy planning mechanisms (including ‘no go’ areas), that negative impacts on ecosystems and local communities must be properly assessed, avoided, mitigated and monitored, and that the projects may not be located in or near protected areas or on river stretches with good ecological status;

41.

Calls on the EIB to carefully factor into its projects the vision and targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital’;

42.

Recalls that SMEs are considered the backbone of the EU’s economy and the main driver of European growth and employment, accounting for more than 80 % of employment in the private sector;

43.

Welcomes the particular focus (in the context of increasing the lending activity in the EU) on helping to improve access to finance for SMEs, and welcomes, subsequently, the EIB Group’s target for 2013 of more than EUR 19 billion in SME lending to be signed within the EU;

44.

Calls on the Council also, in this connection, to agree swiftly on the joint Commission-EIB initiatives and to blend EU budget resources intended for SMEs, as well as to take more resolute action in implementing cooperation with the ECB so as to reduce the financing constraints placed upon SMEs; points out that the main problem in several Member States is that the fragmentation of financial markets results in a lack of funding and in higher funding costs, especially for SMEs; calls for the EIB’s efforts to be redirected towards defragmentation in order to promote funding for SMEs, entrepreneurship, exports and innovation, which are vital for economic recovery;

45.

Welcomes the enhanced bank lending to SMEs through the revitalisation of the SME securitisation market by means of the EIB Group’s new ABS initiative; invites the EIB to provide for a market analysis with a view to better calibrating this EIB offer to stakeholders needs; welcomes the enhancement of the credit capacity of the EIF through a capital increase and mandate, and invites the EIB and the Commission to finalise the process by early next year;

46.

Supports the initiatives of the EIB Group on innovative financings for SMEs and mid-cap companies through the launching of Horizon 2020 and COSME financial instruments and the Risk Sharing Instruments (RSI) in order to encourage banks to provide financial resources by means of loans and guarantees, and to ensure the provision of long-term risk capitals;

47.

Supports the Commission-EIB joint SME Initiative under the new MFF, blending EU funds available under the COSME and Horizon 2020 programmes, with up to EUR 8,5 billion of resources dedicated to the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), in view of generating additional lending to SMEs;

48.

Calls on the Member States to participate actively, by contributing to the Joint Instruments from their ESIF allocations, in order to support increased lending to SMEs in their territory, thus increasing the overall leverage effects;

49.

Encourages the EIB to expand the Trade Finance Initiative; considers that this guarantee mechanism for SMEs is of key importance and should be widened at EU scale, wherever it is deemed most needed; calls on the EIB to develop its own trade facilitation programme; calls on the EIB as a first step to establish measures to ensure the provision of the guarantees needed for companies to realise their full export potential;

50.

Supports the EIB’s focus on the regional and local dimension and calls on the Member States to make full use of financial engineering shared management instruments such as the JEREMIE programme and regional fund-to-fund schemes providing equity and debt finance to local SMEs;

51.

Welcomes the ex post evaluation of EIB intermediated lending to SMEs in the EU for the period 2005-2011; acknowledges that in this area, over the period 2005-2012, the EIB signed EUR 64 billion in loans to around 370 financial institutions within the EU 27; notes that by the end of 2012, EUR 53 billion of this money had been disbursed to those financial institutions which, in turn, had lent nearly EUR 48 billion to SMEs through around 300 000 sub-loans;

52.

Notes that the evaluation shows EIB-SME intermediate lending (via the L4SME product) to be consistent with EU objectives; calls, nonetheless, for a better assessment of complementarity between the EIB product and the national policy mixes, in order to improve further the operations’ relevance; asks the EIB to bring forward proposals for enhancing the effect of the L4SME product so that it can be mobilised to fill specific gaps, instead of funding a broad spectrum of SMEs, thereby optimising EIB’s contribution to growth and employment;

53.

Notes with concern that during the period under review the EIB loans had ‘some’ impact on growth and employment, but with great variations across countries (only 1/3 of SMEs attributed the growth of turnover to the EIB funding); is concerned that there is only limited evidence that the EIB loans helped maintain employment; notes that the relative impact on growth and employment was found to be higher in the new Member States; acknowledges, however, that the period under review included the financial and economic crisis and that the relatively modest level of job creation was achieved despite a background of falling employment levels;

54.

Is concerned that EIB funding, for a majority of operations, seems to have been used in support of SME ‘champions’, not as ‘gap funding’; notes, however, that more than 80 % of the SMEs reached were companies with less than 50 employees, which proves that the EIB reaches out to the smaller segment of the SME universe;

55.

Demands that the EIB make full use of the eligibility criteria in order to influence the targeting of financial beneficiaries in a more effective way;

56.

Invites the EIB to identify and select higher-value-added and higher-risk projects, notably by identifying start-ups, micro-enterprises, cooperatives, clusters of enterprises, SMEs and mid-cap companies undertaking research, development and innovation projects in priority technologies area;

57.

Emphasises the need to increase the level of awareness and understanding among potential investors and beneficiaries of the existence of innovative financial tools; encourages the setting up of a communication policy to promote the visibility of various actions carried out by the EU, through these new financial instruments, via the EIB; stresses, furthermore, that extensive and systematic access to project information, as well as greater involvement on the part of project beneficiaries and local civil society — which could be improved through EIB-financed investments — should be ensured;

58.

Calls on the EIB to establish an action plan to simplify access to information and funding for SMEs, focusing in particular on the administrative formalities for access to funding;

59.

Recalls that intermediate lending represents over 20 % of the total annual lending of the EIB;

60.

Reiterates with concern that a considerable number of outstanding issues remain unresolved in this area, notably the lack of transparency (especially concerning information about the final beneficiaries), the difficulty in assessing the economic and social impact of the loans (resulting in a flawed targeted approach) and the reliance, via outsourcing of responsibilities, on financial intermediaries for carrying out the due diligence; urges the Bank to provide details on its approach to accelerate measures addressing these issues and asks for a stringent list of criteria for selection of these financial intermediaries to be established by the EIB jointly with the Commission and be made publicly available;

61.

Urges the EIB to make an up-to-date and comprehensive evaluation of how the financial crisis has affected the final recipients of EIB funding, and to provide a thorough assessment of the effects and impact of the financial crisis on the current status of financial intermediaries used by the Bank, both within and outside of the EU;

62.

Demands that the EIB ensure that its goal of generating employment for around a half a million people, through lending to infrastructure, resource efficiency and knowledge economy projects in 2013 alone, is accomplished;

63.

Notes that, due to the difficult economic environment and tighter credit markets, the funding constraints on companies and the public sector continue to hold back the employment of young people and to limit the scope for improving vocational training;

64.

Believes the EIB’s Youth Employment programme (with a lending volume of EUR 6 billion), comprising the Jobs for Youth and Investing in Skills components, to be of utmost importance in addressing these issues; welcomes the interim implementation report showing important achievements in this sector, such as the EUR 4,9 billion provided in loans through the Investing in Skills sub-programme, complemented by the EUR 2,7 billion provided under the Jobs for Youth pillar; acknowledges the early accomplishment of its objectives;

65.

Supports the Bank’s objective of further maximising its lending targeting to SMEs in order to establish a clear link between EIB lending and the creation of new jobs for young people;

66.

Invites the Bank to widen its scope of action and to make use of additional instruments in order to provide viable incentives for generating youth employment, especially in Member States with notoriously high rates of youth unemployment;

67.

Asks the EIB, in line with the review of EIB’s mandate for operations outside the European Union, to support the European Union’s foreign policy objectives as conceived by the Commission and the European External Action Service;

68.

Welcomes the EU Guarantee for external lending, provided to the EIB by the EU budget, of a size similar to the current one, set at a maximum ceiling of EUR 30 billion (split into a General Mandate of EUR 27 billion and an optional EUR 3 billion subject to the Mid-Term Review) for the next financial period by using reflows from unused FEMIP (Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership) operations dating back to before 2007;

69.

Asks the European Court of Auditors (ECA) to carry out a special report on the performance and alignment with EU policies of EIB external lending activities before the mid-term review of the EIB’s external mandate and to compare their added value with regard to the own resources used by the EIB; asks the ECA furthermore to differentiate in its analysis between the guarantees granted by the EU budget, the investment facility guaranteed by the EDF, the various forms of blending used in the EU-Africa infrastructural trust fund, the Caribbean investment fund and the investment facility for the Pacific and the usage of reflows for these investments;

70.

Welcomes the increased flexibility provisions provided under the new external lending mandate of the EIB; calls on the EIB to maximise its support of EU policies and objectives;

71.

Asks the EIB to make additional flexible use of the Guarantee Fund, and to focus more on own-risk lending, by extending its area of reach for bankable projects; insists that the EIB ensure a high level of visibility to the final beneficiaries of the projects of the European financial support it provides;

72.

Notes that the pre-accession countries and the eastern and southern neighbourhood are at the top of the EIB’s priority areas; emphasises, in particular, the need to maintain support to democratic and economic transitions following the Arab Spring, with specific focus on support for civil society’s components, job creation and economic recovery in the Southern countries and Eastern partner countries; notes with satisfaction the focus on SMEs and access to finance;

73.

Supports, in the context of the EU’s external policies, the progressive development of new financial products with the Commission and the Member States, such as products blending EU grants, loans and risk sharing instruments in order to reach new categories of firms; demands that best practices and well-defined eligibility criteria be defined for the use of those instruments, accompanied by structured reporting, monitoring and control conditions; calls for the finalisation of allocation policy;

74.

Expects, therefore, the governance report on the implementation of the platform for cooperation with international financial instruments on blending to include detailed and consistent information in this regard and to ensure an adequate role for the EIB; calls on the Commission to provide a full-fledged report on the impact and results of the implementation of financial facilities in the context of the platform for cooperation on blending;

75.

Welcomes the EIB’s support for projects, across several energy sectors, targeting growth and jobs; recalls the need to maintain consistency with the new developments in the EU’s energy and climate policies; encourages the EIB, in the context of its renewed energy policy, to continue to support, both within and outside of the EU, projects dedicated to energy efficiency and sustainable renewable energies, and thereby pave the way towards a low carbon economy;

76.

Recalls that structured cooperation between EU bodies (the Commission and the EIB) and other financial institutions is the only efficient means to prevent overlapping activities;

77.

Welcomes the updated Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the EIB and the EBRD reflecting the willingness on the part of the EU to intensify the level of coordination and cooperation between these two major international financial institutions; encourages the EIB also to negotiate and conclude Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with regional development banks active in its regions of operation in order to foster synergies, share risks and costs, and ensure sufficient lending to the real economy;

78.

Calls on both institutions to engage in the best possible operational coordination in terms of complementarity and division of labour, in order to research systematically the best opportunities and synergies, and to find optimal leverages in the support and implementation of EU policy objectives while respecting their respective comparative advantages and specificities;

79.

Encourages the EIB and EBRD to strengthen, at the earliest possible stage (ex-ante evaluation or identification phases of action), their expertise, their strategic and programming approaches in the various fields of intervention and, in particular, their cooperation on risk management instruments (financial, operational or country risks), in order to enhance the supervision of risk;

80.

Welcomes the new Joint Action Plan agreed in November 2012 between the EIB, the EBRD and the World Bank Group, aimed at supporting economic recovery and growth in Central and South Eastern Europe, noting that the action plan sets out more than EUR 30 billion in joint commitments for the period 2013-2014; calls on the EIB to commit a minimum of EUR 20 billion, as agreed;

81.

Reiterates its proposal for the European Union to become a member of the EIB;

82.

Calls on the EIB and other associated partners and stakeholders to further improve their governance mechanisms through, inter alia, the development of exhaustive and sound monitoring, reporting and control systems;

83.

Welcomes the EIB’s reinforcement of its commitment to transparency by joining the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI);

84.

Demands that the Bank ensure the full independence and viable functionality of its complaints mechanism;

85.

Calls on the EIB to comply with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention by setting up a public Register of documents, in order to guarantee the right of access to documents as enshrined in the EU Treaties; asks the Bank to keep its commitment and to make the Register public as of 2014;

86.

Demands that the next annual report be complemented with a set of cross-cutting performance indicators on the impact of the financing operations for the main domains of EIB interventions, the expected multiplier effect when appropriate and the transfer of financial advantages in the programmes funded;

87.

Reiterates and accentuates the Bank’s responsibility in enhancing the level of transparency in the selection of financial intermediaries and partners for co-financed projects and as regards the final beneficiaries;

88.

Stresses that the EIB should reduce bureaucracy in order to allocate funding more effectively and swiftly;

89.

Calls on the EIB to further enhance transparency in its lending through financial intermediaries by reporting annually on its lending to SMEs, providing aggregated data on the level of disbursements made to SMEs, the number of SMEs targeted, average loan size and supported sectors, including an evaluation of the accessibility of the loans for SMEs and the effectiveness thereof;

90.

Calls on the EIB to refrain from cooperation with financial intermediaries with a negative track record in terms of transparency, fraud, corruption and environmental and social impacts; encourages the EIB to form partnerships with transparent and accountable financial intermediaries with established links to the local economy in each country of operation; calls on the EIB, in this connection, to ensure greater transparency, especially in the intermediated loans business, as well as to exercise enhanced due diligence in preventing the use of tax havens, transfer pricing, tax fraud, tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance or planning; calls for the establishment of a stringent, publicly available list of criteria for the selection of financial intermediaries; calls on the EIB to strengthen its cooperation with national public credit institutions in order to maximise the positive impact of its funding programmes for SMEs;

91.

Calls on the EIB immediately to engage in an inclusive revision process of its Non-Cooperative Jurisdictions policy, duly taking into account recent developments in this respect at EU and international level; Calls for the EIB, therefore, to ensure that all companies and financial institutions involved in its projects publicly disclose the beneficial ownership of any legal structure directly or indirectly related to the company, including trusts, foundations and bank accounts;

92.

Asks also for a public exclusion list for financial intermediaries to be developed jointly with the Commission, based on their track record in terms of transparency, fraud, links to offshore jurisdictions and social and environmental impacts;

93.

Considers it to be fundamental that the EIB maintains its triple A rating, which enabled it to borrow EUR 71 billion on the international capital markets in 2012 at favourable rates; encourages the EIB, however, to strengthen its capacity to prioritise higher-value-added projects with higher risk;

94.

Recalls and stresses, as in previous years, the need for prudential banking supervision of the EIB and calls for a legal study into ways of finding a possible solution to this issue;

95.

Proposes that this regulatory supervision be:

96.

Welcomes the new internal developments within the EIB related to the overall compliance with best banking practices; demands that the EIB’s banking partners also comply with best banking practices which are compatible with Union law on financial services and with financial market stability, in the context of its operations both within and outside the EU; requests that the EIB, in its annual work plan, include an audit of one activity area in order to give assurance that best banking practices are part of the Bank’s internal written procedures;

97.

Calls on the EIB to increase further the transparency and accessibility of its activities, evaluations and outcomes through better access to information, both internally to EIB staff, by incorporating participation at relevant internal EIB meetings, and externally, for example on its website;

98.

Welcomes the fact that the EIB has taken measures in the area of anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism, and has reinforced the resources of its compliance function through the appointment of a new Group Chief Compliance Officer; requests that Parliament be updated regularly on the results presented in the Group Chief Compliance Officer’s report;

99.

Calls on the EIB to follow the country-by-country reporting in order to combat the financing of illegal activities; considers that, in order to be eligible for EIB financing, all beneficiaries, whether corporations or financial intermediaries, that are incorporated in different jurisdictions must be obliged to disclose country-level information about their sales, assets, employees, profits and tax payments in each country in which they operate in their audited annual reports; considers also that beneficiaries must make contracts with host governments public and, in particular, disclose the fiscal regime in each country in which they operate;

100.

Requests that the control environment be adapted to accommodate future increase in the volume of funding requests generated as a result of the EIB capital increase and within other financial partnerships, notably for risk management functions;

101.

Calls on the EIB to report on the state of play and status of previous recommendations issued by Parliament in each annual report, especially as regards the impact of its lending activities in its various regions of operation on growth and job creation therein and in the EU, and on economic integration between the EU and candidate and neighbourhood countries;

102.

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

9.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/13

—

having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1092/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on European Union macro-prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (4),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1096/2010 of 17 November 2010 conferring specific tasks upon the European Central Bank concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (5),

—

having regard to Directive 2010/78/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), the European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority) and the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) (6),

—

having regard to its position of 12 September 2013 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority) as regards its interaction with Council Regulation (EU) No …/… conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (7),

—

having regard to its position of 12 September 2013, with a view to the adoption of Council regulation (EU) No …/2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (8),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 3 June 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Banking Authority (9) and to its position of 22 September 2010 on that proposal (10),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 3 June 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (11) and to its position of 22 September 2010 on that proposal (12),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 3 June 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Securities and Markets Authority (13) and to its position of 22 September 2010 on that proposal (14),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 18 May 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 98/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets (15) and to its position of 22 September 2010 on that proposal (16),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 25 May 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community macro prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (17) and to its position of 22 September 2010 on that proposal (18),

—

having regard to the report of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 25 May 2010 on the proposal for a Council regulation entrusting the European Central Bank with specific tasks concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (19) and to its position of 22 September 2010 on that proposal (20),

—

having regard to the opinion of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 1 March 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Banking Authority for the financial year 2011,

—

having regard to the opinion of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 1 March 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority for the financial year 2011,

—

having regard to the opinion of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 1 March 2013 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Securities and Markets Authority for the financial year 2011,

—

having regard to the opinion of its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of 5 September 2013 on the General budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014 all sections,

—

having regard to the Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision endorsed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on 13 to 14 September 2012 (21),

—

having regard to the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes for Financial Institutions of Financial Stability Board published in October 2011,

—

having regard to the Good practice principles on supervisory colleges issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in October 2010 (22),

—

having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 22 January 2014 in Case C-270/12 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union and European Parliament,

—

having regard to Rules 42 and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0133/2014),

A.

whereas the financial crisis has demonstrated that inadequate risk management and inefficient, uneven and fragmented supervision of financial markets have contributed to financial instability and a lack of consumer protection in financial services;

B.

whereas the European Parliament was strongly in favour of the creation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), has provided for more powers in coordination and direct supervision for the ESAs, and believes that they are key actors in the creation of more stable and safer financial markets and that the Union needs stronger and better coordinated supervision at Union level;

C.

whereas the establishment of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) has enhanced the quality and consistency of financial supervision in the internal market; whereas this is an evolutionary process in which Members of the Supervisory Board should focus on Union values and interests;

D.

whereas, since the establishment of the ESFS, micro-prudential supervision in the Union has developed at a faster pace than macro-prudential surveillance;

E.

whereas powers for micro-and macro-economic supervision are concentrated in the hands of the European Central Bank (ECB) that has to take appropriate measures to avoid conflicts of interest due to the ECB's tasks in monetary policy;

F.

whereas the ESAs should prevent fragmentation of financial markets in the Union;

G.

whereas the ESAs are tasked, inter alia, with convergence and with assisting raising the quality of day-to-day supervision, and there is a need to develop performance indicators that focus on the regulatory outcomes achieved in day to day supervision;

H.

whereas the ESAs have largely fulfilled their mandate to contribute to legislative procedures and to propose technical standards;

I.

whereas, although the regulations establishing the ESAs are almost identical, their scope has evolved very differently;

J.

whereas in respect of regulatory technical standards (RTS) and implementing technical standards (ITS) the Commission has the responsibility to adopt, with or without amendment, the drafts proposed by the ESA, and should provide detailed reasons for departing from those drafts;

K.

whereas direct supervision of credit rating agencies by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) may enhance the quality of supervision in this area;

L.

whereas RTSs are adopted as delegated acts and guarantee the involvement of the ESAs in areas for which they have greater technical expertise for drafting lower levels of legislation;

M.

whereas paragraph 2 of the Common Understanding between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on delegated acts states that the three institutions shall cooperate throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of delegated acts with a view to a smooth exercise of delegated power and an effective control of this power by Parliament and the Council;

N.

whereas the establishment of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) was an important next step towards coherent supervision of banks in the euro area and in the other participating Member States;

O.

whereas the creation of the SSM has very important implications for the institutional setting up of micro- and macro-prudential supervision in the Union given the powers attributed to the ECB in those fields;

P.

whereas the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) has provided useful macroeconomic recommendations for the legislative process which were in the areas of money market funds, capital requirements, the mortgage credit directive or symmetrical long-term guarantee measures in Solvency II (23) only partly taken into account by the Commission and the co-legislators;

Q.

whereas the ESRB does not have a mandatory role in legislation, even where macro-economic issues are concerned;

R.

whereas the Advisory Scientific Committee has played an important and constructive role driving the ESRB's agenda, in particular by encouraging the ESRB to focus on controversial and fundamental issues;

S.

whereas some of the ESRB proposals might have been taken into account by the co-legislators or the Commission, if they were issued at an earlier stage of the legislative process;

T.

whereas in the course of the financial crisis the ESRB was established to prevent further crisis and to preserve financial stability;

U.

whereas the systemic risk posed by very low interest rates kept for an excessively long period has never been mentioned by a statement issued by the ESRB;

V.

whereas monetary policy can have significant influence on credit and asset price bubbles and therefore a conflict of interests between the monetary policy of the ECB and the ESRB's activity might arise;

W.

whereas the ESRB following the first proposals of the Commission was supposed to have more than twice as many members of staff than it actually has and the fluctuation of qualified staff is detrimental to its work;

X.

whereas the statements by the ESRB on the EMIR regulation have not been taken into account by ESMA;

Y.

whereas the establishment of the ESRB outside the ECB would, due to Article 130 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), not allow the ESRB to address the ECB in opinions, recommendations or warnings;

Z.

whereas the structure of the ESRB and the size of its decision-making body hinder a swift decision-making process;

AA.

whereas the ESRB Recommendation 2011/3 states that central banks should have a leading role in macro-prudential supervision and, accordingly, representatives of central banks should necessarily be members of the ESRB decision-making bodies;

AB.

whereas the membership of the ESRB is strongly based around central banks which have an important role but also have similar perspectives;

AC.

whereas major parts of the sectoral legislation conferring specific competences to the ESAs did not yet enter into force, thereby making it impossible for the ESAs to fulfil their tasks equally;

AD.

whereas legislation relating to financial markets, financial services and financial products is highly fragmented and the multitude of legal texts causes loopholes, duplication of reporting obligations, institutional divergence and regulatory overlap and can cause unintended consequences and negative impacts on the real economy;

AE.

whereas the United States of America created a federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a strong mandate;

AF.

whereas transparency and independence are an important ingredient of good governance and it is important to increase the transparency of the work of the ESAs and their independence;

AG.

whereas even though the ESAs generally operate in a transparent way through information on their websites, there is a need for increased transparency regarding their work and progress on advice and proposals as well as more information regarding issues such as task forces and working groups;

AH.

whereas the Commission is involved formally and informally in the operations of the ESAs, its involvement is not yet be on a transparent basis, and its role should be aligned with that of the Parliament and the Council, so that the independence of the ESAs is not called into question;

AI.

whereas the benefit of stakeholder groups contributions to the work of the ESAs seems to have been limited;

AJ.

whereas increased transparency is of utmost importance for the Stakeholder groups for creating well considered and workable rules for the financial markets and cooperation with market participants would work much better if those groups were more transparent regarding the composition of the group and the detailed duties assigned to the group;

AK.

whereas the ESAs should support the Commission by making their expertise in financial services available in a transparent way;

AL.

whereas the ESAs should assist the Commission and the co-legislators by assessing the extent to which legislation is meeting its regulatory objectives, and in the interests of transparency should make that assessment public. The ESAs should provide formal opinions on proposed Union legislation and assess the strength of the evidence and analysis contained in impact assessments of legislative proposal;

AM.

whereas in Case C-270/12, the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union indicated a potentially enhanced scope for activities of the European System of Financial Supervisors under Article 114 TFEU in comparison to the prevailing interpretation of the judgment in Case C-9/56 Meroni  (24) at the time when the ESFS was created and therefore the Commission should asses its potential implications in the forthcoming review of the ESFS;

AN.

whereas supervision by the ECB of financial conglomerates active in banking and insurance business is limited by the legal basis for the SSM;

AO.

whereas the creation of the SSM modifies the underlying supervisory scheme of the ESFS and creates a certain degree of asymmetry between the different authorities and their scopes of supervision;

AP.

whereas after the entry into force of the SSM it is particularly important to avoid regulatory arbitrage, guarantee a level-playing field, ensure the good functioning of the internal market, prevent distortions and preserve fundamental freedoms;

AQ.

whereas the ECB and the ESAs use different reporting standards and intervals and the creation of the SSM might pose a serious risk of duplication of reporting requirements, if national authorities do not cooperate sufficiently with the SSM and ESAs;

AR.

whereas the right of investigation against possible breaches of Union law and the possibility of binding mediation has seldom been used and the ESAs have only very limited possibilities to initiate investigations into alleged breaches of law by national competent authorities;

AS.

whereas concerning possible breaches of Union law the decisions affecting national supervisory authorities are taken by national supervisors within the ESA's Boards of Supervisors;

AT.

whereas under the influence of the binding mediation powers of the ESAs many useful solutions were found between national supervisory authorities;

AU.

whereas it has been difficult for national representatives to separate their role of head of a national competent authority and European decision-making challenging their ability to genuinely adhere to the requirement to act independently and objectively in the sole interest of the Union as a whole in accordance with Article 42 of the ESA regulations;

AV.

whereas peer pressure has not worked as envisaged during the original design of the ESAs and is necessary to enable the ESAs to stimulate its development;

AW.

whereas some ESAs are still struggling to collect the information necessary for their work in the necessary format and whereas EBA had to carry out stress tests, but in some cases neither had the necessary legal power to collect the data required for the tests nor the legal powers to verify data which appeared to be imprecise;

AX.

whereas the ESAs may refrain from certain necessary requests for information in anticipation of a rejection in their Boards of Supervisors;

AY.

whereas recently agreed legislation has enhanced the powers of the ESAs to investigate alleged breaches or non-application of Union law obliging competent authorities to provide the relevant ESA with all information which is considered necessary, including how the legislation is applied in accordance with Union law;

AZ.

whereas in course of the establishment of the SSM some progress was made in giving EBA the necessary powers to collect directly information but such capacity needs to be given to the other ESAs;

BA.

whereas guidelines have proven to be a useful and necessary tool to fill gaps in regulation where no powers for the ESAs were provided for in the sectorial legislation;

BB.

whereas the ESAs do have the mandate to monitor the implementation of Union law in the Member States but lack the resources to assess the actual enforcement;

BC.

whereas MiFID I Directive (25) is implemented in all Member States, but some Member States refuse to apply and enforce the rules on consumer protection in practice;

BD.

whereas the participation of ESA representatives in colleges of supervisors has improved the functioning of colleges, but the colleges have only made limited progress in enhancing supervisory convergence;

BE.

whereas the voting rights in the Boards of Supervisors of the ESAs are not proportionate to the size of the relevant Member States, as is currently the case in the ECB and other European agencies;

BF.

whereas the changes in the original voting system of EBA which has proven to ensure a fair treatment of Member States and smooth working conditions for the ESAs were a concession to some Member States and made the decision making procedures in the Board of Supervisors more onerous and cumbersome;

BG.

whereas there should be no age or gender discrimination in the appointment of ESAs Chairpersons, a position that should be widely advertised across the Union;

BH.

whereas the Chair, Executive Director and the members of the Board of Supervisors and Management Boards should be in a position to act independently and only in the interest of the Union;

BI.

whereas some national supervisors from Member States have had difficulties to meet their compulsory contributions to the ESAs’ budgets;

BJ.

whereas compulsory contributions of Member States conflict with the independence of the ESAs;

BK.

whereas the ESAs stated having difficulties in employing staff members of a certain seniority and are limited in fulfilling their mandate by a lack of resources, staff and available resources do not reflect the tasks required to be carried out;

BL.

whereas the current financing of ESAs, with a mixed-financing arrangement, is inflexible, creates administrative burden, and poses a threat to the agencies' independence;

BM.

whereas the regulatory mandate to develop implementing and delegated acts has been a priority for the ESAs in their setting-up phase and has had a disproportionate weight in their workload compared to other responsibilities;

BN.

whereas the ESAs have been unable to devote sufficient resources to the core function of undertaking economic analyses of financial markets (as prescribed by Article 8(1)(g) of Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010, and (EU) No 1095/2010), which is an essential foundation for drafting high quality rules;

BO.

whereas the common mandate to produce a consumer trends report requires that all Member States collect information about those trends;

BP.

whereas EBA still lacks a legal basis in payment services and in the consumer credit Directive (26) inter alia;

BQ.

whereas some requirements foreseen by the ESAs for all market participants were considered by some market participants to be onerous, inappropriate and not proportional to the size and business model of the addressees and sectoral legislation did not always provide sufficient flexibility for the application of Union law;

BR.

whereas the ECB has the right to participate in Council working groups while the ESAs are largely absent from the formal decision making process;

BS.

whereas in the field of consumer protection, the efforts, deployed resources and results of the ESAs differed and were considerably low with regard to EBA;

BT.

whereas a weak corporate governance and system of disclosure were significant contributing factors to the current crisis;

BU.

whereas the new Basel supervisory principles include two new principles on corporate governance and transparency and disclosure;

BV.

whereas misselling, unfair competition and rent seeking behaviour may harm consumers;

BW.

whereas the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and EBA did not provide substantial consumer trend reports;

BX.

whereas the publication of the Financial Stability Report of the ESRB as promised by ECB’s President Mr Mario Draghi is still due;

BY.

whereas the need to take decisions on consumer protection issues requires an equivalent level of expertise among members of the ESAs even though some of them have not a parallel mandate in their home Member State;

BZ.

whereas the current safeguard clauses in Article 38(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010, Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 limit the possibilities for mediation pursuant to Articles 18 and 19 thereof, in particular in cases of cross-border group resolution under the bank recovery and resolution Directive because final decision making powers are left with the Member State which has fiscal responsibility for the institution in question;

1.

Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament, by 1 July 2014, legislative proposals for the revision of Regulations (EU) No 1092/2010, (EU) No 1093/2010, (EU) No 1094/2010, (EU) No 1095/2010 and (EU) No 1096/2010, following the detailed recommendations made in the Annex hereto, based on the experience gained since the ESAs were established and on an in-depth analysis of the legal basis and alternatives available to Article 114 TFEU, including recent case-law;

2.

Confirms that the recommendations respect fundamental rights and the principle of subsidiarity;

3.

Considers that the financial implications of the requested proposals should be covered by appropriate budgetary allocations from the Union budget, while taking into account the option for the ESAs to deduct fees from entities under their supervision;

4.

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

9.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/27

—

having regard to Articles 1, 10 and 16 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to Articles 15 and 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 11 of the TEU and the obligation of the institutions to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and notably to its Articles 41 (right to good administration) and 42 (right of access to documents),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 amending Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2011 on public access to documents for the years 2009-2010 (3),

—

having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the General Court on access to documents, and notably to the judgments of the Court of Justice in the cases Access Info Europe (case C-280/11 P), Donau Chemie (C-536/11), IFAW v Commission (C-135/11) (4), My Travel (C-506/08 P), Turco (joined cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P), and to the judgments of the General Court in the cases of In ‘t Veld v Council (T-529/09), Germany v Commission (T-59/09), EnBW v Commission (T-344/08), Sviluppo Globale (T-6/10), Internationaler Hilfsfonds (T-300/10), European Dynamics (T-167/10), Jordana (T-161/04) and CDC (T-437/08),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 30 April 2008 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM(2008)0229),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 20 March 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (COM(2011)0137),

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents of 2008,

—

having regard to the Annual Reports for 2011 and 2012 from the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament on access to documents, submitted pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission of 2010,

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 November 2002 between the European Parliament and the Council concerning access by the European Parliament to sensitive information of the Council in the field of security and defence policy,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 12 September 2013 on the annual report of the activities of the European Ombudsman in 2012 (5), and 17 December 2009 on improvements needed to the legal framework for access to documents following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) (6),

—

having regard to the European Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 2012,

—

having regard to Rules 48 and 104(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0148/2014),

A.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon has been in force for four years; whereas Article 15 TFEU establishes a constitutional framework for EU institutional transparency and lays down the fundamental right of access to documents of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies for EU citizens and any natural or legal person residing in a Member State; whereas this right should be exercised in compliance with the general principles and limits laid down by the regulations adopted by Parliament and the Council;

B.

whereas Article 298 TFEU provides for an open, efficient and independent European administration;

C.

whereas it is a general rule that access to legislative documents should be fully provided, while exceptions regarding non-legislative documents should be narrowed;

D.

whereas transparency is essential to a democratic European Union of citizens in which they can fully participate in the democratic process and exercise public scrutiny; whereas transparent administration benefits the interests of citizens, the fight against corruption and the legitimacy of the Union’s political system and legislation;

E.

whereas broad public access to documents is a key element of a lively democracy;

F.

whereas in a healthy democracy citizens should not have to rely on whistleblowers in order to ensure transparency of their governments’ competences and activities;

G.

whereas citizens have a right to know how the decision-making process works and how their representatives act, to hold them accountable and to know how public money is allocated and spent;

H.

whereas the EU legislation on access to documents is still not being properly applied by the Union’s administration; whereas the exceptions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are being applied routinely rather than exceptionally by the administration;

I.

whereas, according to case-law, if an institution decides to refuse access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must, in principle, explain how disclosure of that document could specifically and actually undermine the interest protected by the exception — among those provided for in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (see In ‘t Veld v Council  (7));

J.

whereas a specific and foreseeable threat to the interest in question may not be established by a mere fear of disclosing to EU citizens differences of opinion between the institutions regarding the legal basis for the international activity of the European Union and, thus, of creating doubts as to the lawfulness of that activity (see In ‘t Veld v Council  (8));

K.

whereas six out of the ten European Ombudsman’s ‘star case’ investigations of 2012 concerned transparency;

L.

whereas the statistics for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 show a decrease in the number of initial requests in all three institutions;

M.

whereas the number of specified documents requested has decreased in Parliament (from 1 666 in 2011 to 777 in 2012); whereas, however, the percentage of requests for unspecified documents, e.g. ‘all documents relating to …’, has increased in Parliament (from 35,5 % in 2011 to 53,5 % in 2012); whereas the number of Council documents requested has decreased (from 9 641 in 2011 to 6 166 in 2012) (9);

N.

whereas the quantitative data presented in the Annual Reports of 2012 indicate that both the Commission (from 12 % in 2011 to 17 % in 2012) and the Council (from 12 % in 2011 to 21 % in 2012) have increasingly fully refused access, while Parliament shows stable figures for full refusal of access (5 % in both 2011 and 2012);

O.

whereas the Commission shows a significant increase in confirmatory applications (from 165 in 2011 to 229 in 2012), resulting in a slight increase in fully revised decisions, a decrease in partially revised decisions and an increase in confirmed decisions, while both the Council and Parliament show relatively stable figures for confirmatory applications (Council: from 27 in 2011 to 23 in 2012; Parliament: from 4 in 2011 to 6 in 2012);

P.

whereas a number of applications have resulted in complaints being lodged with the European Ombudsman (Commission: from 10 in 2011 to 20 in 2012; Council: from 2 in 2011 to 4 in 2012; Parliament: 1 in both 2011 and 2012);

Q.

whereas the European Ombudsman closed a number of complaints in 2011 and 2012 with critical remarks or suggesting further action (Commission: from 10 out of 18 in 2011 to 8 out of 10 in 2012; Council: no information; Parliament: from 0 out of 0 in 2011 to 1 out of 1 in 2012);

R.

whereas a number of applications for access to documents have resulted in cases being lodged with the General Court or taken on appeal to the Court of Justice (Commission: from 15 cases and 3 appeals in 2011 to 14 cases and 1 appeal in 2012; Council: from 1 case and 2 appeals in 2011 to 1 appeal in 2012 (10); Parliament: none in 2011 or 2012);

S.

whereas the General Court has largely ruled in favour of more transparency, or else has delivered clarification to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a number of cases (Commission: 5 out of 6 (11) in 2011 and 5 out of 5 in 2012 (12); Council: 1 out of 1 in 2011 (Access Info Europe, T-233/09) and 1 out of 4 in 2012 (In ‘t Veld, T-529/09); Parliament: 1 out of 2 in 2011 (13) (Toland, T-471/08) and 1 out of 1 in 2012 (Kathleen Egan and Margaret Hackett, T-190/10));

T.

whereas the Court of Justice has largely ruled in favour of more transparency in the following cases: Commission: 1 out of 1 in 2011 (My Travel, C-506/08) and 1 out of 3 in 2012 (IFAW, C-135/11 P) (14); Council and Parliament: no rulings in 2011 or 2012;

U.

whereas the annual reports of the Commission, the Council and Parliament do not provide comparable statistics; whereas the three institutions do not observe the same standards of completeness in presenting statistics;

V.

whereas the reason most often invoked for exception is ‘the protection of the decision- making process’, as used by the Commission and the Council following initial requests (Commission: 17 % in 2011 and 20 % in 2012; Council: 41 % in both 2011 and 2012); whereas ‘the protection of international relations’ was the second reason most often invoked by the Council; whereas in the case of Parliament, ‘the protection of privacy and integrity of the individual’ was the commonest exception;

W.

whereas the institutions have failed to implement Articles 15(2) and 15(3), subparagraph 5 of the TFEU, regarding the obligation for the European Parliament and the Council to meet in public when considering a draft legislative act, and to publish the documents relating to the legislative procedures under the terms laid down by the regulations referred to in Article 15(3), subparagraph 2;

X.

whereas Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides for an exception to transparency ‘if disclosure of the document would seriously undermine the institution’s decision-making process, unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure’; whereas this provision predates the Treaty of Lisbon and needs to be brought in line with Article 15 TFEU;

Y.

whereas the ruling of the Court of Justice in the Access Info Europe case (15) has confirmed that publishing the names of Member States and their proposals is not harmful to the decision-making process; whereas the General Court had ruled in its earlier decision in this case that ‘if citizens are to be able to exercise their democratic rights, they must be in a position to follow in detail the decision-making process’;

Z.

whereas international agreements have binding effects and impact on EU legislation; whereas documents related to them should be public in principle, without prejudice to legitimate exceptions; whereas the application of the exception for the protection of international relations applies as stated in paragraph 19 of In ‘t Veld v Council (T-529/09);

AA.

whereas trilogues between the Commission, Parliament and the Council are defining for the formation of EU legislation; whereas trilogues are not public and documents regarding informal trilogues, including agendas and summary reports, are by default made available neither to the public nor to Parliament, which is in contradiction with Article 15 TFEU;

AB.

whereas documents produced or possessed by the Presidency of the Council in relation to its work in that role should be accessible according to EU transparency rules;

AC.

whereas the negotiations on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 have been in deadlock; whereas the new instrument will need to provide for significantly more transparency than the status quo;

AD.

whereas requests for in camera meetings in Parliament should, in principle, be considered along the lines of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; whereas such requests shall be evaluated by Parliament on a case-by-case basis, and shall not be granted automatically;

AE.

whereas the classification of documents into levels of confidentiality falling under the scope of the 2010 Framework Agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission, or as ‘sensitive documents’ under Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, should be made on the basis of careful and specific consideration; whereas overclassification leads to unnecessary and disproportionate secrecy of documents and to meetings being held in camera without proper justification;

AF.

whereas transparency remains the rule, including in relation to a cartel leniency programme; whereas an automatic ban on disclosure is a violation of the rule of transparency, as laid down in the Treaties; whereas secrecy is the exception, and must be justified on a case-by-case basis by national judges with regard to actions for damages;

AG.

whereas it is recommended that EU guidelines be drawn up as a helpful tool for judges; whereas such guidelines need to distinguish between company documents and cartel files held by the Commission;

1.

Recalls that transparency is the general rule and that the Treaty of Lisbon lays down the fundamental right of access to documents;

2.

Recalls that the widest possible public access to documents is needed to effectively allow citizens and civil society to comment on all aspects of EU activity;

3.

Recalls that transparency enhances public trust in the European institutions by allowing citizens to be informed and to participate in the Union’s decision-making process and, in this way, contribute to making the EU more democratic;

4.

Recalls that any decision denying access to documents must be based on clearly and strictly defined legal exceptions, accompanied by reasoned and specific justification, allowing the citizen to understand the denial of access and to make effective use of the legal remedies available;

5.

Recalls the need to establish an appropriate equilibrium between transparency and data protection, as made clear by the Bavarian Lager case-law, and stresses that data protection should not be ‘misused’, especially not for the purpose of covering conflicts of interest and undue influence in the context of EU administration and decision-making; points out that the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Bavarian Lager case is based on the current wording of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and does not prevent the wording from being changed, which is necessary and urgent, notably after the clear proclamation in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the right of access to documents;

6.

Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to strictly apply Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, taking full account of the body of case-law relating thereto, and harmonising their existing internal rules to the letter and the spirit of the regulation, particularly with regard to deadlines to respond to requests for access to documents, while ensuring that this does not result in longer deadlines; calls on the Council to publish minutes of the meetings of Council working groups, including, in the light of the Access Info Europe case, the names of Member States and their proposals;

7.

Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies, when applying Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, to strictly assess the possibilities for partial disclosure of a document, table, graphic, paragraph or phrase;

8.

Calls on the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to develop further a more proactive approach on transparency by making publicly accessible on their internet websites as many categories of documents as possible, including internal administrative documents, and by including these in their public registries; considers that this approach helps ensure effective transparency as well as prevent unnecessary litigation that may cause unnecessary costs and burdens for both the institutions and the citizens;

9.

Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to implement fully Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, and to put in place public document registers with clear and accessible structures, good search functionality, regularly updated information on new documents produced and registered, inclusion of references to non-public documents and, to assist public users, guidance on the types of documents held in a given registry;

10.

Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies to publish systematically and without delay in their document registers all documents previously not available to the public that have been disclosed via public access to documents requests;

11.

Calls on the administrations to provide full indication of all documents falling within the scope of a request for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, following the initial application;

12.

Stresses that resort to the European Ombudsman represents a valuable option where denial of access to a document has been confirmed by the administration concerned; recalls, however, there is no means of enforcing the Ombudsman’s decisions;

13.

Stresses that litigation entails extremely lengthy processes, the risk of high, even prohibitive costs, and an uncertain outcome, putting an unreasonable burden on citizens who wish to challenge a decision to refuse (partial) access; emphasises that this means, in practice, that there is no effective legal remedy against a negative decision on a request for access to documents;

14.

Calls upon the EU institutions, bodies and agencies urgently to adopt faster, less cumbersome and more accessible procedures for handling complaints against refusals to grant access, so as to reduce the need for litigation and create a true culture of transparency;

15.

Stresses that the annual reports of the three institutions and of the bodies and agencies should present figures in a comparable format, which should include, for example, the number of documents requested, the number of applications, the number of documents to which (partial) access is granted, the number of applications granted before and after confirmatory application, and the figures for access granted by the Court, partial access granted by the Court and access denied;

16.

Calls on the EU institutions to refrain from calling for the opposing party having to bear the costs of court cases, and to ensure that citizens are not prevented from challenging decisions for want of means;

17.

Notes that Member States need to adapt to the new transparency framework established by the Treaty of Lisbon, as illustrated by the Germany v Commission case (T-59/09), in which Germany opposed the disclosure of documents relating to a formal notice to it, invoking the protection of the public interest in the context of ‘international relations’, while the General Court ruled that ‘international relations’ is to be considered a term of EU law and therefore not applicable to communications between the Commission and a Member State;

18.

Calls on the EU institutions to improve their timeliness of response to requests for access to documents and confirmatory applications;

19.

Resolves to examine how the deliberations in its Bureau and its Conference of Presidents can be made more transparent, such as by keeping detailed minutes and by disclosing these to the public;

20.

Expresses its disappointment with the fact that since December 2011, when it adopted its first reading position on the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, no progress has been made, as the Council and the Commission do not appear to have been ready to embark on substantive negotiations; calls, therefore, on the Council finally to move forward with the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; calls on the Council and Parliament to agree on a new instrument that provides significantly more transparency, including the effective implementation of Article 15 TFEU;

21.

Calls on all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to apply Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in a way that is coherent with the provisions of the Aarhus Convention; fully supports the policy of the European Medicine’s Agency to publish clinical trial reports of pharmaceuticals on the European market upon request, once the decision-making process for the medicine in question has been completed; stresses that any revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should fully respect the Aarhus Convention and should define any exemption in full compliance with it;

22.

Recommends that each EU institution or body appoint from within its management structures a Transparency Officer, to be responsible for compliance and for improving practices;

23.

Calls on all the institutions to evaluate and, where necessary, review their internal arrangements for reporting wrongdoing, and calls for the protection of whistleblowers; calls, in particular, on the Commission to report to Parliament on its experiences with the new rules on whistleblowing for EU staff adopted in 2012 and with their implementing measures; calls on the Commission to come forward with a proposal to protect whistleblowers, not only morally but also financially, in order to properly protect and support whistleblowers as part of the democratic system;

24.

Calls on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to harmonise their Annual Reports on access to documents, and to present similar statistics, in a compatible form and to the fullest and most inclusive extent possible (e.g. in tables in the Annex which allow for direct comparison);

25.

Calls on the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to adopt the recommendations put forward by Parliament in its previous resolution on public access to documents;

26.

Calls on the EU institutions to include in their annual transparency reports a reply to Parliament’s recommendations;

27.

Calls on the Commission to enhance the transparency of expert groups and comitology groups, by holding their meetings in public and publishing the recruitment procedure for members, as well as information regarding membership, proceedings, documents considered, votes, decisions and minutes of meetings, all of which should be published online in a standard format; stresses that members of experts groups and comitology must declare in advance if they have a personal interest in the subjects discussed; calls on the Commission to improve and fully implement internal guidelines for all DGs for the recruitment procedure (concerning i.e. balanced composition, conflict of interest policy, public calls) and the rules for reimbursement, and to report on this matter not only in the annual access to documents report but also in the annual activity reports of DGs; calls on the Commission to report, in particular, on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Stakeholder Advisory Group;

28.

Calls on the Commission, the Council and Parliament to ensure the greater transparency of informal trilogues, by holding the meetings in public, publishing documentation including calendars, agendas, minutes, documents examined, amendments, decisions taken, information on Member State delegations and their positions and minutes, in a standardised and easy accessible online environment, by default and without prejudice to the exemptions listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

29.

Recalls that Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on sensitive documents is a compromise that no longer reflects the new constitutional and legal obligations in place since the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force;

30.

Calls on the institutions, bodies and agencies of the EU to maintain up-to-date public figures on the number of classified documents they hold, according to their classification;

31.

Calls on the Commission to propose a regulation laying down clear rules and criteria for the classification of documents by the EU institutions, bodies and agencies;

32.

Calls on the institutions to assess and justify requests for in camera meetings in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001;

33.

Calls on the Union institutions to set up an independent EU oversight authority for the classification of documents and the examination of requests for holding sessions in camera;

34.

Calls on the institutions to make publicly available and accessible to citizens documents relating to the European Union budget, its implementation and the beneficiaries of Union funds and grants, and stresses that such documents shall also be accessible via a specific website and database, and on a database dealing with financial transparency in the Union;

35.

Expresses concern at the routine application of the exception for the protection of international relations as a justification for the classification of documents;

36.

Recalls that when an institution decides to refuse access to a document which it has been asked to disclose, it must, in principle, explain how disclosure of that document could specifically and actually undermine the public interest as to international relations;

37.

Emphasises that, regardless of these principles, this is still not implemented in practice, as shown by the General Court ruling in Case T-529/09 (In ‘t Veld v Council) regarding the refusal by the Council to provide access to an opinion of its legal service on the EU-US TFTP agreement;

38.

Emphasises that opinions of the institutions’ legal services must, in principle, be disclosed, as underlined by the Court’s ruling in Turco that ‘Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 seeks, as indicated in recital 4 of the preamble and Article 1, to give the public a right of access to documents of the institutions which is as wide as possible’ (16);

39.

Recalls that, before assessing whether or not the exception of Article 4(2), second indent on the protection of legal advice applies, the institution concerned must satisfy itself that the document it is asked to disclose does indeed relate to legal advice and, if so, must decide which parts of it are actually concerned and may therefore be covered by the exception (Turco, paragraph 38);

40.

Calls on the institutions to abide by the Turco judgment on legal service opinions drafted in the framework of the legislative process, which ruled that ‘it is precisely openness in this regard that contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated’ and that ‘it is in fact rather a lack of information and debate which is capable of giving rise to doubts in the minds of citizens, not only as regards the lawfulness of an isolated act, but also as regards the legitimacy of the decision-making process as a whole’ (17);

41.

Stresses that, as ruled in the In ‘t Veld v Council case (T-529/09) (18), a specific and foreseeable threat to the interest in question may not be established by a mere fear of disclosing to EU citizens differences of opinion between the institutions regarding the legal basis for the international activity of the European Union and, thus, of creating doubts as to the lawfulness of that activity;

42.

Stresses that the Court of Justice has ruled in Case C-536/11, paragraph 43 that ‘any request for access to the [cartel file] must be assessed on a case-by-case basis [by the national courts], taking into account all the relevant factors of the case’;

43.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the European Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Council of Europe.

9.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/35

—

having regard to the significance of the right of petition and the importance for parliamentary bodies to be immediately aware of the specific concerns and views of the European citizen or resident, as provided for in Articles 24 and 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and notably Article 44 on the right to petition the European Parliament,

—

having regard to the provisions of the of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which regard the infringement procedure, notably article 258 and 260,

—

having regard to Rules 48 and 202(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A7-0131/2014),

A.

bearing in mind the petitions received in the year 2013, which was ‘the Year of the European Citizen’ number 2,885, representing an increase of almost 45 % on the year 2012; and noting that for the current legislature until now, almost 10,000 petitions have been registered;

B.

whereas even though such a figure remains modest by comparison with the population of the European Union, it nevertheless denotes a marked increase in the awareness of the right of petition and legitimate expectations regarding the usefulness of the petitions process as a means of securing the attention of the European Institutions and the Member States for the concerns of individual citizens, local communities, NGOs, voluntary associations and private businesses;

C.

whereas European citizens are directly represented by the only EU institution elected by them — the European Parliament; bearing in mind that the right to petition offers them the chance to address their representatives directly;

D.

bearing in mind that the right of petition enhances the responsiveness of the European Parliament towards the citizens and residents of the Union, while it may at the same time provide people with an open, democratic and transparent mechanism for obtaining, where legitimate and justified, a non-judicial remedy for their complaints, notably when this relates to problems with the implementation of European legislation; whereas petitions provide valuable feedback to legislators and executive bodies both at EU and national level;

E.

whereas further irreparable losses in biodiversity must be averted, especially inside Natura 2000 designated sites; whereas Member States have undertaken to ensure the protection of special conservation areas under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC); whereas, although the Commission can fully check compliance with EU law only when a final decision has been taken by national authorities, it is important — particularly in relation to environmental matters — to verify at an early stage that local, regional and national authorities correctly apply all relevant procedural requirements under EU law, including implementation of the principle of precaution;

F.

whereas it is necessary to increase citizen participation in the EU decision-making process, with a view to reinforcing its legitimacy and accountability; whereas the petitions process also constitutes a means to establish a reality check regarding the tensions which exist within European societies, particularly during times of economic crisis and social unrest, such as have resulted from the impact of the collapse of the world financial markets and banking systems on the people of Europe; recalling that the Committee on Petitions organised a public hearing involving petitioners on this subject in September 2013; whereas many petitions on financial malpractices and abuses towards consumer’ rights in the banking sector and particularly the dramatic consequences of household evictions for entire families as a result of abusive mortgage clauses have attracted the attention of the committee;

G.

whereas such petitions as have been addressed to the Committee on Petitions have often provided useful inputs to other committees of the European Parliament which have the responsibility of formulating legislation designed to establish a socioeconomically and environmentally more secure, sound, fair and prosperous basis for the future of all European citizens and residents;

H.

whereas each petition is assessed and treated on its merit, even when brought forth by only one EU citizen or resident, and each petitioner has a right to receive a reply in their own language;

I.

bearing in mind that, depending on the nature and complexity of a petition received, its processing and response time will vary, but that every effort is to be made to duly respond to the concerns of petitioners within a reasonable time-frame and in an appropriate manner, in terms not only of procedure but also of substance;

J.

whereas petitioners whose petitions are subsequently discussed during the regular meetings of the Committee on Petitions are able to participate fully, have the right to present their petition along with more detailed information, and thus actively contribute to the work of the Committee, providing additional and first-hand information to members of the Committee and to the European Commission as well as to the representatives of the Member States who may be present; and whereas in 2013, 185 petitioners attended and were actively involved in the Committee’s deliberations;

K.

bearing in mind that the activities of the Committee on Petitions are based entirely on the input and contributions received from petitioners, along with the results of its own investigations into each case as supplemented where necessary with additional expertise from the European Commission, Member States or other bodies; and that its agendas are prioritised and organised on the basis of decisions taken democratically by its members;

L.

bearing in mind that the criteria established for the admissibility of petitions, under the terms of the Treaty and Parliament’s rules, indicates that a petition must concern a matter which comes within the Union’s fields of activity and which affects the petitioner directly; and that as a result of this a proportion of petitions received are declared inadmissible because they do not correspond to such criteria;

M.

whereas the right of petition is a key tool for participation and democratic control by citizens, and its proper implementation must be ensured from the beginning to the end of the process; whereas this right must remain fully guaranteed, independently of governmental interests; whereas this principle must be upheld in an exemplary manner at EU level in the handling of petitions within this Parliament and by the Commission;

N.

whereas the above-mentioned criteria have been tested before the courts and that rulings of the European Court of Justice, for example in case T-308/07, have upheld the criteria related to the right to petition and the fact that declarations regarding inadmissible petitions must be well-founded and require justification by the Committee in its subsequent correspondence with the petitioner; and for example in case T-280/09 and T-160/10, in relation to petitions that may be considered as too imprecise in their content;

O.

whereas in addition to petitions received related to the impact of the crisis on European citizens and residents, other key issues of concern to petitioners relate to environmental law — notably issues concerning waste and water management, fundamental rights — notably regarding the rights of the child, the rights of the disabled and health-related issues, right to personal and real property, matters concerning free movement of persons, different forms of discrimination and in particular on ethnic, cultural or language grounds, visas, immigration and employment, and petitions on the application of justice, alleged corruption, delays in legal processes and many other areas of activity;

P.

bearing in mind that because many petitioners, especially among the younger sectors of the population, make great use of the social media as a channel for communication, the Committee on Petitions has developed its own network under the auspices of the European Parliament and is regularly followed by a growing number of persons on mainstream social media, which are especially active and found useful around the times of Committee meetings; and whereas it has also developed a significant number of regular subscribers, currently 1 500, to the Committee’s newsletter, the Péti Journal;

Q.

whereas, in this same context, the Committee on Petitions has been working in conjunction with the relevant services of the European Parliament to develop a new multi-lingual web-portal which replaces the former, more limited, electronic facility for petition submission contained on the Europarl web-site; whereas the new portal is designed to increase administrative efficiency while enhancing the transparency and interactivity of the petitions process for the benefit of petitioners and Members of the European Parliament as well as for the public at large;

R.

recalling, in this context, the position it upheld on the basis of the 2012 Annual Report which resolved to make the petition procedure more efficient, transparent and impartial while preserving the participatory rights of the members of the Committee on Petitions so that the handling of petitions will stand up to judicial review even at the procedural level;

S.

whereas the Committee on Petitions maintains an active interest in the way in which the Regulation concerning the European Citizens’ Initiative is being applied and is mindful of the many weaknesses and the rather cumbersome nature of the existing legal framework which does not fully translate the spirit of the Treaty provision in spite of the efforts of the AFCO and PETI Committees in its elaboration; and whereas the Parliament is to engage in discussions on the revision of this Regulation under the terms of the review clause after three years of its functioning;

T.

whereas the provisions of the ECI Regulation regarding the organisation of a public hearing for a successful Initiative on the premises of the European Parliament are soon to be implemented, involving the lead committee with legislative competence for the subject matter of the Initiative alongside the Committee on Petitions, under the terms of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and the implementing rules adopted by the Bureau;

U.

bearing in mind the valuable role of fact-finding visits regarding petitions under investigation, regularly organised by the Committee on issues to which it has given specific priority, and the need for reports of such visits to be of the highest level of quality and credibility and to be drawn up in faithful cooperation leading to a desirable consensus among participants; recalls the visits undertaken in 2013 to Spain — twice, to Poland, to Denmark, and to Greece; whereas more flexibility in the practical arrangements of these missions, mainly as regards the eligible weeks, would contribute to an even higher success of these visits particularly as regards the availability of members and reducing the risk of cancellation;

V.

bearing in mind the Committee’s responsibilities in relation to the office of the European Ombudsman, which is responsible for investigating complaints from EU citizens about possible maladministration within the EU Institutions and bodies, and about which it also produces an Annual Report, based upon the European Ombudsman’s own Annual Report; and recalling that in 2013 the Committee was actively involved in the organisation of the election of a new European Ombudsman following the retirement of the then incumbent of this office, Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros;

W.

whereas although a new European Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, was successfully elected to serve as from 1 October 2013 by the members of this House, a new election must be organised at the beginning of the next legislature, as is provided for under the Rules of Procedure (Rule 204), and whereas it would be wise to ensure that clear and transparent rules for the process are published in good time which further clarify the responsibility of the Petitions Committee in this process and which ensure adequate transparency for the election, notably by means of an improved dedicated web facility;

X.

whereas the Petitions Committee is a member of the network of European Ombudsmen, which includes some Petitions Committees of national parliaments where they exist, and whereas it appears to be important that cooperation between Petitions Committees themselves should be further highlighted and where practical, further reinforced and that the European Parliament could play a central role in this development in the interest of European citizens;

Y.

whereas the Committee on Petitions intends to be a useful and transparent tool at the service of European citizens and residents, which exercises democratic control and scrutiny over many aspects of European Union activity, especially regarding the implementation of EU laws by the national authorities; and whereas it can contribute further, on the basis of petitions received, on the one hand to a more coherent and coordinated application of EU legislation and on the other to the improvement of future EU legislation by drawing attention to the lessons that should be learned from the substance of petitions received;

Z.

whereas this report is the last annual PETI Report of the 7th legislature of the European Parliament which is why it is outlining the Committee’s activities in 2013, as well as overviewing the whole parliamentary term and assessing to what extent the PETI Committee managed to meet citizens’ expectations, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;

1.

Acknowledges the substantial and fundamental role of the Petitions Committee in defending and promoting the rights of EU citizens and residents, ensuring that through the petitions process the concerns of petitioners are better recognised and their legitimate grievances resolved wherever possible, in a reasonable time-frame;

2.

Is determined to make the petition procedure more efficient, transparent, and impartial, while preserving the participatory rights of the Members of the Committee on Petitions, so that the handling of petitions will stand up to judicial review even at a procedural level;

3.

Emphasises that the Committee on Petitions, along with other institutions and bodies, such as the committees of inquiry and the European Ombudsman, play an independent and clearly defined role as points of contact for each individual citizen; highlights the fact that these bodies, together with the European Citizens’ Initiative, are fundamental tools for a democratic EU and the creation of a European demos, and that proper access to them and their reliable functioning must be guaranteed;

4.

Underlines that throughout the current parliamentary term the Petitions Committee was taking up the challenges to meet the expectations of the citizens of the European Union; emphasises the importance of citizens direct involvement in the Parliament’s activity and to have their concerns, proposals or complaints specifically addressed by the Committee members; points out the amount of work that had been done to resolve possible infringements of citizens’ rights and by cooperating with national, regional and local authorities on issues related to the application of European laws; while maintaining a vital role in reconnecting with European citizens and reinforcing the democratic legitimacy and accountability of the EU decision-making process;

5.

Recalls the Commission’s significant role in assisting with the handling of the cases raised by petitions; considers that the Commission’s investigation of petitions should go into greater depth and look into the substance of cases with regard to EU legislation; stresses the importance of transparency in these processes and of a proper public access to relevant documents and case-related information;

6.

Stresses the importance of proactive monitoring and timely preventive action by the Commission, where there is well-founded evidence that certain planned and published projects may breach EU legislation;

7.

Observes the variety of thematic key areas concerned in the citizens’ petitions, such as fundamental rights, internal market, environmental law, public health issues, child welfare, transport and constructions, Spanish Coastal Law, new Regulation on good administration, persons with disabilities, age discrimination, public access to documents, European Schools, Fiscal Union, and the Steel Industry, animal rights and many more;

8.

Considers that petitions which fall under said thematic areas lend proof to the issue that the frequencies of widespread situations of unsatisfactory transposition of EU legislation or misapplication of the law are still occurring;

9.

Considers it important to enhance cooperation with Member States’ parliaments and governments, based on reciprocity, and, where necessary, to encourage Member States’ authorities to transpose and apply EU legislation with full transparency; stresses the importance of the Commission’s cooperation with the Member States and deplores the negligence of some Member States with regard to full transposition and enforcement of European legislation, in particular on environmental matters;

10.

Recalls that the Petitions Committee considers admissible petitions, related to the principles and the contents of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as an inherent part of its activity, and it pursues its investigations on the merits of each case, reminds that, the European Commission has frequently felt itself unable to act when requested by the Committee because of the existence of Article 51 of the Charter; stresses the fact that the expectations of citizens are much greater than the Charter’s strictly legal provisions allow for;

11.

Congratulates the Committee on the work it has undertaken in relation to petitions received on issues related to disability, about which there has been a significant increase in 2013; notes the efforts which were made to ensure the successful launch of the EU framework under the terms of article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability where the Petitions Committee was associated with the European Commission, the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Disability Forum, and notes the willingness of the Committee to continue to support this activity; regrets that subsequently the involvement of the Petitions Committee within the UNCRPD Framework has been terminated and that it has been replaced by legislative committees which also have responsibility in this field, considers this latter decision to have been based on a misinterpretation of the functions attributed under the UNCRPD Framework;

12.

Notes the amount of attention which was given to some major petitions received regarding the proposed development of a new airport at Notre Dame-des-Landes, near Nantes; acknowledges that significant contributions were received from petitioners which opposed the scheme on environmental grounds and that a substantial petition was also received from those who favoured the project which gave rise to an intensive debate in Committee at which the French authorities and the Director General for Environment at the Commission participated alongside the main petitioners; considers that such serious discussions not only improve public awareness and allow citizens to become actively and legitimately involved, but they also permit several controversial features associated with the project that allegedly conflict with EU law to be clarified and remedies identified which allow for the proper respect of European legislation as it should apply in such circumstances;

13.

Acknowledges that in 2013, many petitioners voiced their alarm at the apparent injustices which occur in Denmark regarding the administrative and judicial procedures related to parental separation and divorce and the subsequent custody of young children; notes in this context that in the case of bi-national couples there are clear examples of discrimination on grounds of nationality in favour of the spouse from the Member State concerned with the proceedings and against the non-national of that state, with severe and often very negative and dramatic repercussions on the rights of the child; notes in this context severe violations of the fundamental rights of both the petitioner and the child; notes that the Petitions Committee undertook a fact-finding visit to Denmark to investigate such claims directly where the situation appears to be particularly acute; notes that some cases were also recorded from other countries, notably Germany (especially cases concerning the activities of the Jugendamt), France and the UK;

14.

Recalls the investigations conducted on the basis of petitions related to the consequences of failed implementation of the Waste Framework Directive throughout the parliamentary term, and the adoption of the relevant report; recalls the recommendations concerning the lack of proper decision-making as regards landfills and the effect of this on local populations; stresses that the situation is far from having been resolved, given the petitions that have been considered subsequently, particularly in relation to the persistence of toxic fires caused by heavily pollutant industrial waste in some areas of Campania, and to the lack of transparency regarding plans and institutional management in Lazio over the last months, following the scheduled closure of the Malagrotta landfill, which is currently the subject of high-level judicial inquiries; recalls the intensive fact-finding visit to Greece conducted in the autumn of 2013 on this subject which has drawn attention to the shortcomings in the application of the relevant waste-related directives, the lack of progress in waste management as regards plans and systems high up in the waste hierarchy, as well as to the impact on the health of populations in certain areas of Greece; notes that several other petitions on waste management deficiencies have been recently submitted concerning other Member States, particularly in the Valencia region of Spain and in the UK;

15.

Acknowledges the report of the fact-finding visit to Poland which investigated a proposed open-cast mine site in Lower Silesia; welcomed also the intensive discussions held on this occasion with petitioners and national authorities regarding the possible exploration and exploitation of shale-gas reserves about which the Committee had already conducted a workshop in 2012;

16.

Highlights the very constructive work undertaken by the entire Committee as regards the petitions received which concern the Spanish law on coastal management (Ley de Costas) both as regards the results and conclusions of the fact-finding visit and as regards the cooperation with both petitioners and the responsible national authorities; recalls that a special ad hoc working group was established by the Committee to look at this complex issue in more detail and to ensure liaison with the very large number petitioners concerned; recognises that although some advances were obtained for petitioners in the new legislation adopted by the Spanish Parliament; requests the Commission to continue to actively monitor the issue;

17.

Welcomes the fact that the fact-finding visit to Galicia, which took place in February 2013, was able to hold extensive discussions with petitioners and the regional authorities on issues related to the lack of proper waste-water treatment facilities in the region; ratifies the conclusions and recommendations of the report of the fact-finding mission approved in the Committee on Petitions on 17 December 2013 in the sense that the efforts for the culmination of the clean-up and regeneration of the rías object of the visit should continue;

18.

Emphasises the role of reporting obligation of the Committee; draws attention to several resolutions adopted in 2013 in the form of reports such as the Special Report of the European Ombudsman on the Commission’s handling of deficiencies in the environmental impact assessment in the Vienna Airport enlargement project, besides the Annual Report on the activities of the European Ombudsman as a whole; stresses the relevant input provided by the Committee thanks to the expertise achieved through the handling of many concrete cases over the years in the forms of opinions to lead committees and in particular to the revision of the EIA Directive as well as the opinion on the location of the seats of the European Union’s Institutions; believes that thanks to such documents Petitions Committee can bring the issues of importance to European Citizens to plenary;

19.

Recalls that, under Rule 202(2), the Petitions Committee is entitled to submit not only non-legislative own-initiative reports to plenary on matters relating to several petitions, but also short motions for resolutions to be voted on in plenary in relation to urgent matters;

20.

Believes that the organisation of public hearings is a very important tool for examining problems raised by petitioners; draws attention to the public hearing held on the impact of the crisis on Europe’s citizens and the reinforcement of democratic involvement in the governance of the Union, as well as to the public hearing on making the most of EU citizenship, which analysed the concerns raised in both respects by EU citizens based on petitions received; considers that the information provided in petitions demonstrates the personal impact of the austerity drive on the rights of the petitioners as well as showing the greater role and commitment of civil society; recognizes that to tackle tomorrow’s financial challenge Europe needs credible, visible and accountable economic governance; underlines the importance of combating the remaining obstacles to EU Citizens’ enjoyment of their rights under EU law as well as promoting EU citizens’ political participation in the life of the EU;

21.

Considers it essential to its work on particular subjects to use other forms of activity such as parliamentary questions for oral answer dealt with during plenary sittings; recalls they are a direct form of parliamentary scrutiny of other EU institutions and bodies; points out that it has used its right 9 times in 2013 tabling questions concerning, for instance, disabilities, animal welfare, waste management and European citizens’ initiative; deeply regrets the fact that some of the initiatives proposed by the committee are kept in the pipeline for several months before being debated in plenary, thus preventing the recurrent concerns of EU citizens from being voiced and from receiving a direct answer from the Commission;

22.

Notes the constant influx of correspondence from citizens who turn to Parliament for redress on issues that fall outside the EU’s area of competence pursuant to Article 227 of the Treaty as well as Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; calls for finding better solutions for dealing with these submissions from citizens while taking into account Parliament’s obligations with regard to its correspondence with citizens; regrets, in this regard, the failure of the appropriate Parliament services to follow through on the recommendations on submissions from citizens on issues that fall outside the EU’s area of competence presented in its resolution of 21 November 2012 on the activities of the Committee on Petitions 2011;

23.

Acknowledges that environmental issues remain a priority for petitioners, thus highlighting the fact that Member States continue to fall short in this area; observes that many of the petitions focus on public health e.g. waste management, water safety, nuclear energy, and protected animals; points out that many petitions are concerned with new and upcoming projects which increase the dangers of effecting the aforementioned areas; recalls that as Member States strive to address these situations it is clear that finding a sustainable solution is still a hindrance; points to the case of the ILVA steel plant in Taranto that is of major concern, due to the severe deterioration in environmental conditions and the health situation of the local population; urges the Commission to use the mechanisms available to it in order to ensure, as far as possible, immediate compliance by the Italian authorities with the EU environmental legislation;

24.

Calls on the Committee on Petitions to continue examining the effects of case law pertaining to the Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (Ellinikí Radiofonía Tileórasi, ERT) on the interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and its consequences concerning petitions and to investigate what actual obstacles lie in the way of EU citizens applying for a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice in order to obtain reliable interpretations of central issues under European legislation in cases before the national courts;

25.

Welcomes the implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) on 1 April 2012, as well as the registration of the first ECI, dedicated to policies for Europe’s Youth — Fraternity 2020, and the recently successful ECI dedicated to the Right to Water; believes that the ECI constitutes the first instrument of transnational participatory democracy and will enable citizens to become actively involved in the framing of European policies and legislation; reconfirms its commitment to participate in the organisation of public hearings for successful European Citizens’ Initiatives with the active involvements of all concerned parliamentary committees; underlines the need for regular review of the state of play with the European Citizens’ Initiatives, with the aim of improving the procedure while limiting the red tape and other obstacles; is aware that the outcome of the first parliamentary hearings of the first successful ECIs taking place in 2014 are crucial in setting high procedural standards and meeting citizens’ expectations regarding the exercise of this right in the future, and undertakes to give institutional priority to ensuring the effectiveness of the participatory process;

26.

Appreciates the Commission’s decision to declare 2013 the ‘European Year of Citizenship’ providing valuable information and insight for EU citizens regarding their rights and of the democratic instruments available to them to assert those rights; considers that the ‘European Year of Citizenship’ should be used for the broad dissemination of information on the new ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’, therefore providing clear and understandable guidelines in order to curtail the high rate of inadmissibility comparable to the rate that is still to be found in the ‘petitions’ field; is convinced that the petitions web portal represents a concrete and valuable contribution by Parliament to European citizenship;

27.

Calls on the Commission as guardian of the Treaty to ensure that the current inadequate implementation of EU law, as illustrated by the number of petitions submitted to Parliament, is remedied in order to allow EU citizens to take full advantage of their rights;

28.

Calls on the Commission to propose legislation to resolve the issues surrounding mutual recognition by Member States of civil status documents, while respecting the competences of the Member States;

29.

Deplores that European citizens continue to experience frequent problems caused by the misapplication of Internal Market law by public authorities while exercising their freedom of movement;

30.

Deplores the fact that in the recent time the reports on fact-finding missions and other documents were not translated to the EU official languages, especially the national languages of petitioners;

31.

Acknowledges the important role of the SOLVIT network, which regularly uncovers and resolves problems linked to the implementation of internal market legislation; urges for the reinforcement of this tool and for more active collaboration between the Petitions Committee and the SOLVIT network; recalls that 2013 was the Year of European Citizenship and pays tribute to the institutions and bodies both of the European Union and of the Member States that advertised more intensively their service to European citizens and residents during this year, in light of the principles contained in the Treaties and the facts revealed in this report;

32.

Points out the importance of making this Committee work more substantial inside the House by raising its profile as a scrutiny Committee; invites the newly elected Petitions Committee to nominate internal Annual Rapporteurs on the major policies, which are of concern of European petitioners, and to enhance cooperation with other parliamentary committees by systematically inviting their members to those debates in the Petitions Committee which concern their respective fields of legislative competence; invites the other parliamentary committees to involve the Petitions Committee more as an opinion giving committee on implementation reports and other instruments to monitor the correct transposition and implementation or eventual revision of the European legislation in the Member States; stresses the importance, also in view of the ever-increasing amount of petitions received and their related undertakings, of enjoying a de-neutralised status in the Parliament’s committee portfolio; invites the Plenary Session of the European Parliament to dedicate more time to the work of the Petitions Committees;

33.

Highlights the need to reinforce the Petitions Committee collaboration with the other EU Institutions and bodies, and the national authorities in the Member States; considers its importance to enhance structured dialogue and systematic cooperation with Member States especially with the National Parliaments’ Petitions Committees, e.g. by holding regular meetings with the chairs of all national Petitions Committees; creating such a partnership will allow best exchange of experience and practices and more systematic and efficient ’referral of petitions to the competent level and body, and ultimately will bring the European Parliament closer to the European citizens’ concerns; welcomes the establishment in Ireland of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Investigation, Oversight and Petitions, and the useful links it has established with the European Parliament in the course of this year in order to bring about an even better service to citizens; notes that parliaments in other member states are currently considering creating petitions committees or similar bodies, or that some have other processes for dealing with petitions;

34.

Calls on the Commission to duly recognise the role of petitions in monitoring the effective implementation of EU law, since petitions are usually the earliest indications that Member States are lagging behind in implementing legal measures; invites the European Parliament to recommend in its Interinstitutional Agreement with the Commission to reduce the time it takes to respond to the Committee’s requests and to also keep the Petitions Committee informed of developments in infringement proceedings directly linked to petitions; believes, in general terms, that the European institutions ought to supply more information and be more transparent with regard to EU citizens, in order to combat the increasing perception of democratic deficits;

35.

Stresses that close cooperation with the Member States is essential for the work of the Petitions Committee; encourages Member States to play a proactive role in responding to petitions related to the implementation and enforcement of European law, and considers the presence and the active cooperation of Member State representatives at Petitions Committee meetings to be of the utmost importance; is determined to maintain close cooperation and communication between EU Institutions and the citizens;

36.

Stresses the importance of the reinforced collaboration with the European Ombudsman by putting in place a new inter institutional agreement; underlines the importance of the involvement of the European Parliament in the network of National Ombudsmen; applauds the excellent relations in the institutional framework between the Ombudsman and this Committee; especially appreciates the regular contributions by Ombudsman to the work of Petitions Committee through the legislative term; reminds that still not all EU citizens have a national ombudsman, which means that not all EU citizens have the equal access to redress; is of an opinion that office of national ombudsman in each Member State within the European Network of Ombudsmen would deliver substantial support for the European Ombudsman;

37.

Calls upon MEPs in the Petitions Committee to adopt final internal rules to ensure maximum efficiency and openness in the work of the Committee and to make proposals to revise accordingly the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament in order to consolidate their continuous attempts during the whole seventh legislature to improve working methods; calls on the Petitions Committee to adopt clear deadlines in the process of petitions in order to speed up the petitions life-cycle in the European Parliament and make the whole process even more transparent and democratic; underlines that this could put in place a defined lifecycle of the petition from registration until their final closure in the European Parliament, similarly to the existing deadlines for the work in process on legislative and non-legislative files; considers that these deadlines should establish an alert mechanism which automatically draws Members’ attention to petitions on which there has not been any action or correspondence for a considerable amount of time, in order to avoid old petitions staying open over years without substantial reason; recalls that fact-finding visits are one of the key investigative instruments of the Petitions Committee, therefore an urgent revision of the relevant rules is needed, in order to enable the newly elected Members to carry out efficient visits and report swiftly back to the petitioners and the Committee on their findings and recommendations;

38.

Welcomes the presence of public authorities of the Member State concerned at meetings of the Petitions Committee, as well as of other interested parties; highlights the fact that the Petitions Committee is the only Committee which systematically provides a platform for citizens to voice their concerns directly to Members of the European Parliament and which enables a multiparty dialogue between the EU institutions, the national authorities and petitioners; suggests that in order to facilitate organisation of the meetings as well as to reduce the travel costs in the future, that the Petitions Committee and Parliament’s administration explore the possibility for participation of the petitioners or the public authorities by means of video conference or similar facility;

39.

Notes the growing number of petitions in the course of the legislative period and remains highly concerned that delays and response times are still too long throughout the registration phase and the admissibility phase in the process; calls for providing the Unit for Reception and Referral of Official Documents and the Petitions Committee Secretariat, respectively, with an additional administrator with juridical background, to issue recommendations related to whether the petition lies within the competence of European law; considers that, these recommendations, along with summaries of petitions, need to be provided to Members only in English first and then to be translated into all official languages only when being published; in order to further speed up the first decisions on admissibility; expects that the launch of the new petitions web-portal will diminish the number of questionable submissions which are occasionally registered as petitions;

40.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, and the governments and the parliaments of the Member States, their committees on petitions and their national ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

9.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/44

—

having regard to Part Three, Titles III and VII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market,

—

having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of 21 October 2009 on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector (2) and to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products (5),

—

having regard to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 June 1996 on a Community initiative for ornamental horticulture (7),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 9 December 2008 on food prices in Europe (COM(2008)0821),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 July 2008 on the Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan (COM(2008)0397),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 28 October 2009 on a better functioning food supply chain in Europe (COM(2009)0591),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 28 May 2009 on agricultural product quality policy (COM(2009)0234),

—

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 Commission Decision 2008/359/EC of 28 April 2008 setting up the High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agro-Food Industry, and to the Report of that High Level Group of 17 March 2009 on the Competitiveness of the European Agro-Food Industry, along with the Group’s recommendations and roadmap of key initiatives (8),

—

having regard to the November 2012 study entitled ‘Support for Farmers’ Cooperatives’ (SFC), which presents the findings of the SFC project launched by the Commission (9),

—

having regard to the 2013 study by the Commission Joint Research Centre — Institute for Prospective Technological Studies entitled ‘Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics’ (10),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0048/2014),

A.

whereas the fruit and vegetables (F&V) sector receives about 3 % of Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aid yet accounts for 18 % of the total value of agricultural production in the EU, represents 3 % of the EU’s usable agricultural area and is worth more than EUR 50 billion;

B.

whereas horticulture includes fruit, vegetables, potatoes, salads, herbs and ornamentals, and whereas the horticulture sector incorporates nurseries, perennial nurseries, gardening services, cemetery gardening, gardening supplies retailers, garden centres, florists and landscape gardening;

C.

whereas the F&V supply chain has an estimated turnover of more than EUR 120 billion, with approximately 550 000 employees, and is important for the economy of those areas within the EU that tend to have a high unemployment rate;

D.

whereas the EU is the world’s second-largest producer, and also the second-largest importer of F&V; whereas demand in this sector is growing and currently exceeds supply; whereas F&V trade rose from over USD 90 billion in 2000 to nearly USD 218 billion in 2010 and accounts for almost 21 % of global food and animal product trade; whereas the EU has opened up its markets considerably to imports from third countries with which it has concluded bilateral and multilateral agreements;

E.

whereas the horticulture sector — primary production and processing industry — acts as an economic multiplier at European level, stimulating both demand and the creation of added value in other economic sectors such as trade, construction and financial services;

F.

whereas the organic F&V sector is the fastest growing organic sector within any EU market, valued at EUR 19,7 billion in 2011 and with a growth rate of 9 % between 2010 and 2011, in a decade-long trend of annual growth of between 5-10 %; whereas in terms of area planted, the share of organic fruit increased by 18,2 % and that of organic vegetables by 3,5 % between 2010 and 2011;

G.

whereas per capita F&V consumption in 2011 for the EU-27 decreased by 3 % compared with the average consumption of the previous five years, in spite of the substantial health benefits which eating F&V brings;

H.

whereas the EU is the world’s biggest producer of flowers, bulbs and potted plants (44 % of global production), with the highest density per hectare; whereas the ornamental sector has an estimated turnover of EUR 20 billion in production, EUR 28 billion in wholesale trade and EUR 38 billion in retail trade, and employs approximately 650 000 people;

I.

whereas the F&V regime is part of the CAP and seeks, among other objectives, to restore balance in the food chain, promote F&V, boost competitiveness and support innovation; whereas membership of producer organisations (POs) should be increased, including in those regions in which no operational funds have been available for some years and/or production methods are outdated, by making the system more attractive, in view of the fact that more than half of all EU growers still do not belong to a PO despite the Commission’s objective of an average rate of 60 % PO membership by 2013; whereas the low rate of organisation in some Member States has been partly caused by the suspension of POs, which creates uncertainty among producers; whereas, given that POs play a key role in enhancing the negotiating power of F&V organisations, it is essential to prevent uncertainty among producers by clarifying European legislation on the recognition of POs;

J.

whereas, according to Eurostat, total input costs for EU farmers climbed on average by almost 40 % between 2000 and 2010, while farm gate prices increased on average by less than 25 %; whereas the increase in input costs was almost 80 % for synthetic fertilisers and soil improvers, almost 30 % for seeds and planting stock and almost 13 % for plant protection products;

K.

whereby the loss of soil fertility due to erosion, decreased input of organic matter leading to poor crumb structure and humus levels, decreased nutrient and water retention, and a reduction in ecological processes is a significant cost to both farmers and the public budget;

L.

whereas the ‘knowledge pipeline’ to translate research into practice for horticulture is under strain, and whereas spending by the private sector on research is low overall, with research and development (R&D) accounting for only 0,24 % of total food industry expenditure across the EU-15 in 2004, the latest period for which figures are available;

M.

whereas a large number of F&V varieties are under threat of extinction because they are not sufficiently profitable, and whereas farmers who continue to grow those varieties play an environmentally, socially and culturally valuable role in preserving important components of Europe’s agricultural base;

N.

whereas the growing difficulties being experienced in connection with plant pest prevention, control and eradication and the limited availability of plant protection products for vegetable crops could have an adverse effect on agricultural diversity and vegetable quality in Europe;

O.

whereas businesses operating in the horticulture sector are often also involved in the areas of production, sales and services;

P.

whereas cisgenesis can be defined as a genetic engineering technique which introduces into a subject plant a gene from its relatives of the same genus or species;

1.

Stresses the importance of promoting the EU horticulture sector and enabling it to compete better in the global marketplace, through innovation, research and development, energy efficiency and security, adaptation to and mitigation of climate change and measures to improve marketing, as well as of continuing efforts to eliminate the imbalance between operators and suppliers;

2.

Emphasises the need to make it easier for producers to gain access to third-country markets; calls on the Commission to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit, vegetables, flowers and ornamental plants to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible;

3.

Calls on the Commission to establish the same market access conditions, as regards marketing standards, designations of origin, etc. for all market participants in the EU and to carry out checks to ensure that those conditions are observed, in order to prevent distortions of competition;

4.

Encourages the promotion of F&V consumption in Member States through educational activities such as the EU School Fruit Scheme, as well as, for example, the Grow Your Own Potato and Cook Your Own Potato industry schemes in the UK;

5.

Notes that local and regional markets often have insufficient supplies of horticultural products produced therein and agricultural entrepreneurship should therefore be promoted in these regions, in particular through incentives for young entrepreneurship, which would provide employment opportunities in the agricultural sector as well as a guarantee regarding the supply of fresh local produce;

6.

Emphasises the benefits of ornamental horticulture to human health and well-being in enhancing green spaces, thereby improving the urban environment with respect to climate change and the rural economy; stresses the need for more active support for this sector in terms of encouraging investment and career development;

7.

Welcomes the measures in the EU F&V regime which are intended to increase market orientation among EU growers, encourage innovation, promote F&V, increase growers’ competitiveness and improve marketing, product quality and the environmental aspects of production, through the provision of support to POs, PO associations and the recognition of inter-branch organisations, also promoting the formation of clusters that will generate new income streams, to be channelled into new investments; points out, at the same time, that steps must be taken to ensure that self- and direct marketers do not suffer discrimination but have the opportunity to implement innovative projects and enhance their competitiveness;

8.

Points out that local and regional production and marketing help to create and safeguard economic activity and jobs in rural areas;

9.

Points out that short value chains help to reduce emissions which are damaging to the climate;

10.

Notes that urban farming offers new options to the horticulture sector;

11.

Welcomes the report on the Commission public consultation entitled ‘A Review of the EU Regime for the Fruit and Vegetables Sector’, in particular section 3, 8 thereof, which acknowledges the need for simplification of the current rules governing POs, endorses its proposal to strengthen POs and notes that most of the replies are in favour of maintaining the basic philosophy of the current support arrangements;

12.

Emphasises that cutting red tape is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, although such measures must not undermine the legal certainty upon which such businesses also rely;

13.

Welcomes the fact that the CAP reform agreement retains the PO-based European F&V aid system, while acknowledging that existing instruments have not always been effective, as recognised by the Commission in its public consultation document entitled ‘A Review of the EU Regime for the Fruit and Vegetables Sector’, and therefore supports the work of the Newcastle Group aimed at improving the EU fruit and vegetables regime, which should take account of the specific nature of the legal arrangements governing cooperatives in the Member States, so as not to limit the creation of new POs, while respecting the fact that growers may opt to remain outside the PO system; notes, also the establishment of a Union instrument for managing serious crises affecting a number of Member States and stresses that it should be open to all producers, irrespective of whether or not they are members of a PO;

14.

In order to strengthen the beneficial activities carried out by POs for producers, calls on the Commission, in its review of the EU F&V regime, to produce clear and practical rules on the design and working methods of POs and adjust the scheme to fit the market structures that exist in Member States, so that POs can play their intended role and so that growers have an incentive to join POs, provided that this does not jeopardise the achievement of the regime’s fundamental objectives and that growers remain free to make their own decisions on these matters;

15.

Notes with concern that PO scheme rules are open to wide interpretation by the Commission’s auditors, which leads to a high degree of uncertainty and can leave Member States at risk of disallowance and judicial review; stresses, also, that audit procedures and financial corrections must be carried out in a more timely manner and within an agreed audit time period;

16.

Notes that unfair trading practices remain across the EU which undermine horticultural businesses and their POs, and diminish growers’ confidence to invest in the future, Believes that codes of conduct agreed by all actors in the supply chain, backed by a legislative framework and overseen by a national adjudicator in each Member State to monitor trading practices, could significantly improve the functioning of the food chain and the internal market;

17.

Takes the view that the private standards for pesticide residues that have been adopted by many large retail chains are anti-competitive and detrimental to the interests of F&V growers; calls on the Commission to put an end to such practices, given that the pesticide residue levels laid down in EU legislation provide adequate protection for the health of both consumers and producers;

18.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote integrated pest management (IPM), support innovation and entrepreneurship through increased research into and development of non-chemical alternatives, such as natural predators and parasites of pest species, and use the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation to fund applied research that supports the development of integrated strategies for pest, disease and weed control, provide producers with the necessary tools and information to address Directive 2009/128/EC in which it is stated in Article 14 thereof that Member States must ‘take all necessary measures to promote low pesticide-input pest management, giving, wherever possible, priority to non-chemical methods’ and ‘establish, or support the establishment of necessary conditions for the implementation of integrated pest management’;

19.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote and emphasise the intensification of ecological processes ensuring long-term soil health, fertility and formation, as well as managing and regulating pest populations; believes that this can lead to long-term productivity gains for farmers and reduced costs to public budgets;

20.

Stresses that horticulture is reliant on a variety of plant protection products (PPPs), and urges the Commission to take a risk-based approach to the regulation of these products that is justified by peer-reviewed, independent, scientific evidence; emphasises that minor uses are particularly vulnerable owing to the scarcity of the relevant active substances; calls on the Commission to strengthen the co-ordination of data generation across the Member States, in particular residues data, which is an essential requirement for authorisations on edible speciality crops; calls on DG Agri, DG Sanco, DG Environment and DG Competition to work together strategically to take into account the impact of changes to PPP regulation from multiple perspectives;

21.

Urges the Commission to review the operation of the arrangements for mutual recognition of PPP authorisations laid down in Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, with a view to streamlining their implementation and removing any unnecessary red tape, and consider the long-term goal of global harmonisation for regulating PPPs and reducing non-tariff trade barriers to export trade;

22.

Urges the Commission to submit, in accordance with Article 51(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and without further delay, a report to Parliament and the Council on the establishment of a European fund for minor uses and specialty crops; stresses that such a fund should be used to finance an ongoing European work programme for coordination and cooperation between agri-food operators, competent authorities and stakeholders, including research bodies, on carrying out and, where appropriate, funding research and innovation work geared to protecting specialty crops and minor uses;

23.

Points out that imports are not required to meet the same phytosanitary requirements as European products; stresses that this ongoing disparity undermines the competitiveness of European producers and is detrimental to the interests of European consumers;

24.

Recalls that both the Plant Protection Products Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 (11)) and the new Biocides Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of 22 May 2012 (12)) require the Commission to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties by December 2013; emphasises how important it is that the procedure should be transparent, so that the market actors concerned understand the scientific basis for the decisions and are aware of the actors who were involved in developing new criteria; urges the Commission to fully consider the impact of different approaches when presenting proposals for endocrine disruptors;

25.

Emphasises that the horticulture sector relies heavily on the use of high quality, well specified fertiliser materials; welcomes the current review of the EU fertilisers regulation, but notes with concern the Commission’s aim to include the previously non-prescribed material soil improvers; stresses that this material does not require precision in manufacturing and use, and calls on the Commission not to include it within the scope of the fertilisers regulation;

26.

Highlights the fact that the horticulture sector is leading the development and adoption of innovative precision farming systems and believes that such systems will reduce the use of pesticides and fertilisers, increase marketable yields and reduce waste, as well as improve continuity of supply and economic performance; stresses that plant cultivation methods, such as crop rotation and the planting of catch crops, as well as research and development, should be geared to minimising environmental damage;

27.

Notes the Commission proposal for a regulation on plant reproductive material (COM(2013)0262) and is concerned that it would impact disproportionately on the horticultural sector, and in particular on ornamentals and fruit; stresses that any legislation should be proportional and recognise the principle of subsidiarity; stresses, also, that changes to legislation must not endanger traditional varieties and crops, and should contribute to genetic diversity of and within populations of crops, for long-term food security and resilience of food systems;

28.

Notes the impact of non-native invasive horticultural species on the wider environment, but recommends that a regional, or country-based approach be taken in the Commission proposal for a regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (COM(2013)0620), which recognises that some areas of Europe are more vulnerable than others and that different areas in Europe have different climates which will support a different array of plants;

29.

Strongly urges the Commission to safeguard as a general principle the freedom of plant breeders to use existing plant materials freely to develop and market new ones, regardless of any patent claims extending to plant materials;

30.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the development of local fruit and vegetable markets and of short supply chains, thereby ensuring product freshness;

31.

Calls on the Commission to differentiate between cisgenic and transgenic plants and to create a different approvals process for cisgenic plants; awaits the EFSA opinion demanded by DG Sanco evaluating the findings of the working group of new biotech breeding techniques;

32.

Highlights the seasonally high labour needs of the horticulture sector and calls on the Member States to ensure that there are effective schemes in place to ensure that horticulture producers can access the labour they need for key periods of the year, while fully respecting the requirements of the seasonal workers directive, including the principle of fair wages;

33.

Welcomes the renewed emphasis on workforce training and apprenticeships, but notes with concern that the numbers of people completing horticulture apprenticeships in some Member States remains low, restricting the openings for young people with an interest in this sector; recognises that not all young people taking apprenticeships are suited to them; emphasises that efforts to encourage young people to consider jobs in the horticulture sector and provide them with training should be supported by means of awareness-raising and information campaigns which enhance the sector’s image;

34.

Urges the agri-food sector and the research community to work together in a systematic way to attract and train the next generation of researchers and upskill the existing workforce;

35.

Emphasises the benefits of strengthening and extending partnerships between government, industry and research organisations and the need to ensure that schemes to support such partnerships are structured in a way that maximises the impact and coherence of investments overall;

36.

Stresses the vital importance of making efficient use of qualified scientific resources so as to speed up the application of research and innovation results through the transfer of innovatory agricultural production technology to the horticulture sector and the combination of research, innovation, training and expansion in the agricultural sector with economic policies meeting the requirements of horticultural production development while increasing its efficiency;

37.

Is of the view that the floriculture and ornamental plant sector must be allowed to make better use of Union programmes for research, technological development and innovation, and calls on the Commission to include ‘protected cultivation’ in Horizon 2020 calls in order to stimulate innovation regarding, for example, sustainable crop protection, sustainable water and nutrient usage, energy efficiency, advanced cultivation and production systems, and sustainable transport;

38.

Is of the view that with funding for agricultural and horticultural research under budgetary constraint in Member States, funding by third parties, including, but not limited to, retailers, should be encouraged, and should be in line with the total research interest of the sector;

39.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to facilitate access to long-term funding for investment in modern horticultural production technologies, so as to enhance the competitiveness of horticultural products and services;

40.

Underlines the crucial importance of a good-quality business plan in securing capital finance; recommends that growers make greater use of business support and advisory services and urges the Commission to work more closely with industry to ensure that such services are easily accessible to growers;

41.

Urges the Commission to update, as part of a transparent process involving those working in the sector, the items in chapter six (live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers; and ornamental foliage) of the combined nomenclature for 2012;

42.

Is concerned by the prospect of horticultural production being transferred out of the EU;

43.

Is deeply concerned that between a third and a half of edible produce is wasted because of its appearance and calls on the Commission to create, as a matter of urgency, possibilities for marketing, particularly in local and regional markets, a wider range of quality specifications of produce, while ensuring transparency and the proper functioning of the market; draws attention to trials conducted in Austria and Switzerland involving the sale of blemished fruit and vegetables; calls on supermarkets to take into account market research which shows that many consumers are not necessarily worried about the cosmetic appearance of fruit and vegetables and are happy to purchase lower grade produce, particularly if this may appear to be cheaper;

44.

Notes with concern the overall loss and waste of fruit and vegetables intended for first market use and the significant economic loss to business; recognises that reducing systemic food waste is a key to increasing the supply of food to a growing world population; welcomes, nevertheless, the efforts being made by actors in the food supply chain to redirect this produce into a secondary market rather than to dispose of it;

45.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make the legislative and political environment as supportive as possible for uses of horticultural waste; points out that there are a number of materials, such as spent mushroom compost, which could be used in the production of value-added growing media, were it not classified as ‘waste’;

46.