22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/1

A.

whereas the Doha Round was launched in 2001 with the objectives of creating new trading opportunities, strengthening multilateral trade rules, addressing current imbalances in the trading system and putting trade at the service of sustainable development, with an emphasis on the economic integration of developing countries, especially the least developed countries (LDCs), arising from the conviction that a multilateral system, based on more just and equitable rules, can contribute to fair and free trade at the service of the development of all continents,

B.

whereas the Doha Declaration reaffirms the commitment to special and differential treatment for developing countries to take account of their unequal situation,

C.

whereas the WTO Ministerial Talks to conclude the Doha Round stalled at the end of July 2008,

D.

whereas international trade has been particularly deeply affected by the economic crisis, with trade flows decreasing even more significantly than global output,

E.

whereas an improvement in the WTO rules on trade facilitation would benefit all WTO Members by enhancing legal certainty, lowering the costs of trade transactions and preventing abuse,

F.

whereas the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference, which took place in Geneva from 30 November to 2 December 2009, underlined the great importance of trade and the Doha Round for economic recovery and poverty alleviation in developing countries,

G.

whereas the name ‘European Union’ was used for the first time in the WTO in the 1 December 2009 working session at the Seventh Ministerial Conference, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon,

1.

Reiterates its commitment to the multilateral trading system and the WTO as the guarantor of a rules-based trade system; believes that the WTO has a key role to play in ensuring better management of globalisation and more equitable distribution of its benefits;

2.

Takes the view that, in the current economic crisis, WTO rules and commitments have to a great extent prevented Members from having recourse to trade-restrictive measures, while allowing for flexibility in adopting economic recovery measures;

3.

Encourages WTO Members to remain committed to actively fighting protectionism in all their bilateral and multilateral trade relations and future agreements;

4.

Reaffirms its strong support for placing development at the heart of the DDA, and calls on the WTO Members to deliver on the ambitious goals set out in the 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration in order to ensure that the current trade round is a development round and that it contributes to the achievement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals;

5.

Believes that, in order fully to meet the commitment to conclude a development round, the developed countries must avoid pursuing negotiating objectives which could be detrimental to the development objectives of the round; also takes the view that emerging countries must ensure that their development objectives do not damage those of other developing countries, particularly LDCs;

6.

Acknowledges the progress that has been achieved in the DDA since the Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong; notes the commitment shown at the Seventh Ministerial Conference in Geneva, which was not on DDA negotiations;

7.

Strongly supports the conclusion of the DDA on the basis of a comprehensive, ambitious and balanced outcome to the negotiations, to the benefit of economic growth and development worldwide, as well as of the credibility of the multilateral trading system; believes that a successful conclusion of the DDA could be an important parameter in stimulating worldwide economic recovery after the financial and economic crisis;

8.

Urges the emerging economies to assume their responsibility as global economic players and to make concessions commensurate with their level of development and (sectoral) competitiveness; emphasises the importance of North-South, as well as South-South, trade;

9.

Calls on the developed countries and the emerging economies to follow the EU Everything but Arms initiative, offering 100 % duty-free, quota-free market access for the LDCs; emphasises also the importance of an enhanced framework for Aid for Trade;

10.

Calls on the Commission to pursue the objectives set out in the negotiating mandate as regards protection of geographical indications and intellectual property rights, market access for industrial goods and services and public procurement in both developed and developing countries, and minimum requirements for environmental and social standards;

11.

Encourages the EU to play a leading role in promoting tangible progress in the ongoing WTO negotiations with a view to concluding the Doha Round, as well as facilitating the full participation of developing countries and LDCs in global trade by acting as a bridge between the various positions of the WTO Members;

12.

Calls on the Commission to comply strictly with its negotiating mandate from the Council, which sets the already completed CAP reform as the limit of its action, provided that equivalent concessions are obtained from its trading partners, and to strongly defend the EU position on geographical indications;

13.

Calls on the Commission, in the context of the banana agreement which is currently in its concluding phase, to provide ACP and Community producers with genuine legal certainty and to ensure that account is taken of the financial consequences of the agreement;

14.

Recalls the commitment of the WTO Members during the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference to achieving the parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures with equivalent effect;

15.

Calls on the developed countries and emerging economies to ensure that the agreement gives developing countries the use of the policy tools they need in order to defend and develop their agriculture sector and local food production, to raise rural living standards and to enhance food security (i.e. universal access to adequate levels of food at affordable prices); calls therefore for the inclusion in the agreement of clear provisions for special and differential treatment, especially with respect to special products and specific safeguard mechanisms;

16.

Calls for ambitious results in the negotiations on NAMA, guaranteeing real new market-access opportunities through substantial cuts in applied rates, while allowing for special and differential treatment; favours the pursuit of sectoral initiatives in areas of export interest for the EU;

17.

Urges the Commission to maintain a firm negotiating stance aimed at genuinely enhanced market access for EU products and services in both developed and emerging economies;

18.

Calls for steps to be taken to ensure that trade agreements in the financial services sector include measures to ensure compliance with the objectives of the international community and of the G20 in terms of regulating these services and, in particular, avoiding black holes and fiscal evasion;

19.

Calls for an intensification of talks in the area of services with a view to further liberalisation of services in general, while preserving WTO Members’ national policy objectives and their right to regulate public services;

20.

Notes that reflection is needed on an institutional reform of the WTO designed to improve its functioning and its democratic legitimacy and accountability; stresses in this context the importance of a parliamentary dimension to the WTO; calls on the Commission to play an active role in the future institutional reform of the WTO and in the promotion of a WTO parliamentary assembly;

21.

Believes that the WTO needs to address more effectively the links between trade and new global challenges such as climate change, food security and sovereignty, and decent working conditions;

22.

Calls for enhanced cooperation between the WTO and other international organisations and bodies such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad), in order to ensure mutual supportiveness and consistency between trade and non-trade concerns; in this context supports efforts aiming for the adoption of international standards and regulatory cooperation;

23.

Supports the strengthening of existing, and the conclusion of new, bilateral and regional (WTO-plus) free trade agreements, as a complement to the multilateral framework;

24.

Urges the Commission to associate Parliament closely in the ongoing negotiations; points out, therefore, the need to renegotiate the Framework Agreement on relations between the Parliament and the Commission in order to reflect the trade provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon whereby EU trade policy must be subject to more rigorous democratic scrutiny; intends to revise that Agreement in order to establish full participation by Parliament in the EU’s international trade negotiations, ensuring in particular:

25.

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

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/5

A.

whereas respect for human rights is one of the founding values of the Union (Article 2 TEU) which is also reflected in its external action, Article 21(1) TEU stipulating that its ‘action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation, development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity and respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law’,

B.

whereas the Union is committed to the fight against terrorism in all its dimensions – whether its origin lies, or its activities occur, inside or beyond EU borders – while acting, through different instruments and means within the clear limits defined by the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights; whereas extreme care must be taken to ensure that in this particular field fundamental rights are fully respected and that all the measures adopted with a view to the fight against terrorism are proportionate, appropriate and effective,

C.

whereas the means by which the Union aims to achieve the objectives highlighted above, among them the fight against terrorism, include (but are not limited to) restrictive measures (sanctions) against the governments of third States, natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities; whereas questions are still being asked as to what extent the UN and the EU have produced sufficient evidence of the success of these regimes in restricting the financing of acts of terrorism, bearing in mind the significant impact which these regimes have had on the credibility of the EU's and UN’s commitment to fundamental rights,

D.

whereas, in line with general EU practice, no distinction is being made here between the terms ‘sanctions’ and ‘restrictive measures’ (15); whereas the Council has pointed out that sanctions should be targeted in such a way as to have maximum impact on those whose behaviour they are intended to influence; in doing so, accurate targeting should reduce to the absolute minimum any adverse humanitarian effects, the risk of unintended consequences for persons not targeted or possible adverse effects on neighbouring countries,

E.

whereas Article 215(2) TFEU provides that ‘where a decision adopted in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union so provides, the Council may adopt restrictive measures under the procedure referred to in paragraph 1 against natural or legal persons and groups or non-State entities’; and whereas Article 75, first paragraph, TFEU provides that ‘where necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 67, as regards preventing and combating terrorism and related activities, the European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall define a framework for administrative measures with regard to capital movements and payments, such as the freezing of funds, financial assets or economic gains belonging to, or owned or held by, natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities’,

F.

whereas Article 275, second subparagraph, TFEU also prescribes that ‘the Court shall have jurisdiction […] to rule on proceedings, brought in accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth paragraph of Article 263 of this Treaty, reviewing the legality of decisions providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons adopted by the Council on the basis of Chapter 2 of Title V of the Treaty on European Union’,

G.

whereas Article 16(2) TFEU calls on Parliament and the Council to establish a clear and stable framework for data protection with rules ‘relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Union law, and the rules relating to the free movement of such data’; whereas the same Article states that ‘compliance with these rules shall be subject to the control of independent authorities’; whereas the implication is that the above-mentioned rules would apply also to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions in the area of the common foreign and security policy; whereas Article 39 TEU (in Chapter 2 which is entitled ‘Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy’) must be read as a derogation from Article 16 TFEU which requires that the ‘Council shall adopt a decision laying down the rules relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of this Chapter, and the rules relating to the free movement of such data’; whereas, in the same way as Article 16(2) TFEU, it prescribes that ‘compliance with these rules shall be subject to the control of independent authorities’,

H.

whereas in the above-mentioned Case Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, the Court of Justice annulled Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, in so far as it concerned Mr Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation, and considered that the Community authority deciding to freeze the funds and economic resources of an individual or entity in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 must communicate the grounds on which that decision is based to the individual or entity concerned, in order to observe the rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard and the right to judicial review, and that, given that those persons or entities were not informed of the evidence adduced against them, they had also been unable to defend their rights with regard to that evidence in satisfactory conditions before the Community judicature,

I.

whereas the case-law of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities emphasises that judicial review is all the more imperative because it constitutes the only procedural safeguard ensuring that a fair balance is struck between the need to fight international terrorism and the protection of fundamental rights (16); whereas earlier rulings of the Court of First Instance (Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 Sison v. Council  (17) upheld three successive Council decisions to deny lawyers for Jose Maria Sison access to the documents underlying the Council’s decision to include him on the list of persons subject to specific restrictive measures under Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001,

J.

whereas studies have pointed out that in national systems, the freezing of assets is an interim measure taken pending a judicial determination of a person’s involvement in criminality, whereas it must be observed that at UN and EU level, these sanctions are not to be considered interim measures pending a judicial determination, but de facto alternatives to judicial determinations (18),

K.

whereas UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1822 (2008) has brought some improvements, namely: the requirement that the statements of reasons concerning the grounds for listing a person be published on the Sanctions Committee website; the obligation of Member States to take, in accordance with their domestic laws and practices, all possible measures to notify or inform in a timely manner the listed individual or entity of the designation and to include with that notification a copy of the publicly releasable portion of the case statement and other relevant information; the creation of a ‘focal point’ to which blacklisted people can direct complaints (19); a complete review of all the names on the Consolidated List,

L.

whereas there is still no international legal mechanism for checking/reviewing the accuracy of the information forming the basis of a UN Sanctions Committee blacklisting, or the necessity for, and proportionality of, the measures adopted; whereas the individual still has no right of access to a court or a quasi-judicial body at UN level (20),

1.

Considers that it is important to reflect on a general framework for all targeted sanctions implemented by the EU against natural or legal persons, entities or bodies, which ensures respect for the fundamental rights of those targeted;

2.

Takes the view that, in the specific area of anti-terrorism sanctions, the distinction between ‘external’ and ‘internal’ threats is difficult to justify in practice, especially when such sanctions could also infringe the rights of EU citizens and residents under the Charter (21); considers that a legal framework should be established under Article 75 TFEU for measures with regard to capital movements and payments, such as the freezing of funds, financial assets or economic gains belonging to, or owned or held by, natural or legal persons, groups or non-State entities, including (as pointed out also by its Committee on Legal Affairs) for restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban; such an approach would allow a proper level of democratic accountability through the intervention of Parliament by means of the codecision procedure (ordinary legislative procedure); due account should also be taken of the proper involvement of national parliaments;

3.

Considers that with regard to future measures – such as restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe and certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain natural and legal persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Somalia, taken under Article 215(2) TFEU – the possibility of an optional consultation of Parliament should be taken into account (in accordance with the European Council ‘Solemn Declaration on European Union’, made at Stuttgart on 19 June 1983, providing for the optional consultation of Parliament on international matters even where the Treaties were silent); such an approach could be considered in keeping with the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon and in line with Parliament's previous (consultative) role in this area;

4.

Reiterates its request for a thorough evaluation of the implementation, on an annual basis, of the provisions prescribing restrictive measures and of their effectiveness, together with proper and timely transmission of information to Parliament in such matters; considers that, to this end, sanctions should always be accompanied by clear benchmarks;

5.

Calls on the Commission to establish a network of independent experts tasked with proposing to the Council the most pertinent restrictive measures in a given situation, reporting regularly on changes in the situation in the light of the reference criteria and the aims being pursued and, where appropriate, suggesting how to implement sanctions more effectively; considers that the establishment of such a network would make for greater transparency, improve the quality of debate about sanctions generally and strengthen the application and continuous monitoring of sanctions in specific cases;

6.

Points out that the activities of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) contribute substantially to development, democracy and human rights and that it could be useful to consult them on EU counter-terrorism policies in order to obtain valuable information on the situation in the field; further points out that repressive counter-terrorism measures, should not be an obstacle to their objectives in the areas of development, democracy and human rights;

7.

Emphasises that the following comments refer, inter alia, to the substance of the proposals put forward by the Commission under the former legal framework, which are now obsolete, having also in view the legal framework established by the Treaty of Lisbon; points out that any reference to Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (22) should be considered obsolete;

8.

Points out that, in order to fulfil its commitment to combating terrorism while respecting human rights, it has considered the freezing of the funds and economic resources of certain persons, groups and entities an appropriate instrument to that end; emphasises that the implementation of such measures must be accompanied at all times by strong and adequate safeguards and guarantees, taking into account the extremely severe consequences of ‘blacklisting’ for the individuals or organisations concerned; points out that, in relation to restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, Article 75 TFEU applies;

9.

Points to the need for in-depth reflection on the significant criminal law effects of anti-terrorist sanctions and for the adoption at national level of adequate remedies in respect of such blacklisting;

10.

Recalls that listing and de-listing procedures for the UN and EU sanctions regimes have been strongly criticised as failing to provide satisfactory protection for fundamental rights (both procedural and substantive) and legal certainty; welcomes, therefore, the recent initiatives taken at EU level to remedy the above-mentioned shortcomings; regrets, however, that the Council in particular has shown limited ambition with regard to ensuring that the revised Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 respects the fundamental rights of the persons and entities concerned;

11.

Queries, in relation to the ‘statement of reasons’ to be provided, whether either the Commission proposal or the Council text complies with the requirements of the judgment in the above-mentioned Case Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, which referred to the obligation to communicate the grounds on which, in such cases, the name of a person or entity is included in the list, taking into particular account the right of persons and entities concerned to be informed of the evidence against them;

12.

Emphasises that evidence in some cases is based primarily on information provided by intelligence services, which may be operating under specific national rules; reiterates its 2008 position that executive privilege should not prevent the full exercise of the right to a judge or lead to impunity in the case of breaches of international law; calls, in this regard, on national parliaments to exercise full oversight over their governments’ activities and urges the full and swift implementation of a European legal framework founded on Article 15 TFEU; reaffirms the need to associate Parliament with the work of the already established Conference of Oversight Committees of the Intelligence Bodies of the Member States;

13.

Calls for a full and timely assessment of the effectiveness of the EU and UN ‘terrorist’ sanctions regimes; furthermore, notes with concern that ‘terrorist’ sanctions appear to have had an adverse effect on conflict resolution and development efforts in numerous regions and urges that this factor be taken into account when evaluating the regimes;

14.

Considers that improvements in UN listing and de-listing practices should be pursued as a matter of urgency and that Member States should also work towards improving their internal targeted sanctioning (implementation) procedures, as suggested in the above-mentioned report and addendum by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe;

15.

Considers that the intention of the Council's Common Position 2008/632/CFSP and of the subsequent proposal (draft regulation) – extending the restrictive measures to individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations in Zimbabwe beyond the government – is to be welcomed, as is the alignment of legislation with recent decisions of the Court of Justice regarding the fundamental right to due process enjoyed by individuals and entities who are targeted by restrictive measures;

16.

Is of the opinion that careful monitoring must be conducted in order to assess whether the grounds on which the restrictive measures were adopted persist, and to explore how restrictive measures can be combined with credible incentives to promote democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe;

17.

Welcomes and supports provisions to ensure that the EU complies with its international commitments to implement immediately targeted sanctions adopted by the UN against individuals and entities found to have been engaging in or providing support for acts that threaten the peace, security or stability of Somalia, having acted in violation of the arms embargo or having obstructed the delivery of humanitarian assistance;

18.

Queries, however, as highlighted above, the adequacy of the texts proposed by the Commission concerning information to be provided to listed persons – about the grounds on which names of persons or entities are included in a list and about their legal rights – in the light of the above-mentioned Case Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission;

19.

Points out that, as underlined by its Committee on Legal Affairs, Article 215 TFEU would apply to the measures in question, but that a series of conditions should be fulfilled: measures must, for example, be based on a proposal from the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission must include the necessary provisions for legal safeguards;

20.

Takes the view that Article 291 TFEU should be taken into account in order to adopt implementing measures when Article 215 TFEU is used as the legal basis for future proposals;

21.

Welcomes the new provisions in the Commission’s proposal on the Al-Qaida text but draws attention to the comments of the EDPS regarding the protection of personal data, with particular reference to clarification of the exemptions from data protection principles that may be necessary and the right of access to classified information; underlines the fact that these reservations on the part of the EDPS could apply mutatis mutandis to all three Commission proposals; regrets that the Council text deletes the clear reference in Article 7e(5) to data subjects’ rights pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (23), which is mentioned only in Article 7d(1);

22.

Observes that possible transfers of data to third countries and international organisations should comply with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, with a view to ensuring adequate protection of the data in question; the proposal may need to include stipulations in this regard and arrangements with the UN may also be necessary; notes that the proposal does not affect the liability which may arise in the event of unlawful processing and publication of personal data;

23.

Underlines the fact that notification of the persons and entities concerned, as called for by the Court of Justice, should be as comprehensive as possible and that the information provided on listed natural persons in given annexes should be clarified (24);

24.

Notes that independent data protection authorities may play an important role in checking the lawfulness of personal data processing in terrorist blacklists, and can thus perform a quasi-judicial role that could effectively complement the review carried out by judicial authorities (25);

25.

Considers it to be of the utmost importance that a general framework on data protection, as provided for in Article 16 TFEU, is adopted as soon as possible and that specific provisions as required by Article 39 TEU are also adopted;

26.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and the Council of Europe.

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/12

A.

whereas the Union ‘places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice’ (Preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights), and whereas ‘any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, whatever their medium’ (Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights),

B.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon has modified ‘not only the legal basis for the regulation governing access to documents, but also the legal context in which the regulation is to operate, in particular in terms of the relationship between the Union's institutions and the citizen’ (1),

C.

whereas that relationship should from now on be framed by the democratic principles outlined in the new Title II of the TEU, which stipulates that ‘the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions’ (Article 9) and that ‘every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’ (Article 10(3)),

D.

whereas the full integration of the European Community into the EU, as well as the abolition of the intergovernmental regime which still applied to judicial and police cooperation in criminal matters, was driven by the Member States' willingness ‘to enhance further the democratic and efficient functioning of the institutions’ (Preamble to the TEU),

E.

whereas, in keeping with this new legal framework, all the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and not just Parliament, the Council or the Commission (which were already bound by Article 255 of the former EC Treaty), are now required to conduct their work as openly as possible (Article 15(1) TFEU),

F.

whereas according to the TEU and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) (2) openness and the participation of civil society are essential conditions for promoting good governance of the EU institutions and with it the effectiveness of the decision-making process,

G.

whereas, in accordance with the basic principles of democracy, citizens have a right to know and to follow the decision-making process, and whereas enhanced transparency should be guaranteed by the EU Institutions and the Member States' representatives when acting as members of the Council before, during and after the legislative and non-legislative decision-making process in order to allow citizens of the Union and national parliaments to gain a comprehensive insight into who is doing what and why and to monitor the activities of their representatives,

H.

whereas the EU institutions ‘shall give citizens and representative associations the opportunity to make known and publicly exchange their views in all areas of Union action’ and ‘shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society’ (Article 11(1) and (2) TEU),

I.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon calls for further improvements to transparency and public access to documents; and whereas the case-law of the ECJ has already been most helpful in clarifying some of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, so that these must now be interpreted in line with the access-friendly understanding of these provisions espoused by Parliament when the regulation was adopted; whereas Parliament will not allow any legislative attempts by the Commission or the Council to reduce public access to documents or roll back citizens' rights to information,

J.

whereas the principles of openness and transparency should govern not only the decision-making process, but also the way in which a text is drafted and accompanied by all the information needed to meet the criteria of proportionality and subsidiarity, in the interests of citizens of the Union and national parliaments, and whereas this should also be the case for the judiciary; whereas transparency and access to documents should also be guaranteed in relation to how EU policies are implemented at all levels and how EU funds are used, as enshrined in the Commission's European Transparency Initiative,

K.

whereas the ECJ has confirmed that openness and access to information ‘contribute to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of citizens of the Union and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated. 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’ (Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P, paragraph 59),

L.

whereas long-awaited legal, financial and operational measures should be taken in order to ensure that all the documents relating to a specific legislative procedure are made accessible in a clear and timely manner, whether they originate from internal services or from outside interest groups; whereas this information could be made available on an interinstitutional Internet site linking the institutions' internal registers (such as the Publications Office of the European Union's revamped EUR-Lex site); and whereas internal rules should be amended accordingly and binding interinstitutional agreements negotiated expeditiously on the basis of Article 295 TFEU,

M.

whereas the new powers of the European Union and, in particular, of Parliament in areas such as international agreements on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters require a stronger legal framework to be laid down in Articles 4 and 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 so that EU security can be properly safeguarded whilst at the same time granting full oversight to Parliament as the representative of citizens of the Union,

N.

whereas several EU Member States have already adopted either ‘freedom of information acts’ or general rules governing access to the information and documents held by public institutions,

1.

Considers that, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be urgently updated by:

2.

Notes that on 2 December 2009, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission approved a Communication (COM(2009)0665) which updated the legal basis of the original proposal while avoiding any modification of its content;

3.

Deplores the fact that, in spite of the clear requests it made on 11 March 2009:

4.

Calls on the current and the incoming Council Presidencies to launch an immediate interinstitutional dialogue at political level with a view to drawing up the new regulation on access to documents by 30 June 2010 at the very latest;

5.

Welcomes warmly, in this context, the meeting of the interinstitutional committee on access to documents set up in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which took place on 15 December 2009; notes its conclusions, in particular on:

6.

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

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/16

A.

whereas the Council in its above mentioned conclusions of 17 November 2009 recognises that new possibilities have opened up for dialogue and deepened cooperation between the European Union and Belarus with the aim of fostering genuine progress towards democracy and respect for human rights, and reaffirms its readiness to deepen the European Union's relations with Belarus, subject to further progress towards democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and to assist the country in attaining these objectives,

B.

whereas the European Union sees Belarus as a partner on issues ranging from energy security, to transport, cultural cooperation, the environment and food safety,

C.

whereas the Council, after evaluating developments in Belarus following the decision taken on 16 March 2009 in accordance with the terms set out in its Common Position 2009/314/CFSP, has decided to extend the restrictive measures against certain Belarusian officials but to suspend the application of the restrictions on travelling to the EU, both until October 2010,

D.

whereas some positive steps, such as the release of a number of political prisoners and the authorisation to distribute two independent newspapers, have been taken since October 2008,

E.

whereas, in response to the positive steps taken by Belarus, the Commission has already entered into an intensified dialogue with that country in fields such as energy, the environment, customs, transport and food safety,

F.

whereas the Council included Belarus in its decision of 20 March 2009 on the Eastern Partnership Initiative, which the Commission launched in its above-mentioned communication of 3 December 2008 with a view to stepping up cooperation with a number of eastern European countries; whereas one of the objectives of Belarus's participation in the Eastern Partnership Initiative and its parliamentary branch Euronest is to intensify cooperation between the country and the EU, including its people-to-people dimension,

G.

whereas the International Federation of Journalists, on the basis of the report of its fact-finding mission to Minsk of 20-24 September 2009, carried out in collaboration with several international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), has not identified any significant progress in the area of media freedom in Belarus,

H.

whereas Belarus has committed itself to consider the recommendations made by the OSCE and its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) regarding improvements to its electoral law in order to bring it into line with international standards for democratic elections and to consult about the proposed amendments with the OSCE; whereas the National Assembly of Belarus has recently passed a reform of the Electoral Code without prior consultation of the OSCE,

I.

whereas Belarus remains the sole European country still using the death penalty; whereas further death sentences have been pronounced in recent months,

J.

whereas on 2 November 2009 the Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko stated that ‘relations with the European Union as a powerful consolidated partner are one of the fundamental factors in securing Belarus's independence and sovereignty, as well as economic, scientific and technological development’,

1.

Supports the Council's decision to extend the restrictive measures against certain Belarusian officials but at the same time to further suspend the application of the travel restrictions until October 2010;

2.

Stresses that the increased political dialogue and the establishment of the Human Rights Dialogue between the European Union and Belarus must lead to concrete results and substantial progress in the fields of democratic reforms and respect for human rights and the rule of law;

3.

Welcomes the constructive and active participation of Belarus in the Eastern Partnership, an initiative aimed at strengthening democracy and the rule of law and promoting European cooperation; regards Belarus's participation in the Eastern Partnership as a way forward to promote further dialogue with the European Union and deeper rapprochement based on a readiness and commitment on the part of Belarus to attain these objectives; welcomes trilateral cooperation between Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine in the framework of the Eastern Partnership, with priority given to projects on integrated border management, transport and transit, the common cultural and historical heritage, social security and energy security;

4.

Calls on the Commission to draft a proposal on a joint interim plan for Belarus setting priorities for reforms inspired by the action plans developed in the framework of the ENP in order to revitalise the suspended ratification procedure for the EU-Belarus Partnership and Cooperation Agreement; takes the view, in this respect, that the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Belarus, which has been frozen since 1997, should be reactivated once all the political reforms have been completed and implemented;

5.

Calls on the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to consider increasing their financial assistance to Belarus, paying special attention to the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises, while reviewing their mandate in order to encourage the transition of Belarus towards democracy, a pluralistic society and a market economy; believes that this possible financial support should be made contingent on the achievement of substantial progress in the areas outlined below;

6.

Calls on the Commission to consider measures to improve the business climate, trade, investment, energy and transport infrastructure and cross-border cooperation between the European Union and Belarus; takes note of the efforts and achievements of Belarus in countering the effects of the financial and economic crisis and boosting the economy by easing investment barriers and reforming property rights and the private sector;

7.

Stresses that the efforts made to tackle corruption, increase transparency and strengthen the rule of law, which are fundamental to attracting more foreign investment, have not been sufficient;

8.

Calls on the Commission to prepare recommendations for the possible adoption of directives on visa facilitation and readmission agreements with Belarus once the relevant conditions have been met; believes that such action is crucial to achieving the main goals of EU policy towards Belarus, namely enhancing people-to-people contact, making Belarus part of European and regional processes and rendering the democratisation process in the country irreversible;

9.

Urges the Council and the Commission, in this context, to consider the scope for reducing the cost of visas for Belarusian citizens entering the Schengen Area and simplifying the procedure for obtaining visas; underlines that the long-term objective is visa-free travel between the European Union and Belarus; urges the Belarusian authorities to sign the visa-free travel agreement for border zone inhabitants with neighbouring EU countries;

10.

Strongly condemns the recent denials of entry visas to Agnieszka Romaszewska, a director of TV Belsat, professors from Bialystok University, Christos Pourgourides, a Member of the Cyprus Parliament, and Emanuelis Zingeris, a Member of the Lithuanian Parliament;

11.

Calls on the Council and the Commission, should Belarus make significant progress during the next year and fulfil the relevant criteria, to consider lifting the travel ban on a permanent basis, as well as taking measures to facilitate economic and social progress and speeding up the process of Belarus's integration into the European family of democratic nations;

12.

Notes that new impetus should be given to mutually fruitful dialogue between Belarus and the European Union through interparliamentary cooperation within Euronest; notes that Belarus will be invited to participate fully and on an equal basis in the Euronest Assembly - the parliamentary dimension of the Eastern Partnership - as soon as free and fair elections to the Belarusian Parliament take place and considers that until then interim provisions should be applied;

13.

Is of the opinion that all EU Member States and their governments should pursue a coherent stance in their relations with third countries based on the Common Positions agreed in the Council; also considers that the European institutions should follow a joint strategy and combine efforts in pursuing concrete results in the EU's relations with Belarus; calls on all representatives of the European Union and Member States to hold political meetings with representatives of the democratic opposition, particularly when visiting Belarus;

14.

Urges Belarus to continue to cooperate with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR) on the electoral code and expects the new Electoral Law to be in line with international standards and to enter into the force before the local elections planned for spring 2010;

15.

Insists that clear and significant progress towards democratisation is expected within the next year in order for the sanctions to be completely lifted and that the conditions for full re-engagement with Belarus should be:

16.

Notes with regret that, after initial positive steps undertaken by the Belarus Government, no further essential progress has been made in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms; recalls in this respect the continued repression of political opponents and the refusal to register political parties (Belarusian Christian Democracy), NGOs (‘Viasna’) and independent media (TV Belsat); calls on the Belarusian authorities to review the sentences involving restrictions on their freedom imposed on the participants in a peaceful demonstration held in January 2008 and the imprisonment of Artsyom Dubski; points out that Amnesty International regards all these persons as prisoners of conscience; calls for the immediate release of the entrepreneurs Mikalai Awtukhovich and Uladzimir Asipenka, who have been held in pre-trial detention for eight months;

17.

Calls on the Government of Belarus immediately to establish a moratorium on all death sentences and executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty (as provided for by UN General Assembly Resolution 62/149 of 18 December 2007 on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty), to commute without delay the sentences of all prisoners currently on death row to terms of imprisonment, to bring domestic legislation into line with the country's obligations under international human rights treaties and to ensure that the internationally recognised standards for fair trials are rigorously respected;

18.

Urges the Belarusian authorities to initiate unbiased and transparent investigations into the kidnappings of young activists (Artur Finkevic, kidnapped on 17 October 2009, Nasta Palazhanka and Dzianis Karnou, both on 5 December 2009, Uladzimir Lemesh, on 27 November 2009, Zmitser Dashkevich, on 5 December 2009, and Yauhen Afnahel on 6 December 2009) and the recent death of Valiantsin Dounar, a Belarusian Popular Front member and activist, and to publish the results of the investigations;

19.

Calls on the Belarusian authorities to respect the rights of national minorities in accordance with the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 1 February 1995; in that connection, urges the Belarusian authorities to recognise the Union of Poles in Belarus led by Angelika Borys, who was re-elected as its chairwoman at the Congress of the Union of Poles on 15 March 2009;

20.

Urges the Belarusian authorities to develop genuine dialogue with representatives of the democratic opposition; emphasises, therefore, the importance of defining the role and working methods of the Public Advisory Council;

21.

Calls on the Commission to make full and effective use of the possibilities to support civil society and democratic developments in Belarus via the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights and stresses at the same time that support for democratic opposition must be an integral part of the gradual re-engagement process with Belarus;

22.

Calls on the Commissionand the governments of the Member States to grant financial support to TV Belsat and to urge the Belarusian Government officially to register Belsat in Belarus; calls on the Belarusian Government, as a sign of goodwill and positive change, to enable the Belarusian European Humanities University (EHU) in exile in Vilnius (Lithuania) to return legally to Belarus on the basis of genuine guarantees that it will be able to operate freely and re-establish itself under suitable conditions for its future development in Minsk, in particular by allowing it to re-establish its library in Minsk by providing the premises and creating the conditions which will enable it to make the extensive collections in Belarusian, Russian, English, German and French open and accessible to all;

23.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments and governments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe, the Secretariat of the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Parliament and Government of Belarus.

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/21

A.

whereas the war and unrest in the east of the DRC has resulted in widespread killings, population displacement and sexual violence against women, committed by armed rebel groups and by government army and police forces, which have reached an alarming scale,

B.

whereas the conflict affecting the DRC has claimed the lives of 5 400 000 people since 1998 and is still causing, either directly or indirectly, as many as 45 000 deaths every month (3); whereas according to the UNHCR reports there are some 1 460 000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the DRC, with 980 000 in North Kivu (4),

C.

whereas MONUC has been in the DRC since 1999 to protect the civilian population, build the peace process in the country and help the government to re-establish control over the regions which are under fighting factions,

D.

whereas MONUC is the world's largest peacekeeping mission, with a total of 20 000 soldiers, present mainly in North and South Kivu, costing about USD 1,4 billion a year, with a mandate to use all the necessary means to deter any attempted use of force, by any foreign or Congolese armed group, that threatens the political process, and to ensure the protection of civilians under imminent threat of physical violence,

E.

whereas the illegal mineral trade in the DRC allows many actors to continue to buy minerals from areas controlled by rebel groups, thereby financing those rebel groups, and whereas this is a factor fuelling and exacerbating the conflict,

F.

whereas it appears that DRC troops and fighters belonging to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) are reported to be involved in criminal networks exploiting and selling gold and minerals for guns in the east of the DRC,

G.

whereas rape has become a weapon of war used by rebels, members of the Congolese army and civilians,

H.

whereas military operations since January 2009, including Operation Kimia II, have resulted in the disarmament of 1 243 FDLR combatants out of an estimated 6 000 although the FDLR is continuing to recruit and retains a vast, sophisticated network of political and financial supporters in the region and around the world (5),

I.

whereas recent military operations have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, leading to widespread massacres and human rights abuses,

J.

whereas the fighting between the Congolese army, the rebel troops of ousted General Laurent Nkunda, the FDLR fighters and the troops of Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) continue to cause the civilian populations of the eastern provinces of the DRC unbearable hardship,

K.

whereas the Congolese army continues to have insufficient human, technical and financial resources to carry out its tasks in the eastern provinces of the DRC, coupled with a lack of discipline amongst its ranks, which continues to hamper its role in protecting the population and in re-establishing peace,

L.

whereas the United Nations has recently suspended logistical assistance and operational support to certain units of the Congolese army amid allegations that its troops killed dozens of civilians, including women and children in the North Kivu district, between May and September 2009,

M.

whereas several humanitarian organisations have been forced to suspend their activities, and aid workers in North Kivu are unable to reach 70 %, if not more, of those in need,

1.

Deplores in the strongest possible terms the massacres, the crimes against humanity, the recruitment of child soldiers and the acts of sexual violence against women and girls which are still taking place; calls on all actors to step up the fight against impunity;

2.

Calls for an immediate end to the violence and human rights abuses in the DRC; stresses the need for further efforts to put an end to the activities of foreign armed groups in the east of the DRC, in particular the FDLR and LRA; calls for these groups immediately to lay down their arms and cease their attacks against the civilian population, and for all the parties to the 23 March 2009 agreements to respect the ceasefire and implement their commitments effectively and in good faith;

3.

Remains extremely concerned by the worsening humanitarian situation in eastern DRC, following the atrocities carried out against the local population, as highlighted by two recent reports of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; is concerned, in particular, by recent reports of deliberate killings by Congolese soldiers of at least 270 civilians in the towns of Nyabiondo and Pinga, in North Kivu, and recent fighting, which has driven 21 800 people from their homes in and around Dongo, in the west; reaffirms that swift action is necessary to prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe unfolding;

4.

Draws attention to MONUC's vital role and to the fact that its mandate and rules of engagement must be implemented with determination and on a permanent basis in order to guarantee the population's security more effectively and without in any way supporting Congolese units which fail to respect human rights;

5.

Recognises that MONUC's presence remains necessary and calls for every effort to be made to allow it to carry out its mandate in full in order to protect those under threat; calls on the Council, in this connection, to play a leading role in ensuring that the United Nations Security Council supports MONUC in its operational capacities, providing a better definition of its priorities, of which there are currently 41;

6.

Welcomes the arrest by the German authorities of Ignace Murwanashyaka, leader of the FDLR, and his deputy, Straton Musoni, which constitutes an important step towards addressing impunity;

7.

Stresses that the rehabilitation and reform of the judicial system (incorporating a prevention and protection dimension and combating impunity with regard to sexual violence) and assistance for and reintegration of victims should be central to the aid programmes to be funded; in this context, calls for the cases of mass rape in the east of the DRC to be referred to the International Criminal Court;

8.

Stresses the need to bring to justice the perpetrators of human rights abuses within the Congolese armed forces, and underlines MONUC's crucial role in doing this; welcomes, therefore, the zero tolerance policy promoted by President Kabila against sexual violence and misconduct in the armed forces and encourages the Government of the DRC to implement without delay and with the assistance of MONUC its new strategy against gender-based violence;

9.

Underlines the importance of EUSEC RD Congo's key tasks of providing advice and assistance for defence reform with the aim of implementing the Congolese revised reform plan for the Congolese armed forces (FARDC); calls on the Congolese authorities, therefore, to take the reform process forward, encourages the establishment of a coordination mechanism for defence reform under Congolese ownership, with appropriate support from EUSEC and encourages the building of military barracks and camps as a matter of urgency;

10.

Recommends that the Government of the DRC promote stockpile security, accountability and management of arms and ammunition as an urgent priority, and that it implement a national weapons marking programme in line with the standards established by the Nairobi Protocol and the Regional Centre on Small Arms;

11.

Welcomes the progress made in the region by improved bilateral diplomatic relations between the DRC and Rwanda; calls on the DRC and Rwanda to fully implement the Nairobi and Goma peace agreements, as well as the Ihusi agreement of 23 March 2009;

12.

Encourages all governments of the Great Lakes region and the international community to continue the existing dialogue with the aim of coordinating efforts to stop the violence in the eastern parts of the DRC, paying particular attention to reconciliation, human security, better judicial accountability, and refugee and IDP return and integration;

13.

Deplores the increasing acts of violence against aid workers, which is having serious repercussions for the humanitarian situation on the ground; urges the authorities to launch thorough investigations into each and every incident and calls for protection to be immediately stepped up;

14.

Stresses the need for continued and increased funding in humanitarian aid to eastern DRC, given the increasing number of internally displaced persons and deteriorating conditions; to this end, supports the appeal launched on 30 November 2009 by the UN, alongside 380 aid organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), to raise USD 7,1 billion for humanitarian work in 2010; urges all Member States to contribute their fair share;

15.

Remains concerned by the illegal trade in minerals and other natural resources in the east of the DRC by the rebel groups; calls on the Council and the Commission to insist, in talks with the governments of the DRC and neighbouring countries, on the implementation of effective systems of traceability and proof of origin of natural resources, and to step up the fight against corruption;

16.

Calls for a return to the dialogue which saw the creation of the Amani Programme for security, pacification, stabilisation and reconstruction of North and South Kivu;

17.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the institutions of the African Union, the United Nations Secretary-General, Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the governments and parliaments of the countries of the Great Lakes region.

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/25

A.

whereas on 25 September 2009 David Bahati MP tabled the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009’ in the Ugandan Parliament,

B.

whereas the bill proposes to introduce harsher penalties, to criminalise homosexuality and to punish those alleged to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) with life imprisonment or the death penalty,

C.

whereas the bill includes a provision that could lead to the imprisonment for up to three years of anyone, including heterosexual people, who fails to report within 24 hours the identities of everyone they know who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, or who supports the human rights of those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender,

D.

whereas the bill provides for the nullification by Uganda of any of its international or regional commitments that it deems to be inconsistent with the provisions of the bill,

E.

whereas the bill has already been condemned by European Commissioner De Gucht, the British, French and Swedish governments, President Obama and the chair and vice-chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Representatives,

F.

whereas the proposed law has been denounced by non-governmental organisations around the world and in Uganda itself as a major obstacle to fighting HIV/Aids in the homosexual community,

G.

whereas in Africa homosexuality is legal in only 13 countries and is a punishable offence in 38 countries, with Mauritania, Sudan and northern Nigeria also stipulating the death penalty for homosexuality, and whereas the adoption of such a law in Uganda could have spill-over effects in other African countries, where persons are or could be persecuted because of their sexual orientation,

1.

Underlines that sexual orientation is a matter falling within the remit of the individual right to privacy as guaranteed by international human rights law, according to which equality and non-discrimination should be promoted, whilst freedom of expression should be guaranteed; in this context, condemns the ‘Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009’;

2.

Calls, therefore, on the Ugandan authorities not to approve the bill and to review their laws so as to decriminalise homosexuality;

3.

Reminds the Ugandan Government of its obligations under international law and under the Cotonou Agreement, which calls for universal human rights to be respected;

4.

Recalls statements by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee that a State cannot, through its domestic law, negate its international human rights obligations;

5.

Is extremely concerned that international donors, non-governmental organisations and humanitarian organisations would have to reconsider or cease their activities in certain fields should the bill pass into law;

6.

Rejects firmly any moves to introduce the death penalty;

7.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to make urgent representations to the Ugandan authorities and, should the bill pass into law and breaches of international human rights law take place, reconsider their involvement with Uganda, including by proposing another venue for the Review Conference of the Rome Statute scheduled for 31 May 2010;

8.

Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to analyse the situation in third countries in relation to executions, criminalisation or discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and to take concerted international action to promote respect for human rights in those countries through appropriate means, including working in partnership with local non-governmental organisations;

9.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the President of the Republic of Uganda and the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament.

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/27

A.

whereas Azerbaijan is actively participating in the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and the Eastern Partnership and is committed to respecting democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which are core values of these two initiatives,

B.

whereas, in September 2009, the Council decided to enhance relations between the EU and the three countries of the South Caucasus and invited the Commission to prepare draft negotiating directives for new agreements replacing the existing Partnership and Cooperation Agreements, which are due to expire soon,

C.

whereas the decree signed by President Ilham Aliyev on 28 December 2007 freed 119 prisoners, including five journalists,

D.

whereas there is a well-documented record of recent sentencing, harassment and intimidation of media professionals in Azerbaijan, including as described in the recent Background Report on Respect for Media Freedom to the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and reports by Amnesty International and Reporters sans Frontières,

E.

whereas the media climate has deteriorated in recent years – in spite of the adoption of the ENP Action Plan – with the temporary closure of independent TV and radio broadcasting organisations, the eviction of leading opposition newspapers from their offices, numerous court cases against members of the media, and physical attacks on journalists that have caused a widespread sense of fear and self-censorship among them; whereas, in December 2008, the BBC, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and other foreign media were barred from broadcasting on FM radio frequencies,

F.

whereas the bloggers Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizade were arrested on 8 July 2009 after being attacked by two men in a restaurant in the capital, Baku, where, according to witnesses interviewed by Amnesty International, they were assaulted while dining with other activists,

G.

whereas the two bloggers had used online networking tools, including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to disseminate information about the political situation in Azerbaijan, criticising the country's government; whereas, on 11 November 2009, Baku's Sabail regional court sentenced Emin Milli to two-and-a-half years' and Adnan Hajizade to two years' imprisonment on charges of hooliganism and inflicting minor bodily harm,

H.

whereas the charges against the two activists appear to have been politically motivated,

1.

Deplores the sentencing, on 11 November 2009, of the bloggers Emin Milli and Adnan Hajizada to harsh prison terms on the basis of highly unlikely charges and an unfair trial; calls for the immediate release of Mr Milli and Mr Hajizada and for a new, fully open and fair trial on the basis of an unbiased police investigation and in accordance with all relevant international standards;

2.

Is concerned about the deterioration of media freedom in Azerbaijan, deplores the practice of arresting, prosecuting and convicting opposition journalists on various criminal charges, as demonstrated in the case of Eynulla Fatullayev, and calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to release the imprisoned journalists immediately;

3.

Recalls the March 2005 statement by President Ilham Aliyev, in which he asserted that the rights of every journalist were protected and should be defended by the state;

4.

Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to address the lack of police investigation into cases of violence and harassment against journalists and the fact that many crimes have so far gone unpunished; stresses that the safety of media workers must be improved as a matter of urgency; welcomes proposed amendments to the criminal-law provisions on defamation and libel – as these provisions could create obstacles to exercising the rights of freedom of expression and information and might lead to self-censorship – and calls for their swift adoption;

5.

Urges the Azerbaijani authorities to pay special attention to the safety and freedom of civil-society activists, particularly those involved in non-governmental youth organisations, as well as journalists and the media; to take immediate steps to allow individuals to engage in peaceful, democratic activities; to allow such activities to be organised freely and without government interference; and to protect journalists, following the recent wave of violence against media representatives;

6.

Deplores the series of negative developments in relation to the media and individual journalists in Azerbaijan listed in the Background Report on Respect for Media Freedom recently prepared for the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; notes the new regular report by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media to the OSCE Council, as well as the deep concerns expressed by international NGOs such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters sans Frontières, International PEN and Human Rights Watch;

7.

Urges the Azerbaijani authorities to renew the FM radio licences of a number of international broadcasters, namely the BBC World Service, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; points out that the termination of these stations' broadcasting on FM frequencies removes important, objective and valuable independent sources of quality public-service information and restricts media plurality in Azerbaijan;

8.

Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to demonstrate sufficient progress in meeting the conditions for the upgrading of contractual relations – as stipulated in the Declaration by the European Council of 19-20 March 2009 on the Eastern Partnership – notably in the areas of democracy, the rule of law and human rights;

9.

Welcomes the efforts by the Azerbaijani authorities, including the two meetings held in 2009 by Azerbaijan's State Commission for European Integration, to improve the existing mechanisms for protecting human rights and enhance the capacity of democratic institutions in the country and calls on the EU and Azerbaijan to step up their dialogue on human rights issues;

10.

Welcomes the Azerbaijani authorities' participation in the review of Azerbaijan at the sixth meeting of the UN Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), on 6 February 2009, and calls on the Azerbaijani Government to implement the UPR recommendations in full, including by ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, decriminalising defamation and libel to eliminate unnecessary pressures on journalists; ensuring that freedom of expression and media freedom are fully respected; safeguarding access to broadcast media; investigating and prosecuting those who perpetrate crimes and harass journalists and human rights defenders; effectively implementing the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; improving prison conditions; and protecting the rights of vulnerable groups, including minorities, migrants, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons;

11.

Looks forward to the implementation of the Azerbaijani Government's project ‘Support for Justice Reforms in Azerbaijan’, intended to improve the independence of the judiciary, in particular in relation to the establishment and functioning of the Academy of Justice and the regional justice departments, and to reforms in the prison system in accordance with international standards;

12.

Calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to guarantee that the local elections on 23 December 2009 will be free, fair and in accordance with international standards and acknowledges the importance of the electoral process to state-building, through continued democratic reforms at local level and consolidation of civil society and the overall political system;

13.

Welcomes the establishment of the new sub-committees of the EU-Azerbaijan Cooperation Committee, which will strengthen the institutional framework for discussions in the field of justice, freedom and security and on respect for human rights and democracy, as well as employment and social affairs, public health, education and youth, culture, the information society, audio-visual policy, science and technology;

14.

Calls for renewed efforts by Azerbaijan to implement in full the ENP Action Plan and on the Commission to continue to assist Azerbaijan in such efforts;

15.

Calls on the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan to monitor the work of law-enforcement and state security structures in his country, especially in relation to the media and other human rights issues, as their work and style are deliberately distancing Azerbaijan from the EU;

16.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the President and Parliament of Azerbaijan.

22.10.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 286/30

A.

whereas Article 7(1) and (2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 sets out the offices that are incompatible with the office of Member of the European Parliament,

B.

whereas, in particular, as from the beginning of the current legislative term, the office of Member of the European Parliament shall be incompatible with that of member of a national parliament of any Member State, including the United Kingdom, since the temporary derogation granted by Article 7(2), second subparagraph, second indent, of the said Act is no longer applicable,

C.

whereas the United Kingdom authorities accordingly adopted the ‘European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008’, under which Members of the House of Lords holding the office of life peer are disqualified from sitting or voting in the House of Lords or in a committee thereof at any time during which they remain Members of the European Parliament, and no writ of summons can be issued to them while they are disqualified under the terms of those Regulations,

D.

whereas, under Rule 9 of, and Annex I to, the Rules of Procedure, Members are required to make a detailed declaration of their professional activities and any other remunerated functions or activities,

E.

whereas all of the Member States have notified the European Parliament of the names of the elected candidates, although some have still not forwarded – or have done so belatedly – the lists of any substitutes together with their ranking in accordance with the results of the vote, as required under Rule 3(4) of the Rules of Procedure,

F.

whereas in some cases Member States provided partial notification of elected candidates and forwarded further details subsequently,

G.

whereas in some Member States objections to the election of some Members of Parliament are being considered in accordance with national legislation and whereas these procedures could result in the annulment of the election of the Members concerned,

H.

whereas, pursuant to Article 12 of the Act of 20 September 1976, the European Parliament is required to rule on any disputes concerning the validity of the mandate of its Members only where these relate to breaches of the provisions of the abovementioned Act, and not in the case of breaches of the national electoral provisions to which the Act refers,

1.

Declares valid, subject to any decisions by the competent authorities of Member States in which the election results have been disputed, the mandate of the Members of the European Parliament listed in the annex to this decision whose election has been notified by the competent national authorities and who have made the written declarations required on the basis of Article 7(1) and (2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 and Annex I to the Rules of Procedure;

2.

Repeats its request to the competent national authorities not only promptly to notify the European Parliament of all the names of the elected candidates but also to forward the names of any substitutes together with their ranking in accordance with the results of the vote;

3.

Calls on the competent authorities of the Member States to complete as soon as possible the examination of the objections submitted to them and to inform the European Parliament of the outcome;

4.

Calls on the Commission to check whether the European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008, and especially regulation 4 thereof, are entirely compatible with the Act of 20 September 1976 and, should this not be the case, to initiate any appropriate procedure;

5.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the competent national authorities and the parliaments of the Member States, and to the Commission.