3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/1

—

having regard to the Annual Report 2009 of the European Central Bank (ECB),

—

having regard to Article 284 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Article 15 on the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty,

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 April 1998 on democratic accountability in the third phase of the EMU (1),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 7 October 2009 on the Annual Statement on the Euro Area 2009 (COM(2009)0527) and the Commission staff working document accompanying that communication (SEC(2009)1313/2),

—

having regard to the Report of the High Level Group chaired by Jacques de Larosière of 25 February 2009,

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 23 September 2009 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 (COM(2009)0499),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 23 September 2009 for a Council decision entrusting the European Central Bank with specific tasks concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (COM(2009)0500),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2010 on the ECB Annual Report 2008 (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 November 2008 on Euro@10: The first 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union and future Challenges (3),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0314/2010),

A.

whereas overall real GDP in the euro area shrank by 4,1 % in 2009 after the financial turmoil deepened following the collapse of Lehman Brothers; whereas behind such an aggregated figure there are strong disparities between euro-area Member States,

B.

whereas the average annual inflation stood at 0,3 % and the medium to longer-term inflation expectations remained in line with the ECB aim to keep inflation rates below, but close to, 2 %,

C.

whereas the average general government deficit ratio in the euro area increased to about 6,3 % and the public debt-to-GDP ratio rose from 69,4 % of GDP in 2008 to 78,7 % in 2009 in the euro area,

D.

whereas the exchange rate for the euro against the USD fell from USD 1,39 on 2 January 2009 to USD 1,26 in mid-March 2009, recovered to a peak at USD 1,51 in early December 2009 and depreciated in 2010 to reach a minimum of USD 1,19 on 2 June 2010,

E.

whereas the exchange rate for the renminbi against the euro was misaligned by the Chinese authorities during 2009, with an artificially strong euro against the Chinese currency,

F.

whereas the ECB adjusted interest rates down to 1 % and continued substantial and unprecedented non-standard measures to support credit; whereas the ECB balance sheet size has significantly increased throughout the year 2009,

G.

whereas there have been signs of economic stabilisation in the euro area over the second half of 2009 and quarterly growth rates, though still weak, have turned positive, though these aggregated figures highlight that this trend has not been reflected in all its Member States, some of which remained in recession during the same period,

H.

whereas the ECB expected a growth rate between 0,1 % and 1,5 % of real GDP in the euro area for 2010 before the sovereign debt crisis occurred in several countries within the euro area,

1.

Welcomes the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon came into force on 1 December 2009 and gives the ECB the status of an EU institution, which increases the responsibility of Parliament as the primary institution through which the ECB is accountable to the European citizen;

2.

Welcomes the resumption of the Monetary Dialogue with the new European Parliament after the elections of June 2009;

3.

Favours the adoption of the euro by Estonia on 1 January 2011;

4.

Points out that, when it comes to actual price trends, monetary policy measures are only one factor among others, and that in recent years speculative tendencies in individual markets and growing and anticipated shortages of natural resources have played a particular part in pushing up prices;

5.

Points out that these imbalances pose considerable difficulties for a suitable monetary policy within the euro zone; calls on governments, therefore, to coordinate their economic policies;

6.

Is deeply concerned that substantial macroeconomic imbalances between the euro zone economies continue to exist;

7.

Considers that the financial crisis in some countries within the euro area is a serious matter for the euro area as a whole and reflects a dysfunction of the euro area; this shows the need for reform and for stronger coordination of the economic policies within the euro area;

8.

Urges the Commission and the Central Bank to draw up proposals in line with the proposal by the Basel Committee on Basel III laying down binding rules for the introduction of an anticyclical buffer; calls on the Council, the Commission and the Central Bank to work towards the consistent and speedy implementation of the proposals when the Basel Committee proposals are ratified at G20 level;

9.

Points to the fact that the principles of the Stability and Growth Pact were not always fully respected in the past; recalls that, if the objective to regain a balance of public finances and reduce indebtedness is a necessity for over-indebted states, this alone will not solve the problem of economic imbalances between countries of the euro area and, more broadly, of the EU; calls therefore for unrestricted and more coherent application of the Stability and Growth Pact; deems that the Pact should be complemented by the development of an early warning system to identify possible inconsistencies, e.g. in the form of a ‘European semester’, in order not only to enhance surveillance and strengthen economic policy coordination so as to ensure fiscal consolidation but also – beyond the budgetary dimension – to address other macroeconomic imbalances and strengthen enforcement procedures;

10.

Believes that action must be taken now in order to start a gradual reduction of fiscal deficits and restore confidence in European public finances;

11.

Notes that a monetary union needs strong and enhanced coordination of economic policies to be robust; regrets that in the Economic and Monetary Union the emphasis has largely been on the ‘monetary’ side;

12.

Considers that Member States not following the rules of the euro area with regard to public finances and access to credible statistics should subjected to an enlarged and incremental spectrum of measures to ensure stricter compliance;

13.

Believes that the lack of a predefined crisis management mechanism and the behaviour of some governments has made a rapid solution to the sovereign debt crisis in some Member States of the euroarea difficult and will weaken the EMU’s ability to react quickly in potentially similar situations in the future; calls therefore for a permanent crisis management framework;

14.

Urges that financial support to EU countries in a debt crisis must be designed to encourage repayment of loans, budgetary balance and economic reform, and stresses the danger of turning loans into financial contributions while encouraging borrowing and the creation of debts;

15.

Calls therefore on the Commission to put forward proposals to strengthen the Stability and Growth Pact by including specific targets for closing the competitiveness gap between European economies, in order to stimulate job-creating growth;

16.

Shares concerns about possible speculation against the euro;

17.

Takes the view that credit growth and assets price developments in the EU and in Member States are crucial indicators for an effective monitoring of financial stability within the EMU and, more broadly, the EU;

18.

Is concerned about continuous strains on the euro area sovereign bond markets reflected in widening spreads; deems that the flight to safety provoked by waves of panic experienced during the current financial crisis has had massive distorting effects and created costly negative externalities;

19.

Asks for a timely implementation of the Regulation on Credit Rating Agencies (Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009) and welcomes the Commission proposal on amending Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 on Credit Rating Agencies of 2 June 2010, but at the same time calls on the Commission to go further with proposals for the more rigorous surveillance of the operation of these agencies, for improving the liability of Credit Rating Agencies and for assessing the possibility of create a European Credit Rating Agency; underlines the fact that the rating of euro area sovereign debt has proved problematic during the crisis;

20.

Highlights the independence of the ECB;

21.

Recommends that the ECB enhance the transparency of its work in order to increase its legitimacy and predictability. Transparency is also needed with regard to the internal models used to value illiquid collateral and the valuations assigned to specific securities offered as collateral;

22.

Considers that, given the new legal status of the ECB under the Lisbon Treaty, the candidates for the Executive Board proposed by the Council should be subject to special hearings by the relevant parliamentary committee and then to a vote by the European Parliament; notes that, in addition, the role of the ECB has been crucial since the crisis and deems therefore that such a role should involve reinforced transparency and accountability;

23.

Welcomes the conferral of legal personality on the Eurogroup by the Lisbon Treaty and the participation of the ECB in its meetings;

24.

Points out the determination of the European Parliament to continue the Monetary Dialogue as an important element in the democratic scrutiny of the ECB;

25.

Welcomes the proposal to establish a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), which will close the current gap in macro-prudential supervision; calls on the ECB to establish clear models and definitions to ensure the effective functioning and accountability of the ESRB; adds that any new tasks conferred upon the ECB with regard to the ESRB will not compromise the independence of the ECB in any way;

26.

Notes that the concept whereby the ESRB only gives warnings and recommendations with no actual enforcement is not satisfactory in terms of effective implementation and responsibility; regrets that the ESRB cannot declare the emergency by itself;

27.

Welcomes the proposal to hold hearings of the Chair of the ESRB before the European Parliament, in a different framework from the Monetary Dialogues;

28.

Believes that the revival of economic activity in the second half of 2009 was a result of the extraordinary measures taken by governments and central banks worldwide since the end of 2008 in the form of guarantees for bank liabilities, capital injections and asset support schemes;

29.

Notes that the financial crisis in the euro area is a solvency crisis that initially manifested itself as a liquidity crisis; deems that such a situation cannot be resolved in the long term by simply pouring new debt and liquidity into highly indebted economies in combination with accelerated plans for fiscal consolidation;

30.

Believes, similarly, that the crisis revealed a trend in the economic policies of recent years which have contributed to the current high level of public and private debt which will take many years to correct; deems that some parts of Europe will find it more difficult than others to tackle the consequences and developments of the crisis and achieve sustainable economic growth, new innovations and the creation of new jobs; underlines the need for reforms throughout Europe;

31.

Recalls that, before the outbreak of the financial crisis, the ratio of public debt to GDP of the euro area and the EU as a whole, as well as the ratio for the majority of Member States, declined between 1999 and 2007 and that, by contrast, debt levels of households, firms and the leverage of the financial sector experienced a significant increase over the same period;

32.

Recalls that the huge increase of public debt since 2008 in several Member States has been triggered by the fact these countries had to face excesses previously caused by an unsustainable growth of private debt and huge financial bubbles; believes therefore that the current crisis made it clear that the fiscal position is unsustainable if the financing of the private sector is unsustainable;

33.

Notes that the crisis, together with subsequent ‘bail-outs’ and economic stimulus packages, has led to far-reaching austerity measures which are often overdue but which at the same time heavily constrain the capacity of governments to act;

34.

Warns that these austerity packages should not lead to measures which could seriously dampen the economic recovery, which requires a new model of economic governance with instruments and a time schedule that will provide a balance between the process of fiscal consolidation and safeguarding needs in terms of investment in jobs and sustainable development;

35.

Underlines that the lack of credit reaching the real economy, specifically for SMEs, stemmed from lower demand due to diminished activity in the real economy as well as from the reluctance of banks to grant credit;

36.

Underlines that several Member States’ banks have been excessively reliant on liquidity provided by the ECB;

37.

Notes that the non-standard measures which the ECB has introduced since October 2008 to support credit have been successful in avoiding a deeper recession and additional financial turmoil; reiterates that lifting these measures needs to be well timed and carefully coordinated with national governments and their activities, especially in view of the collective and simultaneous resorting to austerity measures in many Member States;

38.

Is concerned, however, with the potential asymmetric impact of ECB’s exit strategy, given the substantial differences between euro area Member States regarding the business cycle;

39.

Would welcome a move from the European Central Bank generally to accept government bonds from euro area countries as security in the context of repurchase agreements, thereby following the tried and tested practice used by the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve Bank;

40.

Emphasises that a gradual exit from public deficits and the long-term sustainability of public finances are of crucial importance for the euro area as a whole;

41.

Notes the number of proposals in the EU to complete the prudential arrangements, to manage the crisis and to regulate the shadow banking sector;

42.

Shares concerns about the pro-cyclical aspects of the current regulatory, prudential, accounting and taxation rules which amplify the fluctuations that are inherent in the functioning of a market economy;

43.

Highlights the need for a decisive increase in banks’ capital buffers and to enhance the quality of capital, and welcomes the Basel Committee’s proposals for a narrower definition of core capital and the introduction of higher capital ratios; also draws attention to the link between the financial and the real economy and the impacts that regulating one can have on the other;

44.

Considers that the global financial system needs to be made less fragile and that lessons from the crisis must be drawn on a global level in order to reduce systemic risk, tackle financial bubbles and improve the quality of risk management and the transparency of financial markets, reaffirming that their basic role is to finance the real economy;

45.

Notes that the euro had gained status as an international currency throughout 2009, but was subject to heavy pressure in 2010;

46.

Points out that, during a period of high-level exchange rate volatility, the euro has increased its strength, particularly against the US dollar and the renminbi, and expresses concern that this could have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of the euro area;

47.

Acknowledges that the strength of the euro was partly due to weak economic activity in the US, where the current account deficit narrowed sharply to below 3 % of GDP in 2009 and the federal budget deficit widened to about 10 % of GDP in the fiscal year 2009, while the decline of the euro was, among other things, also connected to the lack of trust in global markets in some highly-indebted EU Member States; shares concerns about the expansion of the volume of money in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the EU;

48.

Is concerned about the impact of exchange rate volatility and carry trade operations on both global financial stability and the real economy;

49.

Underlines that, regardless of the current global financial and economic crisis, the euro area should be further enlarged, but points out that meeting the Maastricht criteria is regarded as a precondition for euro membership; welcomes the quick adoption of the euro by all Member States which comply with these criteria;

50.

Believes that the adoption of the euro by Estonia shows the status of the euro, despite the public debt crisis; believes that this status will encourage Member States to seek membership of the euro area;

51.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank.

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/7

—

having regard to Title V of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to the European Security Strategy entitled ‘A secure Europe in a better world’, adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003, and to the report on its implementation entitled ‘Providing security in a changing world’, endorsed by the European Council on 11-12 December 2008,

—

having regard to the Internal Security Strategy for the European Union, endorsed by the European Council on 25-26 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on CSDP adopted on 26 April 2010,

—

having regard to the ESDP conclusions and the declaration entitled ‘ESDP Ten Years – Challenges and Opportunities’, adopted by the Council on 17 November 2009,

—

having regard to the declaration on the enhancement of the European Security and Defence Policy, adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2008, and to the declaration on strengthening capabilities, adopted by the Council on 11 December 2008,

—

having regard to the Presidency conclusions adopted by the European Council at Santa Maria de Feira on 20 June 2000 and at Göteborg on 16 June 2001, to the EU Programme for the Prevention of Violent Conflicts also adopted at Göteborg on 16 June 2001, to the Civilian Headline Goal 2008, approved by the European Council on 17 December 2004, and to the Civilian Headline Goal 2010, approved by the Council on 19 November 2007,

—

having regard to the Presidency conclusions adopted by the European Council at Helsinki on 11 December 1999 (Headline Goal 2003) and to the Headline Goal 2010, approved by the Council on 17 May 2004,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 30 November 2009 on strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) security in the European Union and approving an EU CBRN Action Plan,

—

having regard to the Council paper ‘Implementation of UNSCR 1325 as reinforced by UNSCR 1820 in the context of ESDP’ of 3 December 2008, and to the Council document on ‘Mainstreaming of Human Rights into ESDP’ of 14 September 2006,

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 February 2010 on the recent earthquake in Haiti, which calls for the establishment of an EU Civil Protection Force (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2010 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy (2),

—

having regard to the Council Decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (3),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0308/2010),

1.

Recalls that the EU has committed itself to defining and pursuing common policies and actions to preserve peace, prevent conflicts, consolidate post-conflict rehabilitation and strengthen international security in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter, as well as to consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law, and to assist populations facing natural or man-made disasters;

2.

Points out that internal and external security are increasingly intertwined and that, by developing its crisis management, conflict prevention and peace-building policies and capabilities in line with the above objectives, the EU also helps to safeguard the security of its own citizens;

3.

Underlines that the EU, mainly through its civilian crisis management, offers a distinct contribution to global security, reflecting its core values and principles;

4.

Stresses that effective responses to present-day crises and security threats, including natural disasters, often need to be able to draw on both civilian and military capabilities and require closer cooperation between them; recalls that the development of the EU’s comprehensive approach and of its combined military and civilian crisis management capabilities have been distinctive features of the CSDP and represent its core added value; recalls at the same time that the CSDP is not the only tool available and that CSDP missions should be used as part of a broader EU strategy;

5.

Recalls the need for an EU White Paper on security and defence, based on systematic and rigorous security and defence reviews conducted by the States according to common criteria and a common timetable, which would define the Union's security and defence objectives, interests and needs more clearly in relation to the means and resources available; emphasises that the White Paper should also define areas in which, and conditions under which, greater civilian-military cooperation is desirable to help achieve those objectives; takes the view that the EU White Paper should identify explicitly opportunities for the pooling of resources at EU level, as well as national specialisation and capability harmonisation, in order to achieve large economies of scale;

6.

Emphasises that the establishment of the European External Action Service (EEAS) should contribute further to the development of a truly comprehensive European approach to civilian and military crisis management, conflict prevention and peace-building and provide the EU with adequate structures, staffing levels and financial resources to meet its global responsibilities in line with the UN Charter;

7.

Fully supports the transfer of the CSDP structures, including the Crisis Management Planning Directorate, the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability, the EU Military Staff and the Situation Centre, to the EEAS, under the direct authority and responsibility of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy; recalls the pledge made by the Vice-President/High Representative to ensure that they work in close cooperation and synergy with the relevant Commission units transferred to the EEAS which deal with the planning and programming of crisis response, conflict prevention and peace-building; urges the Vice-President/High Representative to ensure that these units work on an equal footing with the CSDP structures; stresses that no formal or informal control by the CSDP structures of the planning and programming of measures financed from the Instrument for Stability is acceptable and insists that the transferred Commission structures must not be dismantled;

8.

For the sake of the development of the EU's comprehensive approach, also encourages close coordination between the EEAS and all relevant units remaining within the Commission, in particular those dealing with development, humanitarian aid, civil protection and public health; stresses the need for direct links between the EEAS and CSDP agencies, namely the European Defence Agency, the EU Institute for Security Studies, the European Security and Defence College and the EU Satellite Centre;

9.

Draws attention to the role of the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) in facilitating disaster relief coordination under the Civil Protection Mechanism and highlights the need for close cooperation between the centre and the EEAS to be ensured by the Vice-President/High Representative in her capacity as Vice-President of the Commission; calls for improved coordination and faster deployment of military assets in the context of disaster relief, in particular air transport capabilities, based on the lessons learned in Haiti and while respecting the primarily civilian nature of disaster relief operations; reiterates its call for further improvement of the Civil Protection Mechanism to establish a voluntary pool of Member States’ assets on stand-by for immediate deployment in disaster response operations; suggests that these assets be coordinated and deployed under the designation of an EU Civil Protection Force to increase the visibility of EU action; recalls at the same time the individual responsibility of the Member States for civil protection and disaster control measures;

10.

Advocates also improved coordination between the Member State humanitarian agencies and DG ECHO for relief operations following natural or man-made disasters;

11.

Calls on the Council to promptly adopt the necessary decisions to give effect to the mutual assistance clause as outlined in Article 42(7) TEU as well as the solidarity clause as outlined in Article 222 TFEU, which should reflect the EU's comprehensive approach and build on civil-military resources;

12.

Recalls the successful development of the Peace-building Partnership between the Commission and non-governmental organisations, and that good cooperation between non-governmental, civil-society organisations and the future EEAS is of crucial importance; calls on the Commission to further develop the framework for cooperation with NGOs and to promote the use of non-state actors in the Union's conflict prevention and conflict management activities, also by including them in EU training activities;

13.

On the political-strategic level, welcomes the integration of civilian and military elements within the Crisis Management Planning Directorate (CMPD) as a step in the right direction; emphasises, however, the need to strike a proper balance between civilian and military strategic planning capabilities, not only in terms of numbers, but also with regard to hierarchy, in order to exploit to the full the synergies available; highlights at the same time the need to duly respect the differences between civilian and military roles and their distinctive objectives and to make sure that an appropriate mixture of human resources is allocated to each operation on a case-by-case basis;

14.

In particular, urges the Vice-President/High Representative to address the shortage of staff as regards experts on civilian mission planning and capability development and to make sure that the CMPD includes a sufficient number of experts from all the priority civilian capability areas, namely police, justice, civilian administration, civil protection and monitoring, as well as in the area of human rights;

15.

Emphasises the need, in routine phases, to develop a common situation awareness shared by all EU stakeholders (EEAS, but also all relevant units from the Commission: DG DEV, DG ECHO, DG SANCO, with the support of each of their crisis assessment capabilities), which should be reflected in all EU regional or country strategic papers; stresses that the reshaped EU delegations have a key role to play in this process;

16.

Calls for an improved role for the Heads of EU Delegations and/or EU Special Representatives - when present in the area of crisis - in the civilian-military coordination efforts, also with a view to securing closer political oversight on the ground;

17.

On the operational planning level, calls for a significant strengthening of civilian planning capabilities to match the ambitions of civilian CSDP missions, by consolidating the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) as regards staffing levels as well as by means of a better division of tasks between the strategic and operational levels; stresses that this division of tasks needs to be based on a balanced and comprehensive personnel strategy; takes the view that, in the light of the responsibilities of the Civilian Operations Commander, this function needs to be placed at an appropriate (i.e. higher) level within the EEAS hierarchy;

18.

Reiterates its call for the establishment of a permanent EU operational headquarters, responsible for operational planning and conduct of EU military operations, to replace the current system of using one of the seven available headquarters on an ad hoc basis; stresses that such a move would guarantee a coherent chain of command and greatly increase the EU's capacity for rapid and consistent responses to crises (notably by enhancing the EU’s institutional memory) and also reduce costs;

19.

Takes the view that the operational headquarters should be placed alongside the CPCC in order to maximise the benefits of civilian-military coordination, including the pooling of certain functions, and to better promote best practices among EU planners; suggests even that the operational headquarters and the CPCC might be integrated into a joint EU ‘Crisis Management Headquarters’ that would be responsible for the operational planning and conduct of all EU civilian missions, military operations and security sector reform missions;

20.

Emphasises, however, that due account needs to be taken of the differences between civilian and military planning and that separate chains of command need to be maintained, with a Civilian Operations Commander and a Military Operations Commander retaining their own competences and enjoying the same hierarchical status within the EEAS;

21.

Points to the number of commitments that Member States have given regarding the development of both military and civilian crisis management capabilities, from the Helsinki and Santa Maria de Feira European Councils to the December 2008 declaration on strengthening capabilities; urges the Member States and the Vice-President/High Representative to ensure that these commitments are properly implemented so as to close the glaring gap between existing operational capabilities and the stated political goals;

22.

In the context of the follow-up to the Headline Goals 2010, calls on the Member States to concentrate on the concrete delivery of capabilities and to focus on areas with the potential for civilian-military synergies, especially those already identified, in order to achieve genuine progress as soon as possible; stresses the need for capability development to be guided by specific requirements for CSDP missions; welcomes the Comprehensive Capability Development Process for military capabilities within the European Defence Agency; encourages further discussion on how to bridge the two capability development processes under the civilian and military headline goals;

23.

Welcomes the efforts of the past and the current rotating Council Presidencies to start a process aiming at the clarification of the nature and scope of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PSC) as outlined in Article 42(6) TEU; calls on the Council to deliver promptly a clear understanding of the PSC, taking into consideration the civil-military nature of the EU’s comprehensive approach, and to present concrete steps on how to start the PSC in view of the current financial crisis and decreasing national defence budgets among the EU Member States;

24.

In the light of the political commitments given, calls on the Member States urgently to address the chronic shortfall in civilian personnel in CSDP missions, especially EULEX Kosovo and EUPOL Afghanistan, in particular by stepping up work to establish national strategies to facilitate the deployment of civilian mission personnel; urges that, as part of these strategies, the competent national authorities, such as ministries of the interior and justice, in close cooperation with the ministries of defence, should develop a more structured approach to the task of laying down appropriate conditions for the participation of civilian personnel in CSDP missions, especially as regards career prospects and remuneration;

25.

In that context, calls on the Member States to ensure, in particular, that participation in CSDP missions is regarded as an important advantage for career development in their police and justice systems and that the services that second civilians to these missions are appropriately compensated for the temporary loss of staff; takes the view that the Council should ensure that per diem rates for CSDP mission personnel are tailored to the circumstances of the mission in question;

26.

Reiterates the need for compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, which requires a gender-balanced staffing and training approach to all missions and a gender focus on all actions undertaken; stresses that an adequate number of women in civilian or military missions is a crucial condition for the success of those missions, be it in peacekeeping or disaster relief operations, as well as in diplomatic mediation, as a way to ensure that women’s needs, rights and interests are properly addressed and to ensure women's involvement in the actions and objectives of the mission; recalls that the EU Member States need to develop national Action Plans to ensure compliance with Resolution 1325;

27.

Stresses the need for appropriate pre-deployment training to be provided, which could include participation by civilian personnel in military exercises, including contingency rehearsals, and by military personnel in civilian training and/or exercises; strongly recommends that Member States maintain rosters of deployable civilians with relevant competences, in particular those trained for missions carried out alongside military forces; welcomes the practice employed by certain Member States of having a dedicated centralised agency responsible for the recruitment and training of all deployable civilian personnel;

28.

Supports the development by the Council of the Goalkeeper software environment to facilitate the recruitment and training of personnel for civilian missions;

29.

Recalls the European Group on Training financed by the Commission and stresses that one of its lessons learned is that investment in training needs to be linked to de facto deployments; welcomes the emphasis placed by the Commission on ensuring that the forthcoming civilian training project financed under the Instrument for Stability will target experts already identified for future deployment on missions;

30.

Emphasises, in line with the 2008 Council recommendations, the enhanced role the European Security and Defence College (ESDC) should play in the field of capacity building and training for effective crisis management in the light of the setting-up of the EEAS; urges the Council to improve the training facilities and staffing of the ESDC, including by providing it with a permanent seat, in order to guarantee sustainable and effective training at the strategic, operational and tactical levels for civilian and military personnel of the Member States and EU institutions; calls for the creation of scholarships for young graduates willing to specialise in fields which are needed;

31.

Calls for a preparatory action in order to develop and make available training on mediation and dialogue in the light of the establishment of the EEAS, in line with the ‘Concept on Strengthening EU Mediation and Dialogue Capacities’ adopted by the Council in 2009;

32.

Encourages further efforts to speed up the provision of financing for civilian missions and to simplify decision-making procedures and implementation arrangements; stresses the need for the relevant Commission departments to work closely and on an equal footing with the crisis management structures within the EEAS so as to allow rapid start-up financing of civilian missions; calls, for the sake of transparency and accountability, for one budget line to be created for each CSDP mission;

33.

Calls on the Council to quickly take the appropriate decisions to establish the start-up fund as outlined in Article 41 TEU, after consulting the European Parliament; calls on the Vice-President/High Representative to inform Parliament regularly on the state of play once the fund has been set up;

34.

Welcomes the development of the concept of Integrated Police Units (IPUs), i.e. robust, rapidly deployable, flexible and interoperable forces able to perform executive law-enforcement tasks, which, in certain circumstances, can also be deployed as part of a military operation and under military command; notes the successful application of this concept in Bosnia and Herzegovina as part of EUFOR Althea and in Kosovo within EULEX; highlights the need for such units, which are especially well-suited to intervening in non-stabilised situations and in particular during the transition from military to civilian command; recommends that Member States invest in the development of such capabilities;

35.

In that context, fully supports the use of the European Gendarmerie Force (EGF), which can be placed under military or civilian command and provides a capability for the rapid deployment of expeditionary police missions, as a highly suitable tool for a range of effective crisis management operations, including post-disaster stabilisation missions; calls on all Member States which have police forces with military status to join the initiative;

36.

Welcomes the progress achieved in developing the pool of experts for the Civilian Response Teams (CRTs) to provide a rapid assessment capability, but stresses that further extension of these lists needs to be achieved; highlights the importance of early-assessment and fact-finding capabilities in ensuring that the EU responds to crises using the most appropriate means available;

37.

Stresses the need for the EU, in time of crisis, to be able to deploy multidisciplinary teams within the first hours of the crisis, which would be composed of civilian, military and civ-mil experts from the EEAS and the Commission;

38.

Calls on the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council and the Commission to present a common understanding of the new CSDP missions as outlined in Article 43 TEU and how they will be handled in the context of the established civilian-military cooperation; encourages them in this context to speed up the establishment of a pool of security sector reform experts to enhance the EU's capability in this field;

39.

Calls on the Member States to make optimal use of the existing tools and put in place impact evaluation mechanisms before formulating new, ambitious goals;

40.

Is convinced that the EU battlegroups represent a suitable tool for crisis management operations; reiterates its call to the Council to increase their usability and flexibility; calls also for the improvement of their usability for civilian-military humanitarian relief operations, in full compliance with the revised Oslo guidelines for the use of military and civil defence assets in disaster relief;

41.

Urges the Member States to reach agreement on expanding the concept of common costs associated with the use of the battlegroups (costs to be financed through the Athena mechanism), or on common funding of the totality of the costs of crisis management operations carried out by them; takes the view that such an agreement is necessary to make their use politically and economically acceptable and ensure that the Member States on stand-by do not bear a disproportionate burden in a difficult budgetary situation; recalls in this regard that in November 2009 the Council invited the Council General Secretariat to elaborate ideas on the financing of military operations for discussion at high level in 2010, but no progress has been registered so far;

42.

Calls on the Member States to conceive of the battlegroups as long-term partnerships and not to dissolve them after their stand-by period has ended, so that the resources invested in their creation are not wasted; calls for them to be trained to operate alongside civilian deployments; suggests even that they might include civilian units or experts within their set-up, in particular IPUs;

43.

Calls on the Member States to look further into developing dual-use capabilities for CSDP civilian missions and military operations, in particular transport capabilities, and to ensure interoperability in training and practice, making better use of existing approaches and capabilities and interlinking the civilian and military capability development processes where appropriate;

44.

Stresses that EU military and civilian personnel will increasingly be operating side by side and that they are to a large extent exposed to the same threats, such as improvised explosive devices, and in need of comparable capabilities in areas such as strategic and tactical transportation, logistical support, communication, intelligence gathering and evaluation systems, medical support, security and force protection, use of space capabilities, and unmanned vehicles;

45.

Emphasises, therefore, the need to coordinate and stimulate investment in dual-use technologies and capabilities, so as to quickly close capability gaps whilst avoiding unnecessary duplication, creating synergies and supporting standardisation; recalls the essential role in this respect to be played by the European Defence Agency, in the process of identifying the needs in the capabilities field and also in pointing out the ways in which those capabilities should be shared, pooled or attained among the Union's members, in order to deliver deployable means for the successful and secure conduct and implementation of CSDP operations;

46.

In that context, supports the establishment of the European Framework Cooperation for Security and Defence Research to ensure complementarity and synergy between defence R&T investment and research investment for enhancing civilian security by the Commission under the Research Framework Programme, for example in areas such as situational awareness, unmanned aerial vehicles, maritime surveillance, countering improvised explosive devices, CBRNE detection and protection, communication, intelligence gathering, evaluation and transfer of data, and cybersecurity;

47.

Notes, however, that this cooperation should not exceed what is necessary in the light of civilian-military cooperation in the areas of peace-keeping, conflict prevention, strengthening international security, crisis management and humanitarian aid;

48.

Welcomes the open debate of the EU ministers of defence during their informal meeting in Ghent on 23 and 24 September 2010 regarding European defence research and their assessment of the role of the EDA as outlined in Article 42(3) TEU;

49.

Encourages further efforts to ensure that all the equipment needed for rapid crisis response activities, whether civilian or military, is readily available; welcomes ongoing work on an inventory management system for civilian CSDP missions; calls on the Vice-President/High Representative to carry out a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to determine optimal solutions for each kind of equipment needed; takes the view that, depending on the type of equipment, the right combination of warehousing at EU level, framework contracts and virtual stocks of equipment owned by the Member States needs to be found;

50.

Welcomes, in that context, the establishment of a temporary warehouse of civilian equipment in Bosnia and Herzegovina and calls for rapid progress in the setting-up of a permanent warehouse in order to better prepare the EU for civilian crisis management;

51.

Encourages further progress in the area of the pooling and sharing of assets as a cost-effective way of increasing capabilities, which is all the more relevant in a time of budgetary austerity; welcomes, in particular, activities to address gaps in strategic airlift capabilities, namely the creation, by a number of Member States, of the European Air Transport Command (EATC), as well as the European Air Transport Fleet initiative; encourages the Vice-President/High Representative and the Member States to follow the European Defence Agency's recommendations and to speed up work to identify other areas in which to apply the pooling and sharing principles, including in the field of training or mission support; welcomes in this regard proposals to establish a multinational helicopter wing modelled on the EATC to be used for both civilian and military tasks;

52.

Recalls that the UN Security Council has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security; stresses, therefore, the need for close cooperation between the EU and the UN in the area of civilian and military crisis management, and in particular in humanitarian relief operations where the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is in the lead role; calls for such cooperation to be strengthened particularly in theatres where one organisation is to take over from the other, especially in light of the mixed experience in Kosovo;

53.

Urges the Member States to ensure that they make adequate contributions to UN missions and that they contribute in a coordinated fashion; calls on the Vice-President/High Representative and the Council to further explore ways in which the EU as a whole can better contribute to UN-led efforts, such as by launching EU rapid response ‘bridging’ or ‘over the horizon’ operations or providing an EU component of a larger UN mission;

54.

Calls for improved monitoring of EU assistance implemented through UN organisations in line with the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 15/2009;

55.

Points out that, since 21 out of 28 NATO members are EU Member States, close cooperation between the EU and NATO is of vital importance to avoid duplication of effort in the deployment of military capabilities when the two organisations operate in the same theatre, this without prejudice to the principle of decision-making autonomy and with due respect for the neutral status of some EU Member States; reiterates the urgent need to resolve the underlying political problems hampering EU-NATO cooperation and calls for the complete and more effective implementation of the ‘Berlin Plus’ arrangements in order to enable the two organisations to intervene effectively in current and future crises;

56.

Highlights the need to accord the same degree of transparency and involvement to non-EU NATO members and non-NATO EU members when joint activities are conducted, as stressed in the third chapter of the NATO 2020 report (‘Albright Report’);

57.

Calls on the Member States that are members of NATO to make sure that the new Strategic Concept of NATO does not lead to unnecessary duplication of effort in the area of civilian capabilities, which would cause further strain on already scarce resources; is convinced that NATO should rather be able to rely on the civilian capabilities of other international organisations such as the EU and the UN;

58.

Reiterates its support for closer EU-NATO cooperation in capability development and for compliance with NATO standards as far as possible; encourages further progress in the joint efforts to address the shortage of transport helicopters; welcomes initiatives to coordinate EU and NATO activities in the area of countering CBRN disasters and improvised explosive devices and providing medical support as matters of relevance to both civilian and military missions;

59.

Underlines the need for closer EU-OSCE and EU-AU cooperation in their particular operational areas, improving early warning and ensuring exchange of best practices and expertise in crisis management;

60.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretaries-General of the United Nations and NATO.

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/15

—

having regard to the partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of states (ACP), of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (Cotonou Partnership Agreement) (1),

—

having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA), adopted on 3 April 2003 (2), as most recently amended in Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea) on 28 November 2008,

—

having regard to the European Consensus on Development, signed on 20 December 2005 (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (4),

—

having regard to the Kigali Declaration for development-friendly Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), adopted by the JPA on 22 November 2007 in Kigali (Rwanda) (5),

—

having regard to the Luanda Declaration on the Second Revision of the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement (Cotonou Partnership Agreement) adopted by the JPA on 3 December 2009 in Luanda (Angola) (6),

—

having regard to the Georgetown Communiqué adopted on 26 February 2009 in Georgetown (Guyana) at the JPA Caribbean regional meeting (7),

—

having regard to the Ouagadougou Communiqué adopted on 30 October 2009 in Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) at the JPA West Africa regional meeting (8),

—

having regard to the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid signed on 18 December 2007 (9),

—

having regard to the resolutions adopted by the JPA in 2009:

—

on challenges to the democratic accommodation of ethnic, cultural and religious diversity in ACP and EU countries (10),

—

on Economic Partnership Agreements and their impact on ACP States (11),

—

on the social and environmental consequences of climate change in ACP countries (12),

—

on the role of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in addressing the food and financial crisis in ACP countries (13),

—

on establishing and promoting peace, security, stability and governance in Somalia (14),

—

on global governance and the reform of international institutions (15),

—

on the impact of the financial crisis on the ACP States (16),

—

on social and cultural integration and participation of young people (17),

—

on climate change (18),

—

on the situation in Madagascar (19),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0315/2010),

A.

whereas the JPA members expressed their concerns about the latest developments in the EPA negotiation during their regular session debates in April 2009 in Prague (Czech Republic) and December 2009 in Luanda (Angola),

B.

whereas the abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, which provides for thematic programmes also applicable to ACP countries and a programme of accompanying measures for Sugar Protocol countries, has been adopted,

C.

whereas the Commissioner with responsibility for development and humanitarian aid gave an undertaking at the JPA session in Wiesbaden (Germany) in June 2007 to subject Country and Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP countries (2008-2013) to democratic scrutiny by parliaments; welcoming the fact that that undertaking has been fulfilled,

D.

whereas the revision of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement in 2010 provides a valuable opportunity for strengthening the role of the JPA and its regional dimension as well as developing parliamentary scrutiny in ACP regions,

E.

whereas the two JPA regional meetings held in Guyana and Burkina Faso in 2009 were a considerable success and resulted in the adoption of the abovementioned Georgetown and Ouagadougou communiqués,

F.

whereas the situation in Niger, Guinea and Madagascar deteriorated in 2009, leading to the removal of parliamentary democracy in all three countries and to the downgrading of the status of their representatives to observers at the 18th session of the JPA in Luanda,

G.

whereas the ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has resulted in grave, repeated human rights violations; whereas there is a need for effective humanitarian assistance and greater commitment from the international community,

H.

having regard to the work of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) and the establishment of formal relations between the European Parliament and the PAP, as well as the creation of the European Parliament inter-parliamentary delegation for relations with the PAP,

1.

Welcomes the fact that in 2009 the JPA continued to provide a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue between the European Union and the ACP countries, and calls for an enhanced political dialogue;

2.

Welcomes the new Commissioner for Trade’s positive response to the request by several ACP countries and regions for a review of the contentious issues raised in the EPAs negotiations, in line with the statements made by the President of the Commission; underlines the need for close parliamentary monitoring of the EPAs negotiations and implementation;

3.

Stresses in particular the crucial role of the ACP national parliaments, as well as local authorities and non-state bodies, in monitoring and managing the Country and Regional Strategy Papers and in the implementation of the EDF and calls on the Commission to guarantee their involvement; underlines also the need for close parliamentary scrutiny during the negotiation of EPAs;

4.

Calls on the parliaments of the ACP countries to insist that their governments and the Commission involve them in the process of drafting and implementing the Country and Regional Strategy Papers relating to cooperation between the EU and their countries (2008-2013), and ensure their full participation in the EPA negotiations;

5.

Calls on the Commission to supply all available information to the parliaments of the ACP countries and to assist them in exercising democratic scrutiny, in particular by means of capacity-building, and notably during the negotiation and implementation of the EPAs;

6.

Draws attention to the JPA’s concern at the repercussions of the current financial crisis, the adoption in Luanda of a resolution on the impact of the financial crisis on the ACP States and the resolutions on its impact and on addressing the crisis in the ACP States; encourages the JPA to continue to work on this area and to explore additional and innovative sources of financing for development, such as an international financial transaction tax; further calls on the JPA to address the question of the eradication of tax havens;

7.

Welcomes the undertaking given by the previous Commissioner with responsibility for development and humanitarian aid, during the abovementioned JPA session in Kigali, to subject Country and Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP countries (2008-2013) to democratic scrutiny by parliaments; likewise, welcomes the work already done by certain ACP parliaments in examining such documents, as well as the JPA's scrutiny of the RSPs ahead of the mid-term review, and calls for this input to be duly taken into account;

8.

Draws attention, in this regard, to the need closely to involve parliaments in the democratic process and in the national development strategies; stresses their vital role in establishing, following up and monitoring development policies;

9.

Reiterates its position that the European Development Fund (EDF) should be incorporated into the EU budget in order to increase the consistency, transparency and effectiveness of development cooperation policy and guarantee democratic scrutiny thereof; underlines that incorporating the EDF into the EU budget is also an appropriate response to the difficulties affecting the implementation and ratification of successive EDFs;

10.

Calls on parliaments to exercise close parliamentary scrutiny of the EDF; highlights the JPA’s key position in this debate and calls on it and the parliaments of the ACP countries to take an active part therein, in particular in connection with the ratification of the revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement;

11.

Welcomes the increasingly parliamentary – and hence political – nature of the JPA, together with the ever more active role played by its members and the greater quality of its debates, which are helping it to make a vital contribution to the ACP-EU partnership;

12.

Considers the declaration on Niger, which the Co-Presidents of the JPA made in Luanda on 2 December 2009, and the abovementioned resolution on the situation in Madagascar to be significant examples of this enhanced dialogue;

13.

Calls on the JPA to continue to monitor the situation in Sudan, Madagascar, Niger and Guinea Conakry;

14.

Calls on the JPA to continue to address the situation in Somalia, which is endangering the lives of the Somali people and poses a threat to security in the region and calls on the EU to maintain its commitments regarding the promotion of the rule of law, restoring stability in the region and fighting piracy;

15.

Calls on the JPA to continue to contribute to the international community’s efforts to raise awareness of the conflicts affecting the eastern DRC, to promote a negotiated political solution to the crisis and to support any action that may be proposed as part of a negotiated solution;

16.

Calls on the JPA to pursue and intensify dialogue with the PAP and the parliaments of regional organisations, in view of the importance of regional integration to peace and development in ACP countries;

17.

Deplores the fact that the JPA was not properly consulted during the drafting of the Joint EU-Africa Strategy and hopes that the Assembly will be actively involved in the implementation of that strategy;

18.

Welcomes the fact that further regional meetings provided for in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the JPA Rules of Procedure were held in 2009; considers that these meetings make for a genuine exchange of views on regional issues, including conflict prevention and resolution, regional cohesion, human rights, environmental issues and EPA negotiations; commends the organisers of the two extremely successful meetings in Guyana and Burkina Faso;

19.

Calls for the JPA to ensure strong monitoring of the EPA negotiations during its regional meetings;

20.

Regrets that the Council ignored the repeated calls by the European Parliament notably at the JPA in Luanda, to include a stronger clause on non-discrimination in the revision of the Cotonou Agreement;

21.

Reiterates the principle of the universality of human rights and non-discrimination as the basis upon which to enhance legitimate democratic governance and the political dialogue at the JPA;

22.

Encourages the JPA to strengthen the role of its Committee on Political Affairs so as to make the Assembly a genuine forum for a debate within the ACP-EU partnership on respect for human rights, democratisation of society, and conflict prevention and resolution;

23.

Welcomes, further, the JPA Committee on Political Affairs report on global governance, adopted in Luanda, which called for major reforms of the world’s financial institutions;

24.

Notes the intention of the JPA Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade to continue its work on EPAs and on ways of getting out of the crisis;

25.

Highlights the work of the JPA Committee on Social Affairs and the Environment with regard to its report on child labour and its intention to organise analysis and debate in relation to the environment and the social situation in ACP countries;

26.

Welcomes, further, the reports and resolutions on climate change adopted in 2009 which enabled the voice of the JPA to be heard at the Copenhagen Summit;

27.

Welcomes the growing involvement of non-state actors in JPA sessions, as illustrated by the debate resulting in the adoption of the abovementioned Port Moresby Declaration on the current international crisis and by the economic partners’ report on EPAs submitted at the JPA session in Ljubljana;

28.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the ACP Council, the JPA Bureau and the governments and parliaments of the Czech Republic and Angola.

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/19

—

having regard to Articles 67 and 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 10 June 2009 entitled ‘An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen’ (COM(2009)0262), which outlines its priorities in the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) for 2010-2014, together with its evaluation of the Hague Programme and Action Plan (COM(2009)0263) and the associated implementation scoreboard (SEC(2009)0765), as well as to the contributions made by national parliaments, civil society and EU agencies and bodies,

—

having regard to the Council Presidency’s document of 2 December 2009 entitled ‘The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving the citizen’ (17024/09),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Stockholm Programme (1),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Communication of 20 April 2010 on an Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (COM(2010)0171),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on Judicial Training – Stockholm Action Plan (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0252/2010),

A.

whereas AFSJ is a shared competence between the Union and the Member States,

B.

whereas Article 67 TFEU emphasises respect for the different legal systems and traditions and access to justice, which is to be facilitated, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition; whereas this requires mutual trust and, in turn, mutual trust requires a reinforced understanding of the different legal traditions and methods,

C.

whereas, since the Union first obtained competence for justice and home affairs and the subsequent creation of the AFSJ, huge progress has been made in the area of civil justice, building and enlarging on the various private international law conventions concluded intergovernmentally; whereas the Commission is now proposing a very ambitious plan, which responds to a substantial number of the demands that Parliament has made in the recent period,

D.

whereas in the light of this ambitious plan and the huge achievements already made by the EU in this field, it is time to stand back and reflect on what we are doing in the field of civil law with a view primarily to adopting a more strategic and less fragmented approach based on the real needs of citizens and businesses when exercising their rights and freedoms in the single market, and taking account of the difficulties of legislating in an area of shared competence where harmonisation is only infrequently an option and overlapping needs to be avoided, and where there is a consequent need to respect and accommodate radically different legal approaches and constitutional traditions, and also with a view to conceptualising the Union’s approach to this area in order better to understand what we are seeking to accomplish and how best to tackle the problems that have to be confronted, as part of an overall plan; whereas it is essential to focus in the first place on ensuring the functionality of the measures that have already been put in place and consolidating the progress that has already been made,

E.

whereas, if we look back at what has been achieved in the AFSJ, there is first of all harmonisation of the rules of private international law, which has advanced apace; whereas private international law is the means par excellence of achieving mutual recognition of, and respect for, each others’ legal systems, and whereas the existence of public policy clauses is the last-ditch protection of national constitutional requirements,

F.

whereas, next, there is harmonisation or approximation which lends itself to certain areas where standardisation is desirable, if not essential – e.g. in the area of consumer protection – but recourse to which is limited in the AFJS,

G.

whereas drafting a European Contract Law will be one of the most important initiatives for the AFSJ in the coming years and may result in a so-called optional 28th civil law regime as an alternative to the traditional way of harmonising legislation in specific areas,

H.

whereas, lastly, there are the stand-alone instruments and action in the area of procedural law; measures in these areas are the key in many ways to dealing with cross-border disputes, since no matter to what extent substantive law is harmonised, citizens and businesses tend to come up against barriers in the form of national procedural law,

I.

whereas the co-existence of different legal systems within the Union should be seen as a strength which has served as an inspiration for legal systems all over the world; however, divergences between legal systems should not constitute a barrier to the further development of European law; whereas the explicit and conceptual divergence between legal systems is not in itself problematic; whereas, however, it is necessary to address the adverse legal consequences for citizens arising from this divergence; whereas the concept of regulatory emulation, or a ‘bottom up’ approach to convergence, should be applied through the encouragement of economic and intellectual communication between different legal systems; whereas the ability to comprehend and manage the differences between our legal systems can only come from a European judicial culture which needs to be nurtured through the sharing of knowledge and communication, the study of comparative law and a radical shift in the way law is taught in the universities and judges participate in training and professional development, as explained in Parliament’s resolution of 17 June 2010,including additional efforts to overcome linguistic barriers; whereas although this will take time, it is necessary to reflect on it and plan for it now,

J.

whereas, in the meantime, greater dialogue and professional contact should be encouraged and promoted at European level in order to enable changes in teaching and programmes to be determined according to the needs of practitioners, their clients and the market as a whole; whereas the Commission’s forthcoming communication on an Action Plan on European training for all legal professions should take account of the different teaching traditions and methods and also the different needs of practitioners operating in different geographical or practice areas, while fostering the exchange of best practices,

K.

whereas it is vital not to leave practitioners out of account in building a European judicial culture; whereas although it is self-evident that Member States and national professional bodies maintain responsibility for determining the most appropriate training to address the needs of lawyers and their clients in each Member State in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and that the national professional bodies are best placed to identify those needs because they are closer to the practitioners and the market in which they operate, those bodies have a vital role to play at European level; whereas it is essential to involve and draw upon existing structures, particularly the universities and professional organisations; whereas there is a need for a root-and-branch revision of judicial and practitioner training and university syllabuses; whereas it is essential to initiate serious reflection on how the Union may effectively assist this and encourage the competent national authorities to accept ownership of this project,

L.

whereas this is the very stuff of Europe and the challenge of the AFSJ, and should not be seen as contradictory to the development and teaching of a real European legal culture,

M.

whereas the determination in the Preamble to the Lisbon Treaty to ‘lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe’ requires a narrowing of the real and perceived distance between the European Union, its law and its citizens,

N.

whereas Union law must be at the service of citizens, notably in the areas of family law and civil status,

O.

whereas the Commission must make sure that the Stockholm Action Plan truly reflects the needs of individual citizens and business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, for more Europe (in respect of mobility, employment rights, the needs of business, equal opportunities) while promoting legal certainty and access to rapid and efficient justice,

P.

whereas in this context ever-increasing attention must be paid to simplifying the machinery of justice and the judicial system and securing clearer and more accessible procedures bearing in mind the need to save costs, particularly in the present economic climate,

Q.

whereas the emphasis laid on party autonomy in recent EU initiatives on the sensitive issue of family law with transnational implications entails the risk, unless clear restrictions are applied, of opening the door to the unacceptable practice of forum shopping,

1.

Congratulates the Commission on its proposed Action Plan;

2.

Considers nonetheless that the time is ripe for reflection on the future development of the AFSJ, and calls on the Commission to initiate a wide-ranging debate involving all interested parties, including in particular judges and practitioners;

3.

Calls on the Commission to take stock as a matter of urgency, by means of an ex post impact assessment, of the measures which have already been adopted in the field of civil and family law, with a view to appraising their effectiveness and ascertaining to what extent they have proved successful in achieving their aims and satisfying the needs of citizens, business and practitioners; considers that at the same time a survey should be carried out covering in particular national Ministries of Justice, the legal professions, the business community and consumer organisations, in order to ascertain in what areas new measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters are necessary and desirable;

4.

Calls on the Commission to act on its resolution of 17 June 2010 on judicial training, while conferring with Parliament;

5.

Underscores once again the need to use every possible means to nurture a European judicial culture, particularly through legal education and training;

6.

Recommends that the ‘Erasmus-style’ exchange programmes proposed in the Action Plan should be just one of a series of initiatives fostering vertical and horizontal communication between national and European courts; draws attention to the fact that Parliament is to commission a study which will take stock of national training programmes and schools for the judiciary with a view also to identifying best practices in this sector;

7.

Notes that existing national training institutions and networks, as the ‘front line’ of the implementation of Union law in the Member States and having as they do direct contact with national courts and judiciaries and a deep understanding of national legal cultures and needs, should be vehicles for the development of a common European judicial culture;

8.

Considers that a start could be made by creating a regular forum where judges of all levels of seniority in areas of law where cross-border issues frequently arise, such as admiralty, commercial, family and personal injury cases, could hold discussions on a recent area or areas of legal controversy or difficulty, in order to encourage discussion, build contacts, create channels of communication and collaboration and build mutual confidence and understanding; believes that this could be assisted through the active participation of the universities and the participation of practitioners;

9.

Considers that the Commission should support the ongoing effective dialogue and communication that take place between European legal professional bodies at the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE); believes that this could be used as a basis from which to establish further cross-border training initiatives of professional bodies in partnership with other European stakeholders, such as the Academy of European Law (ERA);

10.

Appreciates the Commission’s generous funding of transnational legal training projects in the area of civil justice, but deplores the fact that the funding is very difficult to access and use effectively owing largely to the inflexibility of the current system; notes in addition the problems in recovering expenses incurred during co-financed training programmes and the fact that organising such programmes involves the professional organisation concerned in tying up large amounts of funds for a long period because of the requirements imposed by the Commission; calls therefore for a more flexible and innovative approach on the part of the Commission in order to enable organisations without large cash-flows to apply to operate training schemes;

11.

Observes that the treatment of Union law as a discrete subject in legal and judicial education and training has a marginalising effect; therefore recommends that, in addition, legal educational and training syllabuses should incorporate Union law in every core area as a matter of course; considers that comparative law should become a key element of university syllabuses;

12.

Bearing in mind that education and training is primarily a Member State competence, calls on the Commission to initiate a dialogue with all those responsible for legal education with a view to achieving these aims; recommends also that in the longer term lawyers should be required to have a working knowledge of at least one other Union language; considers that this aim could be fostered immediately through greater funding and encouragement for students to undertake ERASMUS-style schemes as part of their legal studies;

13.

Bearing in mind the Stockholm programme’s ambitious goal of offering European training schemes to half of the judges, prosecutors, judicial staff and other professionals involved in European cooperation before 2014, and its call for the existing training institutions in particular to be used for this purpose, points out that the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts, the European Network of the Councils for the Judiciary, the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions and the Eurojustice network of European Prosecutors-General, court officers and legal practitioners have a huge amount to offer by coordinating and promoting professional training for the judiciary and mutual understanding of other Member States’ legal systems and making it easier to resolve cross-border disputes and problems, and therefore considers that their activities must be facilitated and receive sufficient funding; further considers that this must lead to a fully funded plan for European judicial training drawn up in liaison with the abovementioned judicial networks, while avoiding unnecessary duplication of programmes and structures, and that it should culminate in the creation of a European Judicial Academy composed of the European Judicial Training Network and the Academy of European Law;

14.

Considers that, especially at the stage of the drafting of Union legislation in the field of, in particular, civil and family law, room should be created for national and Union judges to have a say on the purely technical aspects of proposed measures in order to ensure that the future legislation may be implemented and applied with a minimum of difficulty by national judges; takes the view that this could also assist in creating further contacts between judges, thus opening up new channels of communication; positively welcomes input from national judiciaries in the course of legislative procedures;

15.

Considers that the Commission should give priority to tackling the difficulties brought about by divergences in national procedural law (e.g. in limitation periods and the treatment of foreign law by the courts); suggests, in the light of the key importance of this aspect, that the date for the Commission’s report on the functioning of the present EU regime on civil procedural law across borders should be brought forward from 2013 to the end of 2011; urges the Commission to respond to its resolution of 1 February 2007 (3) by presenting a proposal for a common limitation period in cross-border disputes involving personal injuries and fatal accidents as a matter of urgency;

16.

Welcomes the Green Paper of 1 July 2010 on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses and supports the Commission’s ambitious initiative towards a European contract law instrument that can be applied voluntarily by contracting parties (COM(2010)0348);

17.

Emphasises the importance of cross-border justice in resolving cases of fraud and misleading business practices which originate in one Member State and target individuals, NGOs and SMEs in other Member States;

18.

Draws attention to Parliament’s resolution of 10 March 2009 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (4) and urges the Commission to take action to improve cooperation between the Member States’ courts for the purposes of taking evidence and enhancing the efficiency of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, in particular by ensuring that courts and practitioners are better informed about it and that they promote the extensive use of information technology and video-conferencing; considers that there should be a secure system for sending and receiving e-mails and that these matters should be taken up under the European e-Justice strategy;

19.

Welcomes the fact that the Action Plan proposes a legislative initiative for a regulation on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of judgments concerning the transparency of debtors’ assets and a similar regulation concerning the attachment of bank accounts; stresses, however, the complementary nature of both proposals, which should be brought forward as soon as possible;

20.

Considers that such initiatives are of increasing importance in the context of the economic downturn;

21.

Calls on the Commission to move forward with those initiatives as quickly as possible, focusing on the possibility of a self-standing European remedy to disclose and/or freeze assets in cross-border cases;

22.

Stresses that this area has important financial and reputational consequences; this being the case, encourages a preventive recourse to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms;

23.

Believes that the consolidation of legal arrangements by the means set out in this report should certainly lead to the development and strengthening of economic and professional relations, thus contributing to the creation of a real single market;

24.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the more uniform application of EU legislation (in its procedural aspects), with the focus on standardised rules and administrative procedures which should apply in areas of Union competence such as taxation, customs, trade and consumer protection, subject to the limits of the EU Treaties, with a view to the proper functioning of the single market and freedom of competition;

25.

Points out that the Stockholm Programme seeks to create a European area of freedom, security and justice that will guarantee citizens’ fundamental rights, including freedom of enterprise, so as to develop entrepreneurship in all economic sectors;

26.

Strongly supports the Commission in its goal of enacting legislation that reduces business and transaction costs, particularly for SMEs;

27.

Encourages joint initiatives by the Commission and the Member States to support SMEs operating across borders throughout the EU by cutting down red tape in order to achieve a tangible reduction in administrative, financial and regulatory burdens; welcomes the upcoming revision of the Late Payments Directive;

28.

Underlines that the correct functioning of the single market supports the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and contributes to strengthening the European social market economy model; also acknowledges that the establishment of a European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice will strengthen the single market and, in particular, consumer protection;

29.

Stresses that Article 12 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reaffirms – as a provision of general application – that consumer protection should be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities; emphasises the importance of the proposed new Consumer Rights Directive, as well as of the upcoming modernisation of the directive on package travel, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the directive concerning misleading and comparative advertising;

30.

Calls on the Commission to ensure the removal of all barriers to the development of e-commerce most recently identified in the 2010 ‘Digital Agenda’ by both legislative and non-legislative means; urges that a quick solution be found to cross-border trade problems for online consumer purchases, particularly with respect to payments and cross-border deliveries; stresses the need to increase the confidence of consumers and business in cross-border e-commerce, inter alia by stepping up the fight against cyber-crime and counterfeiting; calls for the development of an EU charter of consumers’ rights in the area of online services and e-commerce;

31.

Reiterates its call upon the Commission to ensure that the European Parliament is kept immediately and fully informed of the advancement of ACTA at all stages of the negotiations in order to respect the letter and spirit of the Lisbon Treaty, as well as its request for further reassurance that ACTA will not modify the EU acquis on IPR enforcement and fundamental rights; calls upon the Commission to engage closely with third countries which are not part of ACTA negotiations, in particular emerging countries;

32.

Draws attention to problems linked to the legal uncertainty of commercial exchanges from and to non-EU countries, and to the issue of which jurisdiction is competent for the settlement of a given dispute; notes that while principles of private international law do exist, their implementation raises a number of problems primarily affecting consumers and small businesses, who often lack knowledge of their own rights; underlines, besides, the new legal challenges arising from globalisation and the development of Internet transactions; emphasises the need for a coherent approach to be adopted on an international level to avoid consumers and small businesses being punished for this situation;

33.

Draws the Commission’s attention in the field of company law as it is affected by private international law, to Parliament’s resolutions of 10 March 2009 with recommendations to the Commission on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company (2008/2196(INI), 4 July 2006 on recent developments and prospects in relation to company law, and 25 October 2007 on the European Private Company and the Fourteenth Company Law Directive on the transfer of the company seat, and to the judgments of the Court of Justice in Daily Mail and General Trust, Centros, Überseering, Inspire Art, SEVIC Systems, and Cartesio;

34.

Notes that the dictum in Cartesio to the effect that, in the absence of a uniform Union law definition of the companies which may enjoy the right of establishment on the basis of a single connecting factor determining the national law applicable to a company, the question whether Article 49 TFEU applies to a company which seeks to rely on the fundamental freedom enshrined in that article is a preliminary matter which, as Union law now stands, can only be resolved by the applicable national law; further notes that the developments in the field of company law envisaged in the Treaty, as pursued by means of legislation and agreements, have not as yet addressed the differences between the legislation of the various Member States and, accordingly, have not yet eradicated those differences; observes that this evidences a lacuna in Union law; reiterates its call for this lacuna to be remedied;

35.

Urges the Commission to use its best endeavours at the Hague Conference to revive the project for an international judgments convention; considers that the Commission could make a start with wide-ranging consultations, while informing and involving Parliament, on whether the rules of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (5) should be given reflexive effect in order to incentivise other countries, particularly the United States, to resume negotiations; takes the view that it would be premature and ill-advised to contemplate giving the rules of that regulation reflexive effect until it is sufficiently clear that the attempts to restart the negotiations in the Hague have failed and it appears from the consultations and studies carried out that this move would have positive benefits and advantages for citizens, business and practitioners in the EU;

36.

Calls upon the Commissioner for Justice to ensure that in future Parliament is more closely involved with the activities of the Commission and the Council at the Hague Conference through Parliament’s observer and by means of regular statements to the competent parliamentary committee; in this context reminds the Commission of the institutional commitments expressed by Commissioner Frattini before Parliament in September 2006 that the Commission would cooperate fully with the Parliament in its work with the Hague Conference;

37.

Encourages the Commission to play its full role in the work of the Hague Conference; urges the Commission to take steps to ensure that the EU ratifies the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on the Protection of Children;

38.

Resolves to set up an interparliamentary forum on the work of the Hague Conference; considers, by way of example only, that the promotion by the Hague Conference of party autonomy in contractual relations worldwide has such serious implications from the point of view of the evasion of mandatory rules as to warrant its being debated and reflected upon in democratic fora worldwide;

39.

Observes that the Commission has set up a working group on arbitration; cautions the Commission against adopting any legislative initiative in this area without holding open consultations while involving the European Parliament to the full; calls on the Commission to ensure that a representative of the competent parliamentary committee is invited to take part in all such working groups and considers that, without detracting from the Commission’s right of initiative, the European Parliament should have the right to nominate a member or members of such working groups in order to ensure that they are truly representative;

40.

Stresses the need to ensure mutual recognition of official documents issued by national administrations; welcomes the Commission’s efforts to empower citizens to exercise their free movement rights and strongly supports plans to enable the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents; calls for further efforts to reduce barriers for citizens who exercise their rights of free movement, particularly with regard to access to the social benefits to which they are entitled and their right to vote in municipal elections;

41.

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

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/27

—

having regard to having regard to Articles 207 and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

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

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] negotiations,

—

having regard to its decision of 20 October 2010 on the revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission,

—

having regard to the plenary debate of 20 October 2010 on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,

—

having regard to the 2 October 2010 draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement,

—

having regard to the European Ombudsman’s decision on complaint 90/2009/(JD)OV relating to access to ACTA documents,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003,

—

having regard to the Inter-Institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making between Parliament, the Council and the Commission (2003/C 321/01),

—

having regard to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),

—

having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the fight against counterfeiting represents a key element in the EU political strategy with a view to ensuring justice, a level playing field for our producers, the maintenance of employment for citizens and respect for the rule of law,

B.

whereas, in order to be more effective, the fight against counterfeiting – which is a worldwide phenomenon – requires stronger international cooperation among the major world players,

C.

whereas, despite several attempts to achieve a multilateral approach – which remains the main goal in the EU strategy – this could not be pursued because of resistance and opposition from other global players, and whereas the plurilateral agreement therefore seems to be the best way of addressing specific concerns at an international level,

D.

whereas, as the Commission has repeatedly stated, ACTA is concerned solely with enforcement measures and does not include provisions modifying the substantive intellectual property rights (IPR) law of the EU or the other ACTA parties, but rather establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive international framework to assist the parties in their efforts to combat IPR infringements effectively, and it does not therefore imply any change to the acquis communautaire,

E.

whereas, in many areas, including provisions for the digital sector and the scope of compulsory border measures, ACTA goes beyond the scope of TRIPS and therefore affords right-holders better protection,

F.

whereas, after strong representations by Parliament, the level of transparency of the ACTA negotiations was fundamentally improved and, since the negotiating round in New Zealand, Parliament has been fully informed of the course of the negotiations; and whereas it took cognisance of the negotiated text one week after the conclusion of the last round in Japan,

G.

whereas the negotiated text reflects the main concerns expressed by Parliament over recent months, including on issues such as the observance of fundamental rights, privacy and data protection, respect for the important role of free Internet, the importance of safeguarding the role of service providers, and the need to safeguard access to medicines – a reference to the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted on 14 November 2001, having been incorporated into the preamble to the agreement,

H.

whereas the Commission has repeatedly affirmed the importance of enforcing the protection of geographical indications (GIs); whereas it has been agreed by parties to the agreement that ACTA will provide for the enforcement of GIs,

I.

whereas the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, is obliged to uphold the acquis communautaire when negotiating international agreements affecting legislation in the EU, and whereas the Commission has committed itself to providing immediate and full information to Parliament at every stage of negotiations on international agreements,

J.

whereas it is crucial to ensure that the development of IPR enforcement measures is accomplished in a manner that does not impede innovation or competition, undermine IPR limitations and personal data protection, restrict the free flow of information or unduly burden legitimate trade,

K.

whereas any agreement reached by the EU on ACTA must comply fully with the acquis communautaire, and this relates particularly to legal obligations imposed on the EU with respect to privacy and data protection, notably as provided for in Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice,

L.

whereas, as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, Parliament will have to give consent to the ACTA text prior to the agreement’s entry into force in the EU,

1.

Welcomes the release of the 2 October 2010 draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement following the Tokyo negotiating round and expects the Commission to release to Parliament and the public the finalised ACTA text following the technical negotiation meeting in Sydney from 30 November to 3 December 2010;

2.

Reiterates that combating counterfeiting is a priority in its internal and international political strategy and that international cooperation is a key issue in the attainment of this goal;

3.

Is fully aware that the agreement negotiated will not solve the complex and multi-dimensional problem of counterfeiting; considers, however, that it is a step in the right direction;

4.

Welcomes the Commission’s repeated statements that enforcement of the ACTA provisions – especially those on copyright enforcement procedures in the digital environment – will be fully in line with the acquis communautaire and that neither personal searches nor the so-called ‘three strikes’ procedure will be introduced by this agreement; points out that no ACTA signatory, and particularly not the EU, may be mandated by the agreement to introduce a ‘three strikes’ or similar regime;

5.

Welcomes the fact that the deliberative draft text of 2 October 2010 confirms, in its preamble, ACTA’s aim of providing effective and appropriate means of IPR enforcement, complementing the TRIPS agreement and taking into account differences in the respective legal systems and practices of the ACTA parties; and insists on the fact that the principles set out in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted on 14 November 2001 by the WTO at its Fourth Ministerial Conference, held in Doha, Qatar, are the building blocks underpinning the ACTA deliberative draft text of 2 October 2010 and that, therefore, any enforcement of ACTA should comply with these principles;

6.

Emphasises that ACTA will not change the EU acquis in terms of IPR enforcement, because EU law is already considerably more advanced than the current international standards, and that it therefore represents an opportunity to share best practices and guidelines in this area;

7.

Considers ACTA as a tool for making the existing standards more effective, thus benefiting EU exports and protecting right-holders when they operate in the global market, where they currently suffer systematic and widespread infringement of their copyrights, trademarks, patents, designs and GIs;

8.

Stresses the importance, for European companies and employment in the EU, of protecting GIs; acknowledges the efforts made by the Commission to include the protection of GIs within the scope of ACTA;

9.

Finds it regrettable that, in its Article 1.X, the agreement does not define ‘counterfeit geographical indications’, as this omission could create confusion or at least complicate the tasks of administrative and judicial authorities in the interpretation and enforcement of ACTA;

10.

Welcomes the inclusion of the word ‘may’ in Article 2.14.3 (‘Each party may provide criminal procedures and penalties […]’);

11.

Welcomes the fact that the parties agreed, following EU insistence, that the criminalisation of ‘camcording’ should be merely optional (Articles 2.14.3 and 2.15);

12.

Welcomes the fact that ACTA membership is not exclusive and that additional developing and emerging countries may join, thus promoting widespread IPR protection and enhancing the fight against counterfeiting worldwide; considers that, in the future, ACTA could potentially attain a multilateral level;

13.

Emphasises that any decision taken by the Commission as part of the ACTA Committee must lie within the scope of the acquis and may not unilaterally change the content of ACTA; considers therefore that any proposed change to ACTA would need to be adopted by Parliament and the Council in accordance with Article 207 and 218, TFEU;

14.

Calls on the Commission to confirm that ACTA’s implementation will have no impact on fundamental rights and data protection, on the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures, or on e-commerce;

15.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the states parties to the ACTA negotiations.

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/30

—

having regard to Articles 310 to 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011, which the Commission presented on 27 April 2010 (COM(2010)0300), and to Amending Letters Nos 1, 2 and 3 presented by the Commission on 15 September 2010, 11 October 2010 and 20 October 2010 respectively,

—

having regard to the position on the draft budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011 adopted by the Council on 12 August 2010 (12699/2010 – C7-0202/2010),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2010 on the Council's position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2011– all sections (1),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013 (COM(2010)0072) and the Commission document on a Draft Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on cooperation in budgetary matters (COM(2010)0073), both presented on 3 March 2010,

—

having regard to Draft Amending Budget No 3 to the general budget 2010 (COM(2010)0149) of 8 April 2010 and Draft Amending Budget No 10 to the general budget 2010 (COM(2010)0598) of 20 October 2010,

—

having regard to the proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Mobilisation of the Flexibility Instrument (COM(2010)0150), which the Commission presented on 8 April 2010,

—

having regard to the Council's position on Draft Amending Budget No 3/2010, which the Council established on 13 September 2010 (13472/2010 – C7-0263/2010), and to Parliament's resolution of 20 October 2010 on the Council's position on Draft Amending Budget No 3/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 September 2010 on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013 (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of the European Union's own resources (4),

—

having regard to Rule 78 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the Council’s position on the draft budget has limited payment appropriations to an amount that represents an increase of 2,91 % over the 2010 budget,

B.

whereas Parliament agreed on a ‘seven-point strategy’ aimed at implementing the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, supported by budgetary amendments, while showing its willingness to confirm the level of payments in the context of an overall agreement,

C.

whereas on 15 November 2010 the Parliament-Council Conciliation Committee failed to agree on a joint text for the 2011 budget,

1.

Expresses its readiness to facilitate an agreement on the 2011 budget and related elements within a very tight time frame, provided the conditions set out below are met by the Commission and the Council:

2.

Welcomes the Commission's commitments on European Added Value and the consequences of the Lisbon Treaty for the EU budget, and to a precise time frame for own resources;

3.

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

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/31

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 153, 191, 207 and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 12, 21, 28, 29, 31 and 32 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other United Nations instruments in the field of human rights, in particular the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) and the outcome document of the United Nations Millennium Summit September 20-22, 2010 in New York,

—

having regard to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Declaration adopted at the fourth ministerial conference held in November 2001 in Doha, in particular paragraph 31,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 September 1996 on the Commission communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries(COM(1995)0216) (1) and its resolution of 14 February 2006 on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2001 on openness and democracy in international trade (3) calling for the WTO to respect the fundamental social standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and the EU’s acceptance of the ILO’s decisions, including any calls for sanctions in connection with serious breaches of fundamental social standards,

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2002 on the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on the European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (COM(2001)0252) (4),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘The Social Dimension of Globalisation - the EU’s policy contribution on extending the benefits to all’ (COM(2004)0383),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2005 on the social dimension of globalisation (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2005 on the exploitation of children in developing countries, with a special focus on child labour (6),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 14 June 2010 on child labour (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2006 on fair trade and development (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 May 2007 on ‘Global Europe: external aspects of competitiveness’ (9) in response to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World. A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Promoting decent work for all – the EU contribution to the implementation of the decent work agenda in the world’ (COM(2006)0249),

—

having regard to the 2006 Ministerial Declaration of the UN Economic and Social Council on Full Employment and Decent Work, recognising full and productive employment and decent work for all as a key element of sustainable development,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (10), calling for the promotion of decent work through inclusion of social standards in EU trade agreements, particularly bilateral agreements,

—

having regard to the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and Global Jobs Pact, adopted by a worldwide consensus on 19 June 2009 at the International Labour Conference, and the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation,

—

having regard to the Brussels Convention of 1968, as consolidated by Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (11),

—

having regard to the generalised system of preferences (GSP), in force since 1 January 2006, which grants duty-free access or a tariff reduction for an increased number of products and also includes a new incentive for vulnerable countries faced with specific trade, financial or development needs,

—

having regard to all of the agreements between the European Union and non-member States,

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), and the European Union, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, and its revisions in 2005 and 2010,

—

having regard to its resolutions on economic partnership agreements with ACP regions and countries, and particularly those of 26 September 2002 (12), 23 May 2007 (13) and 12 December 2007 (14),

—

having regard to the international agreements on the environment, such as the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes (1989), the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000) and the Kyoto Protocol (1997),

—

having regard to Chapter 13 of the free trade agreement between the European Union and South Korea, signed in October 2009,

—

having regard to the conclusion of the negotiations between the EU, Colombia and Peru on signature of a Multi-Party Trade Agreement,

—

having regard to the hearing on ‘Application of Social and Environmental Standards in Trade Negotiations’ which Parliament held on 14 January 2010,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0312/2010),

A.

whereas the link between trade, human rights and social and environmental standards has become a key part of economic and trade relations and is integral to negotiations on free trade agreements,

B.

whereas distortions of competition and the risks of environmental and social dumping are becoming more and more frequent, to the detriment in particular of undertakings and workers in Europe who are required to comply with more stringent social, environmental and fiscal standards,

C.

whereas, in its relations with third countries, the EU must adopt a trade strategy that is based on reciprocity, but which must be differentiated in accordance with its partners’ level of development, as regards both its social and environmental demands and trade liberalisation, to create the conditions for just and fair international competition,

D.

whereas bilateral fora have become the main platform for pursuing these political objectives, so much so that the prospects for establishing multilateral rules governing relations between trade, labour or the environment within the WTO framework are not very promising,

E.

whereas, nonetheless, it is essential to try to find a new balance between trade law and fundamental rights and to step up the dialogue between the main international organisations, particularly between the ILO and the WTO, with a view to greater coherence of international policies and better world governance,

F.

whereas there are many reasons for including provisions on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements, from the wish to establish fair and equitable trade and a level playing field to the more prescriptive approach of upholding the universal values supported by the EU and pursuing consistent European policies,

G.

recalls that the 1986 UN Declaration of the Right to Development confirms that ‘the right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social and cultural development’; considers, therefore, that the EU has an obligation not to undermine this right and, indeed, to incorporate it into international agreements and use it as a guideline for European policies,

H.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty reaffirms that the European Union’s external action, of which trade is an integral part, should be guided by the same principles as those which inspired its creation; whereas the European social model, which combines sustainable economic growth with better working and living conditions, can also serve as a model for other partners; whereas trade agreements must also be compatible with other obligations and international agreements which the parties have entered into, in line with their national laws,

I.

whereas it is important to preserve the level of social and environmental standards in force in the European Union, and ensure that they are respected by foreign undertakings operating in the single European market,

J.

whereas including human rights and social and environmental standards in trade agreements can add value to such agreements, allowing more civil society interaction and greater support for political and social stability, thus establishing a climate which is more conducive to trade,

K.

whereas the trade sector and the protection of human rights, social and environmental standards are important aspects in guaranteeing peace and prosperity in the world, but they cannot be called upon as a solution to all the problems which occur between states; whereas, however, that deadlock in political situations can be overcome by strengthening trade relations, thereby ensuring the definition of common interests, notably in the field of environmental protection, as a way to settle conflicts,

L.

whereas other countries have set positive examples for including social standards in trade agreements,

M.

whereas the generalised system of preferences is conditioned in the respect of the principles of international human rights conventions and core labour standards by beneficiary countries, and includes a special scheme of supplementary tariff preferences to promote the ratification and effective implementation of core international conventions on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance; whereas failure to comply with the conditions can lead to the trading arrangement being suspended,

1.

Calls, therefore, for the European Union’s future trade strategy not to envisage trade as an end in itself, but as a tool for the promotion of European values and commercial interests and as an instrument for fair trade that can bring into general practice the effective inclusion and implementation of social and environmental standards with all EU trade partners; considers that the EU should adopt an approach in its negotiations which is positive, yet also legally binding; underlines that including provisions on sustainable development, particularly in bilateral agreements, will benefit all parties;

2.

Recalls that the common commercial policy is an instrument in the service of the European Union’s overall objectives, and that, pursuant to Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU’s common commercial policy must be conducted ‘in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action’, and that, pursuant to Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, it must contribute, in particular, ‘to the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter’;

3.

Encourages greater cooperation at multinational level between the WTO and the main United Nations institutions in the human rights field; considers that closer links with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and with the special procedures would be particularly useful to provide a multilateral trade framework which would enhance respect for human rights; considers, similarly, that the High Commission’s expertise could be taken into account within WTO panels and the appeals body when cases of serious breaches of human rights are observed;

4.

Considers that the Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review should be a useful tool to monitor compliance with human rights provisions in international trade agreements;

5.

Underlines that closer cooperation with the ILO, the body responsible for establishing and negotiating international labour standards and supervising their application in law and in practice, and full participation of the ILO in the work of the WTO, are essential;

6.

Reaffirms that the objectives of maintaining and preserving an open and non-discriminatory multilateral trade system on the one hand, and protecting the environment and promoting sustainable development on the other hand, should be mutually supportive; underlines that, pursuant to Article 20 of the GATT, the Member States may adopt trade measures to protect the environment, subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination; encourages the Member States to make full use of this provision;

7.

Welcomes the existence of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment, which should be an essential forum for pursuing integration and strengthening the link between the environment and trade; expresses the hope that the Committee’s role and its work will develop in order to address in a positive manner the most important trade and environment challenges facing the international community;

8.

Underlines the importance of improving access to green goods and technologies to achieve sustainable development objectives, and encourages all the parties to the negotiations to redouble their efforts to reach a rapid conclusion to the negotiations on reducing or removing tariff and non-tariff barriers for environmental goods and services, in order to promote new forms of employment policies and the creation of jobs meeting ILO decent work standards and growth opportunities for European industries and SMEs;

9.

Underlines the need to make progress in the negotiations on the other points at Article 31 of the Doha Declaration concerning the relationship between existing WTO rules and specific trade obligations set out in multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), and to promote closer cooperation between the MEA secretariats and the WTO committees, a key factor in ensuring that trade and environmental regimes develop coherently;

10.

Considers that a multilateral climate agreement would be the best instrument for internalising negative external environmental factors relating to CO2, but that there is a risk that such an agreement will not be concluded in the near future; takes the view, therefore, that the EU should continue to look into the possibility of putting in place, for those industries that are actually exposed to carbon leakage, appropriate environmental instruments in addition to the auctioning of CO2 quotas under the EU’s emissions trading scheme, in particular a ‘carbon inclusion mechanism’ that complies with WTO rules, as such a mechanism would make it possible to combat the risk of CO2 emissions being transferred to third countries;

11.

Proposes, once the international agreement on the climate has been negotiated and signed, that a genuine World Environmental Organisation be set up to enforce application of the commitments that will have been made, and to ensure compliance with environmental standards; points out that it would, for example, be obligatory to refer cases of environmental dumping to this future organisation;

12.

Firmly supports the practice of including legally binding human rights clauses in the EU’s international agreements, but points out that major challenges persist with regard to monitoring and implementing these clauses; reaffirms that these clauses must also be included in all trade and sectoral agreements, with a clear and precise consultation mechanism modelled on Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement; in this respect welcomes the inclusion of such a clause in the ‘new-generation’ free trade agreements;

13.

Underlines the fact that the same approach of systematic inclusion should also be applied to the chapters on sustainable development in bilateral agreements;

14.

Notes that future trade agreements may be concluded against the background of the current financial crisis; considers that this must not mean neglecting social and environmental standards, particularly on greenhouse gas emissions and hazardous waste management, in order to achieve other goals;

15.

Taking into account the objectives cited above, calls on the Commission to include systematically in all free trade agreements negotiated with non-EU countries a series of social and environmental standards that include:

16.

Stresses that respect for these standards must be understood to include their ratification, their incorporation into national law and their effective implementation throughout the country’s territory;

17.

Demands that all future trade agreements provide for a ban on the exploitation of child labour, in particular in the extraction and processing of natural stone, and include a uniform European certification system which ensures that imported natural stone and natural stone products have been demonstrably produced along the entire value chain without the exploitation of child labour within the meaning of ILO Convention 182;

18.

Underlines that in the context of free trade agreements, conditional liberalisations, including shortening the timetable for abolishing restrictions or access to an additional market, could be envisaged when environmental and social standards are complied with;

19.

Underlines the importance of constant monitoring of implementation of the agreement, with an open and inclusive approach at all phases:

20.

Calls for EU trade agreements effectively to provide for the highest levels of transparency, stringent public procurement standards and country-by-country reporting by businesses in both developed and developing countries, with a view to combating illicit capital flight;

21.

Urges the Union to assert the right of access to natural resources in negotiations of trade agreements and the rights of native and indigenous peoples with regard to access to essential natural resources; calls on the Commission to incorporate the problem of the purchase and ownership of land in third countries, in particular in the least-developed and developing countries, into international trade negotiations and agreements;

22.

Recognises that the chapter on sustainable development in the bilateral agreements currently under negotiation is binding but could be strengthened by providing for:

23.

Underlines the importance of adding accompanying measures to these agreements, including technical assistance measures and cooperation programmes, aiming to improve implementation capacity, in particular of the fundamental conventions in the area of human rights and social and environmental standards;

24.

Considers that the 27 conventions for which ratification and effective implementation are requested so that they can benefit from GSP+ represent a unique mixture of conventions on human rights, labour law, environment and good governance standards; underlines that to date, GSP+ has had a positive and visible impact with regard to ratification of these conventions, but less so with regard to their implementation, and therefore hopes to place more emphasis on accompanying measures to improve implementation capacity; also considers that, to ensure the credibility of GSP+, the Commission must launch investigations if consistent evidence indicates that some countries are not implementing the 27 conventions, and where appropriate withdraw the preferences;

25.

Considers that a closer link could be established between human rights clauses and GSP+ in European Union agreements with non-member states, particularly with regard to monitoring;

26.

Encourages the Commission, during the process of reviewing the GSP system, to ensure that the countries that benefit from it most are those that are most in need, and to simplify the rules of origin so that countries that benefit from the Everything But Arms initiative and the GSP+ system may derive maximum benefit from the preferences granted; calls for the establishment of points of comparison, mechanisms and transparent criteria for granting and withdrawing preferences under this system; also calls for the full participation of the European Parliament throughout this process, particularly with regard to the Council proposal on the lists of beneficiary countries, the launch of investigations and the temporary suspension of GSP+;

27.

Urges the Commission to swiftly table a proposal for a regulation banning the import into the EU of goods produced using modern forms of slavery, forced labour, especially forced labour of particularly vulnerable groups, in violation of basic human rights standards;

28.

Calls on the Commission, in accordance with the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission, to provide Parliament at all times with comprehensive information on all relevant topics during negotiations on international trade agreements;

29.

Calls on the Commission, in the light of Parliament’s extended powers under the Lisbon Treaty, to guarantee the efficient flow of information and to accord Parliament, in the persons of its delegates, observer status, and thus access to all relevant meetings and documents, at all times;

30.

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

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/39

—

having regard to the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2009,

—

having regard to Article 24, third paragraph, and Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 41 and 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (1),

—

having regard to the framework agreement on cooperation concluded between the European Parliament and the Ombudsman on 15 March 2006, which entered into force on 1 April 2006,

—

having regard to the Commission’s communication of 5 October 2005 entitled ‘Empowerment to adopt and transmit communications to the European Ombudsman and authorise civil servants to appear before the European Ombudsman’ (SEC(2005)1227),

—

having regard to Decision 2008/587/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 18 June 2008 amending Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (2),

—

having regard to the revision by the Ombudsman of his implementing provisions in order to reflect the changes to the Statute, which revision came into force on 1 January 2009,

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on the European Ombudsman’s activities,

—

having regard to Rule 205(2), second and third sentences, of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A7-0275/2010),

A.

whereas the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2009 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 19 April 2010 and the Ombudsman, Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 4 May 2010,

B.

whereas Article 24 of the TFEU lays down that ‘every citizen of the Union may apply to the Ombudsman established in accordance with Article 228’,

C.

whereas, under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, ‘every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union’,

D.

whereas Article 43 of the Charter states that ‘any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the Ombudsman of the Union cases of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance acting in their judicial role’,

E.

whereas, since the TFEU entered into force, the common foreign and security policy and the activities of the European Council have fallen within the remit of the Ombudsman,

F.

whereas pursuant to Article 228 of the TFEU the Ombudsman is now ‘elected after each election of the European Parliament for the duration of its term of office’ and no longer ‘appointed’ by the Parliament,

G.

whereas the work of the Ombudsman contributes towards a Union ‘in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’, as provided for in Article 1, second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union,

H.

whereas the Ombudsman registered 3 098 complaints in 2009 compared to 3 406 in 2008, and whereas 727 complaints (23 %) compared to 802 in 2008 were found to be within his mandate,

I.

whereas in 2009 the Ombudsman opened 335 inquiries on the basis of complaints and completed and closed 318 inquiries, 311 of which were based on complaints while seven were own-initiative investigations,

J.

whereas in 179 cases (56 % of the total) closed in 2009, the institution concerned accepted a friendly solution or settled the matter, which shows a strong willingness on the part of the institutions and bodies to see complaints to the Ombudsman as an opportunity to remedy mistakes that have occurred and to cooperate with the Ombudsman for the benefit of citizens,

K.

whereas in 2009 the Ombudsman found maladministration to have been committed in 12 % of cases (37 inquiries), giving rise to critical remarks in 35 cases,

L.

whereas 15 draft recommendations were issued in 2009,

M.

whereas the most common types of alleged maladministration were lack of transparency, including refusal of information (36 % of inquiries), injustice or abuse of power (14 %), avoidable delays (13 %), procedural errors (13 %), negligence (6 %), failure by the Commission to fulfil its duty to act as the guardian of the Treaties (6 %), legal errors (6 %) and discrimination (5 %),

N.

whereas the average time taken to consider complaints fell from 13 months in 2008 to 9 months in 2009, which bears witness to the Ombudsman’s efforts to shorten the average length of his inquiries and the spirit of cooperation of the institutions concerned,

O.

whereas no case of maladministration led to a special report to the European Parliament in 2009,

P.

whereas the critical remarks and recommendations of the Ombudsman are not legally binding but have the aim of encouraging self-monitoring by the institutions and bodies of the European Union and may serve as a basis for avoiding a repetition of errors and malfunctions in future,

Q.

whereas the role of the Ombudsman has evolved since the office was created, thanks to the Ombudsman’s independence and the democratic scrutiny of his activities performed by Parliament and the Committee on Petitions,

R.

whereas it is essential that the European institutions and bodies make full use of the necessary resources in order to fulfil their obligation to ensure that citizens receive prompt and substantive responses to their enquiries, complaints and petitions,

S.

whereas Parliament adopted the Ombudsman’s Code of Good Administrative Behaviour in its resolution of 6 September 2001 (3),

T.

whereas the European Network of Ombudsmen makes it possible to redirect complainants to the ombudsmen or other similar bodies which are expected to provide the assistance most appropriate to their level and to exchange information and good practices,

U.

whereas the work of the Ombudsman and that of the Committee on Petitions are complementary and promote greater effectiveness of their respective work,

1.

Approves the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2009;

2.

Points out that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty increases the democratic legitimacy of the Ombudsman thanks to his election by Parliament and extends his remit to include the common foreign and security policy and the activities of the European Council;

3.

Welcomes the fact that, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is now legally binding, defines the right to good administration as one of the fundamental rights vested in citizens of the Union; calls therefore on the Ombudsman, in his everyday consideration of complaints, to enforce the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

4.

Considers that transparency, access to information and respect for the right to good administration are vital preconditions for maintaining citizens’ confidence in the institutions’ ability to assert their rights;

5.

Considers, therefore, that the term ‘maladministration’ should continue to be broadly interpreted so as to include not only infringements of legal rules or general principles of European administrative law, such as objectivity, proportionality and equality, non-discrimination and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, but also instances where an institution fails to act consistently and in good faith, or to take into account the legitimate expectations of citizens, including when an institution has itself undertaken to respect certain norms and standards without being obliged to do so by the Treaties or secondary legislation;

6.

Congratulates the Ombudsman on the clear and comprehensive presentation of his work; suggests, nonetheless, that in future reports the summary of activities and thematic analysis should place greater emphasis on structural problems and general trends;

7.

Considers that the Ombudsman has exercised his powers in an active and balanced way during the reporting period, both with regard to examining and handling complaints and conducting and concluding inquiries and with regard to maintaining constructive relations with the European Union’s institutions and bodies and encouraging citizens to avail themselves of their rights in relation to those institutions and bodies;

8.

Welcomes the excellent relationship between the Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions within the institutional framework as regards reciprocal respect for their competences; favours the continuation of the practice already established by the Ombudsman of sending a representative to each meeting of the Committee on Petitions;

9.

Recognises the vital contribution made by the European Network of Ombudsmen, represented by 94 offices in 32 countries, of which the Committee on Petitions is a member, in line with the principle of subsidiarity; welcomes the collaboration between the European Ombudsman and ombudsmen and similar bodies at national, regional and local levels in the Member States;

10.

Notes that the Ombudsman registered 3 098 complaints in 2009 and that 318 inquiries were completed and concluded during that year;

11.

Welcomes the large number of procedures concluded by an amicable resolution or by the institution concerned (56 %), which bears witness to the constructive cooperation which exists between the Ombudsman and the institutions and bodies of the Union; encourages the Ombudsman and the institutions and bodies of the Union to continue to apply this approach;

12.

Welcomes the Ombudsman’s endeavours which resulted in his shortening the average length of his inquiries to nine months; calls for all EU institutions and bodies to be given the necessary budgetary and human resources to ensure that rapid action is taken in response to complaints and petitions;

13.

Notes that more than a third of the inquiries opened by the Ombudsman in 2009 concerned a lack of transparency; calls therefore for the current revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 not to restrict the existing right of access to information and documents but to adopt a more proactive approach;

14.

Welcomes the progress made in 2009 as regards facilitating the Ombudsman’s access to confidential Council documents;

15.

Notes the communication and website development strategy, which, according to the Ombudsman, has helped to cut the number of inadmissible complaints, and encourages the Ombudsman to continue his efforts to inform Europe’s citizens about his role and the limits to his powers and about their rights;

16.

Endorses the Ombudsman’s opinion that, in addition to respect for the binding rules which apply to administrators, it is essential to develop a genuine tradition of service to the public in order to ensure good administration; calls on the Ombudsman, therefore, more often to take the initiative to promote such a tradition of service on the part of the European institutions and citizens;

17.

Deplores the number of complaints concerning avoidable delays in registering requests, handling cases and taking decisions; proposes that the revision of the Financial Regulation should include provision for financial compensation in the event of manifest and prolonged delays;

18.

Notes that the Ombudsman has completed an own-initiative inquiry into the rules which the Commission applies to applications by members of the public for access to documents concerning infringement proceedings; favours increased cooperation with the Committee on Petitions and suggests that the Ombudsman keep that Committee regularly informed about the own-initiative inquiries which he is conducting and the results thereof; calls on the Commission to adopt a more open and proactive attitude towards information about infringement proceedings;

19.

Considers that the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour proposed by the Ombudsman and approved by Parliament in its resolution of 6 September 2001 serves as a guide and resource for the staff of all Community institutions and bodies; welcomes the fact that the Code of Good Behaviour has been approved by the European Economic and Social Committee; welcomes the fact, also, that a Memorandum of Understanding has been concluded with the European Investment Bank concerning the handling of complaints; calls on the Ombudsman to consider revising the Code of Good Behaviour on the basis of the experience gained in the past 10 years and in that way to promote and exchange good practices;

20.

Regrets that complaints about the inadequate application by a Member State of EU law received by national ombudsmen are not recorded by the European Ombudsman; suggests that the European Ombudsman consider pooling them in order to facilitate better understanding of the problem;

21.

Calls on the Ombudsman to encourage national ombudsmen to hold regular exchanges of views with their national parliaments, modelled on those which have been established between the European Ombudsman and Parliament;

22.

Calls on the Commission to draft a European administrative law common to all the bodies, institutions and agencies of the Union;

23.

Draws the attention of the Ombudsman to the new procedure for selection of staff by EPSO and suggests monitoring its application and analysing the developments observed;

24.

Supports the idea of an intranet portal common to all members of the European Network of Ombudsmen in order to disseminate results regularly;

25.

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

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/43

—

having regard to the Special Report from the European Ombudsman to the European Parliament submitted on 24 February 2010,

—

having regard to Article 228(1), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 195 TEC),

—

having regard to Articles 41(1), 42, and 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (1), as last amended by Decision 2008/587/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 18 June 2008 (2),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (3),

—

having regard to Rule 205(2), first sentence, of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A7-0293/2010),

A.

whereas Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union empowers the European Ombudsman to receive complaints from any citizen of the Union concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of the Union institutions or bodies,

B.

whereas complaints submitted by EU citizens constitute an important source of information on possible infringements of EU law,

C.

whereas, according to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, ‘Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union’,

D.

whereas, on 1 March 2007, a non-governmental organisation acting in the field of environmental protection asked the Commission for access to information and documents held by the Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry and the former Vice-President of the Commission responsible for Enterprise and Industry, relating to meetings between the Commission and representatives of car manufacturers at which the issue of the Commission’s approach to carbon dioxide emissions from cars had been discussed,

E.

whereas the Commission granted access to 15 out of 18 letters sent to then-Commissioner Günter Verheugen, but refused access to three letters sent by the German car manufacturer Porsche on the grounds that their disclosure would undermine protection of the company’s commercial interests,

F.

whereas Article 1(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (4) provides that the aim of this regulation is to ensure the widest possible access to documents held by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission, and whereas, according to the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, any exceptions to this principle must be interpreted strictly,

G.

whereas the Commission refused to grant the complainant access to the relevant letters from Porsche AG on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, which provides that ‘the institutions shall refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property …’,

H.

whereas the letters in question were sent by Porsche AG in the context of the Commission’s consultation of key stakeholders concerning the review of the Community strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from passenger cars, whereas it was consequently likely that the three letters contained information on Porsche AG’s business relations, and whereas the Commission could therefore have regarded them as falling within the scope of the exception laid down in Article 4(2), first paragraph, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,

I.

whereas the Ombudsman’s services inspected the three letters from Porsche AG as well as an exchange of e-mails between the Commission and Porsche in which the Commission informed Porsche that it intended not to disclose the three letters, and whereas the Ombudsman, on the basis of the inspection, concluded that the Commission had wrongly refused full access to the letters from Porsche AG under Article 4(2), first paragraph, and partial access under Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (5), and whereas this was an instance of maladministration,

J.

whereas, on 27 October 2008, the Ombudsman made a draft recommendation to the Commission setting out the details of his factual and legal analysis, in which he stated that the Commission should grant access to the three letters sent by Porsche AG to the former Vice-President, Günter Verheugen, in their entirety or consider partially disclosing them,

K.

whereas the Ombudsman, on the basis of Article 195 EC (now Article 228 TFEU), asked the Commission to give a detailed opinion within three months, that is, by 31 January 2009,

L.

whereas the Commission did not give its opinion within the three-month deadline provided for in Article 228 TFEU, but instead requested six extensions of the deadline for submitting its detailed opinion on the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation, and whereas, in July and again in September 2009, the Ombudsman informed the Commission Secretariat of his intention to present a Special Report to Parliament if he did not receive an answer to his draft recommendation,

M.

whereas the new Commission, once it had had taken office, did indeed grant access to the letters, but whereas this occurred more than 15 months after the draft recommendation had been issued rather than the three months stipulated in the Ombudsman’s Statute and in Article 228 TFEU,

N.

whereas the Commission, by delaying its reply to the draft recommendation for 15 months, breached its obligation to cooperate with the Ombudsman sincerely and in good faith during his inquiry into case 676/2008/RT, and whereas this is detrimental not only to interinstitutional dialogue, but also to the EU’s public image,

O.

whereas the Ombudsman has identified delays by the Commission in a further case involving access to documents (355/2007(TN)FOR), in which the Commission should have submitted its detailed opinion to the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation by 31 October 2009, but has still not done so to date,

P.

whereas the Commission met the original deadlines for replying to complaints in only four of the 22 cases involving access to documents dealt with by the Ombudsman in 2009; whereas in 14 of these 22 cases it submitted its reply more than 30 days late, and in six cases it submitted its reply at least 80 days late,

Q.

whereas Parliament’s responsibility as the EU’s sole elected body is to safeguard and protect the independence of the European Ombudsman in the conduct of his duties towards EU citizens and to monitor the implementation of his recommendations,

1.

Endorses the European Ombudsman’s critical remarks and his recommendation to the Commission in relation to complaint 676/2008/RT;

2.

Recognises that the excessive delays in responding to the Ombudsman in this case constitute a breach of the Commission’s duty of sincere cooperation as envisaged in the Treaty;

3.

Is very concerned at the general practice of delay and obstruction by the Commission in respect of the Ombudsman’s inquiries in cases involving access to documents;

4.

Recalls that, in the context of the consultations provided for in Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Commission must establish a deadline for the third-party author of a document to reply, and underlines that the Commission should exercise this power in a way that enables it to abide by its own deadlines (6);

5.

Recalls the relevant case-law concerning the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU), according to which the Union institutions have a duty to cooperate in good faith in their relations with each other, and notes that this obligation is clearly stipulated in the new Article 13(2) TEU;

6.

Considers that the Commission’s uncooperative attitude in this and other cases risks eroding citizens’ trust in the Commission and undermining the ability of the European Ombudsman and the European Parliament to adequately and effectively supervise the Commission, and that it as such, runs counter to the very principle of the rule of law upon which the European Union is founded;

7.

Demands that the Commission give an undertaking to the European Parliament that it will fulfil its duty of sincere cooperation with the European Ombudsman in future;

8.

Considers that in the case that the Commission fails to give such an undertaking and/or persists in its uncooperative practices towards the Ombudsman, Parliament may sanction the Commission, and that such sanctions may include inter alia placing a portion of the Commission’s budget for administrative expenditure into reserve;

9.

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

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/46

—

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

—

having regard to the 25th Annual Report from the Commission on Monitoring the application of Community law (2007) (COM(2008)0777),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working documents SEC(2009)1683, SEC(2009)1684, SEC(2009)1685 and SEC(2010)0182,

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 February 2008 on the Commission’s 23rd Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2005) (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2008 on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system (2),

—

having regard to Rule 119(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0291/2010),

1.

Regrets that the Commission has not responded to the issues raised by Parliament in its previous resolutions, in particular the aforementioned resolution of 21 February 2008; notes the lack of improvement with regard to transparency, particularly with reference to the ‘EU Pilot’ project and the issue of human resources;

2.

Notes that through EU Pilot the Commission is aiming to increase ‘commitment, co-operation and partnership between the Commission and Member States’ (3) and is considering, in close cooperation with national administrations, how to deal with the application of European Union law; considers that this initiative responds to the new need for cooperation between all Institutions of the European Union in the interests of a well functioning, citizen-focused Union following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty; underlines the obligation on the Commission laid down in Article 17 TEU to ‘ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them’;

3.

Notes that on the one hand citizens are portrayed as having an essential role in ensuring compliance with EU law on the ground (4), whilst on the other – in EU Pilot – they are even further excluded from any subsequent procedure; considers that this is not in line with the Treaties’ solemn declarations that ‘decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen’ (Article 1 TEU), that ‘the Union institutions … shall conduct their work as openly as possible’ (Article 15 TFEU) and that ‘[I]n all its activities, the Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal attention from its institutions’ (Article 9 TEU);

4.

Notes that in order to make the EU Pilot operational, the Commission has created a ‘confidential on-line database’ (5) for communication between Commission services and Member State authorities; calls on the Commission to give Parliament meaningful access to that database in order to enable it to perform its role of scrutiny of the Commission’s discharge of its role as guardian of the Treaties;

5.

Highlights that the active role of the citizens of the European Union is clearly stated in the Treaty on European Union, particularly with reference to the European Citizens’ Initiative; considers that the possibility for citizens to set the legislative agenda is also directly connected with their current essential role in ensuring the correct application of, and compliance with, European Union law and the transparency and reliability of the related procedures;

6.

Notes that in the Commission’s summary of monitoring the application of Community law, more emphasis is placed on transposition than on actual application. Calls on the Commission to properly acknowledge the role of petitions in monitoring the actual application of Community law; petitions are very often first indicators that, beyond transposition, the Member States are lagging behind in implementing legal measures;

7.

Is of the opinion that, in their present form, the Commission’s annual reports ‘on monitoring the application of European Union law’ do not give citizens or the other institutions sufficient information about the true state of application of EU law, as the Commission only makes reference to formal proceedings being opened against Member States that have not transposed EU law into their national legal systems; considers however that it would also be very much in the interest of citizens and Parliament to be informed when the Commission opens infringements for the incorrect or bad transposition of EU law, with details of those infringements also being supplied;

8.

Wishes to ensure that the Commission continues to produce detailed data on all types of infringement, and that the entirety of this data is made freely available to Parliament to enable it to perform its role of scrutiny of the Commission’s discharge of its role as guardian of the Treaties; points out that the collation and categorisation of such data should be consistent with previous annual reports in order to assist Parliament in making meaningful assessments of the progress being made by the Commission, regardless of whether the infringement has been processed via the EU Pilot or the original infringement procedure;

9.

Notes that delays in correctly applying, transposing and enforcing European Union law directly affect the daily lives of citizens and businesses and the enjoyment of their rights, resulting in legal uncertainty and preventing them from enjoying the full benefits of the internal market; highlights the high costs deriving from non-compliance with, and non-application of, EU law and the consequent lack of trust in the European Institutions;

10.

Deplores the fact that some Member States underestimate the value of the correct and timely application of EU law; urges them to give suitable priority to transposition and application, in order to avoid delays;

11.

Calls on the Commission to propose a ‘procedural code’ in the form of a regulation under the new legal basis of Article 298 TFEU, setting out the various aspects of the infringement procedure, including notifications, time-limits, the right to be heard, the obligation to state reasons, etc., in order to enforce citizens’ rights and transparency; reminds the Commission that its 2002 Communication represents an important point of reference for the drafting of such a ‘procedural code’;

12.

Recalls that its Legal Affairs Committee recently launched a Working Group on EU administrative law with the aim of examining whether a codification of EU administrative law is possible and what such a project would involve in practice; considers that the conclusions of this Working Group should be taken into account when discussing a European administrative code;

13.

Recalls that its Legal Affairs Committee recently unanimously adopted a letter in support of a petitioner’s views calling for a standard administrative procedure for supervising and enforcing EU law which, while respecting the Commission’s discretion as to when and against whom to instigate proceedings, would restrict that discretion to within the boundaries of good administration practice (6);

14.

Recalls that the Commission has a primary role as the guardian of the Treaties in ensuring the correct and timely application of European Union law by the Member States; encourages the Commission to use all the competences granted to her by the Treaties, especially the new provisions of Article 260 TFEU concerning Member States’ failure of notification of transposition measures of directives;

15.

Recalls the Parliament’s resolution of 9 February 2010 on a revised Framework Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission (7) in which it calls on the Commission ‘to make available to Parliament summary information about all infringement procedures based on the letter of formal notice, including, if so requested by Parliament, … on the issues concerned by the infringement procedure’ (8);

16.

Takes the view that EU citizens should expect the same level of transparency from the Commission whether they are making a formal complaint or exercising their right of petition under the Treaty; asks, therefore, for its Committee on Petitions to be provided with clear information on the stages reached in infringement procedures also covered by an open petition. Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to clarify the circuits for dealing with enquiries and complaints for the benefit of the Committee on Petitions and the public at large;

17.

Endorses the measures planned by the Commission for 2009 and beyond to ensure compliance by Member States with European legislation and asks to be associated in the infringement procedures in cases where petitions are pending, such as in the cases of Campania on the subject of waste legislation and Spain on the subject of water management legislation.

18.

Calls on the Commission to supply Parliament with relevant data to enable an analysis to be made of the added value EU Pilot brings to the existing process of managing infringement files, which would justify extending the project further; considers that this data should, for example, allow Parliament to check whether the 10 weeks granted to a Member State to find a solution to a concrete case have not further delayed the initiation of an infringement procedure, the duration of which is already extremely lengthy and indeterminate;

19.

Notes with particular interest the Commission’s commitment to deliver systematically an evaluation of the reply to a complaint provided by a Member State; calls on the Commission to provide such an evaluation with the greatest attention and after prompt analysis of the dossier; calls for a clarification of the role of complainant in the evaluation process;

20.

Asks the Commission to allocate sufficient resources to be able to monitor fully the implementation of EU law, initiate own cases and develop priorities for stronger and systematic actions; calls on the Commission to provide Parliament, as has been repeatedly requested, with clear and exhaustive data on the resources earmarked for processing infringement cases in the various Directorates-General and on those allocated to the EU Pilot project; reminds the Commission that Parliament committed itself to supporting the Commission via increased budget appropriations for increased resources;

21.

Asks the Commission to consider innovative mechanisms, such as the mutual evaluation procedure envisaged in the Services Directive, to ensure more effective application of EU law;

22.

Welcomes the nascent one-stop shop for citizens seeking advice or recourse or making complaints through ‘Your Europe’ (9). With the addition of the widely publicised Citizens’ Initiative (Art 11(4) TEU) to the list of instruments for citizens’ participation, the need for explanation and guidance has increased exponentially. The European Parliament would like to be involved in the development of this website in order to ensure coherence with its own plans for providing better guidance for citizens;

23.

Recalls the Council’s pledge to encourage Member States to draw up and publish tables illustrating the correlation between directives and national transposition measures; stresses that such tables are essential in order for the Commission to be able to monitor implementation measures in all Member States effectively;

24.

Urges that Parliament’s role in the areas of the application, enforcement and monitoring of single market rules be strengthened; supports the idea of an annual Single Market Forum;

25.

Stresses the key role of the Internal Market Scoreboard and the Consumer Market Scoreboard in the context of the more effective use of monitoring and benchmarking instruments, which constitute an important indirect disciplinary mechanism; calls on the Commission and Member States to provide adequate financing and staffing so as to ensure that the Consumer Market Scoreboard can be further developed;

26.

Notes that the national courts play a vital role in applying European Union law and fully supports the EU’s efforts to enhance and coordinate judicial training for national judges, legal professionals, officials and civil servants in the national administrations;

27.

Is of the opinion that when the Commission starts an infringement procedure against a Member State, it should also issue a communication stating that the act which infringed EU legislation can be challenged by the citizens affected in the Member State in question before their national courts;

28.

Recalls its resolution of 17 June 2010 on judicial training in civil and commercial matters; takes the view that it is of fundamental importance that judicial training be enhanced, inter alia in the context of the Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme;

29.

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

3.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/50

—

having regard to Articles 14 and 106(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Protocol No 29, annexed to the TEU, on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States,

—

having regard to Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 September 1996 on the role of public service television in a multi-media society (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 September 2008 on concentration and pluralism in the media in the European Union (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2008 on media literacy in a digital world (4),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2009 on the application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting (5),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document on media pluralism in the Member States of the European Union (SEC(2007)0032),

—

having regard to Recommendation No R (96) 10 of 11 September 1996 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting,

—

having regard to the resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 25 January 1999 concerning public service broadcasting (6),

—

having regard to Recommendation No CM/Rec(2007)2 of 31 January 2007 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on media pluralism and diversity of media content,

—

having regard to Recommendation No CM/Rec(2007)3 of 31 January 2007 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on the remit of public service media in the information society,

—

having regard to Recommendation No 1878 (2009) of 25 June 2009 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the funding of public service broadcasting,

—

having regard to the declaration of 27 September 2006 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting in the member states,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A7-0286/2010),

A.

whereas, in a democratic European society, participation of citizens in public debate and access to information in the digital world depend on a vibrant and competitive audiovisual and written press sector,

B.

whereas broadcast media are among the most important sources of information available to citizens in EU Member States, and as such are an important factor in shaping people’s values and opinions,

C.

whereas both public service and private-sector broadcasting have a crucial role to play with regard to European audiovisual production, cultural diversity and identity, information, pluralism, social cohesion, the promotion of fundamental freedoms and the functioning of democracy,

D.

whereas public service broadcasters have a pioneering role in stimulating and utilising technological developments in order to offer their content to the public via innovative media and distribution techniques,

E.

whereas the EU audiovisual landscape is unique, and is characterised by what has been described as the ‘dual system’, based on a true balance between public service and commercial broadcasters,

F.

whereas an effective dual system with a genuine balance between public service and private-sector broadcasters, is in the general interest,

G.

whereas the coexistence of public service and commercial broadcasters has ensured a diverse range of freely accessible programming, which benefits all EU citizens and contributes to media pluralism, cultural and linguistic diversity, editorial competition (in terms of content quality and diversity) and freedom of expression,

H.

whereas the EU attaches special importance to the role of the dual system in contributing to the production and dissemination of EU content,

I.

whereas changes in the audiovisual landscape in recent years, with the development of digital technologies, proprietary pay platforms and new online media actors, have had an impact on the traditional dual broadcasting system and on editorial competition (in terms of content quality and diversity), making it necessary for public service and private broadcasters to diversify their operations and consider new distribution platforms,

J.

whereas the spread of new technologies has changed the way European citizens gain access to the media and to information,

K.

whereas traditional boundaries in the media sector can no longer be upheld in the online environment, since traditional media cannot survive without expanding into new platforms (such as SMS services, web pages and applications for smartphones), in line with the objectives of the EU’s Digital Agenda,

L.

whereas newspapers and magazines are, and should continue to be, essential components in a pluralistic and diverse European media landscape,

M.

whereas telecom providers, internet service providers and search engines are playing an ever-increasing role in the new media environment,

N.

whereas in the digital era – which is characterised by increased consumer choice, but also by a risk of audience fragmentation, increasing media concentration, the rise of vertically integrated media companies, a shift towards pay services and encryption – public service broadcasting does and should help to maintain a public sphere, providing high quality, socially valuable programming and objective information,

O.

whereas in certain Member States public service broadcasting is not yet sufficiently socially embedded and does not have adequate resources at its disposal,

P.

whereas public broadcasters in some Member States are confronted with major problems that jeopardise their political independence, their viability and even their financial basis, posing a direct threat to the very existence of the dual system,

Q.

whereas commercial television has recently faced economic hardship as a result of the advertising recession,

R.

whereas it lies within the exclusive competence of the Member States to define the public service remit and to provide for the funding of their public service broadcasters, in accordance with the principles of the Amsterdam Protocol,

S.

whereas public service media need sufficient public funding, participation in relevant new technologies and platforms and a stable and foreseeable regulatory environment in order to be able to fulfil their remit in terms of offering a high standard of cultural and news content, and as such explicitly to develop media literacy for the benefit of the public,

T.

whereas public service broadcasting can be improved through exchanges of experience and best practice between the Member States,

U.

whereas respect for European standards relating to freedom of expression, media pluralism and the independence, remit and funding of public service media should be a priority for all the Member States,

V.

whereas the EU does not currently have the appropriate instruments at its disposal to monitor, and react to, threats to public service media and the dual system in Member States or specific regions of the EU,

1.

Reaffirms its commitment to the dual broadcasting system, in which private and public service media play their respective roles, independent of political and economic pressure, and calls for access to broadcasting of the highest level to be ensured irrespective of consumers’ and users’ ability to pay;

2.

Underlines, in particular, the fundamental role of a genuinely balanced European dual system in promoting democracy, social cohesion and integration and freedom of expression, with an emphasis on preserving and promoting media pluralism, media literacy, cultural and linguistic diversity and compliance with European standards relating to press freedom;

3.

Notes that the coexistence of public service and private media has greatly contributed to innovation and diversification in terms of content and has had a positive impact on quality;

4.

Reiterates the need to maintain strong and vibrant independent public service broadcasting, whilst adapting it to the requirements of the digital age, and calls for specific measures to be taken to attain this objective;

5.

Highlights, in this context, the fact that in the digital era public service broadcasting has a specific mission to cultivate a public sphere by making high-quality media content of public interest universally accessible on all relevant platforms;

6.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that there are sufficient resources to enable public service broadcasters to take advantage of the new digital technologies and to secure the benefits of modern audiovisual services for the general public;

7.

Calls, in this regard, for public service broadcasters to be structured in such a way as to offer attractive, quality online content in order to reach young people who access the media almost exclusively via the internet;

8.

Calls on the Member States to address the digital divide – for example between urban and rural areas – and to ensure that, with digitisation, all individuals in all regions have equal access to public service broadcasting;

9.

Urges the Member States to consider the possibility of making it easier for consumers to switch from analogue to digital television;

10.

Urges the Member States to define the remits of public service broadcasters so that they can retain their distinctiveness through a commitment to original audiovisual production and high-quality programming and journalism regardless of commercial considerations or political influence, which is precisely what marks them out as distinctive; notes that these remits should be defined as precisely as possible, but with due regard for the broadcasters’ programming autonomy;

11.

Recalls that, according to the principle of technological neutrality, public service broadcasters, within the remit assigned to them, must have the opportunity to offer their services, including new services, on all platforms;

12.

Emphasises that the lack in some Member States of legal provisions relating to public service broadcasting activities on the internet could affect the sector’s ability to expand into new platforms;

13.

Recalls that terrestrial broadcasting platforms based on open, interoperable standards play a central role in the dual broadcasting system and are ideal for providing users with free, easily accessible audiovisual media services, which can better cope with the fragmentation of local markets and thereby address local cultural and social expectations;

14.

Acknowledges the Commission’s broadcasting communication of July 2009, which recognises the right of public service broadcasters to be present on all relevant distribution platforms and reaffirms the competence of the Member States to define the remit, funding and organisation of public service broadcasting while acknowledging the Commission’s responsibility to check for manifest errors, and calls on the Member States to maintain a balance amongst the digital media services on offer, to ensure fair competition between public service broadcasting and private media and thus to preserve a vibrant media landscape in the online environment;

15.

Welcomes the recognition of the principle of technological neutrality and of the need to respect the editorial independence of public service broadcasters, taking due account of their need for stable and secure funding;

16.

Points, however, to the enormous costs of (existing) ex ante tests, and stresses its support for proportionate evaluations;

17.

Recalls the importance of the Council of Europe’s recommendations and declarations, which have been agreed upon by all the EU Member States and lay down European standards relating to freedom of expression, press freedom, media pluralism and the independence, organisation, remit and funding of public service media, particularly in the information society, thereby safeguarding the credibility of public service broadcasting;

18.

Reminds the Member States of their commitment to these European standards, and recommends that they provide appropriate, proportionate and stable funding for public service media so as to enable them to fulfil their remit, guarantee political and economic independence and contribute to an inclusive information and knowledge society with representative, high quality media available to all;

19.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to exchange best practice at different levels (national media authorities, stakeholders, management of public service broadcasters, independent regulators and representatives of viewers and consumers);

20.

Calls on the Member States to intensify the cooperation between national media regulators within the European Platform of Regulatory Authorities (EPRA) and step up the exchange of experience and best practice in relation to their respective national broadcasting systems;

21.

Reminds the Member States that members of public service broadcasters’ boards should be appointed on the basis of their competence and acquaintance with the media sector;

22.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to give the European Audiovisual Observatory a mandate, coupled with the necessary resources, to gather data and carry out research on the way in which the Member States have applied these standards, in order to examine whether the standards have achieved the desired effect, and urges that Member States be held accountable for failing to fulfil these commitments;

23.

Calls on the Commission to give higher priority to the dual system as a part of the EU acquis in the context of accession negotiations, and urges that the progress made by candidate countries in this respect be monitored;

24.

Calls further on Member States adequately to address the issue of underfunding of public service broadcasters; bearing in mind particularly the specific remit of the public media to be accessible to the greatest possible number of viewers and listeners on all the new media platforms;

25.

Notes that transparent ownership of private broadcasters has to be guaranteed in all Member States, and calls on the Commission to monitor and support progress to this end;

26.

Calls on the Member States to end political interference regarding the content of services offered by public service broadcasters;

27.

Welcomes the conclusions of the independent study, conducted at the Commission’s request, on defining indicators to measure the pluralism of EU media;

28.

Encourages the implementation of the Media Pluralism Monitor, which is an effective tool for diagnosing threats to media pluralism;

29.

Recalls the financial instruments offered by the EIB, and encourages public service broadcasters facing financial difficulties to apply for a soft loan from the EIB for the renewal of their infrastructure, particularly in connection with digitisation and innovation;

30.

Encourages the various stakeholders to intensify their cooperation with a view to safeguarding the dual system and, in particular, encourages public service and private broadcasters to cooperate with one another and with publishers in relation to content-sharing and innovative projects and to find ways of working together;

31.

Calls on the Commission to launch an initiative bringing together different media actors in order to help identify possible areas of cooperation, facilitate exchanges of best practice and address relevant issues;

32.

Points out, in this context, that community broadcasters, especially in smaller communities, have problems with long-term financing (e.g. from advertising) and that there is potential here for using the new options made available by digitisation in order to set up regional-level community broadcasting covering a wide area;

33.

Encourages the Commission to adapt copyright to the new digital era, allowing broadcasters to continue to provide a wide range of qualitative European content, and to consider specific ways of facilitating the re-use of archive content and putting in place extended collective licensing systems and easy, one-stop-shop systems for the clearance of rights;

34.

Looks forward to the implementation report on the provisions of the AVMS directive regarding the broadcasting time allocated to European programmes, given that certain Member States have failed to take any action in this respect;

35.