15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/1

—

having regard to the Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments (MiFID) (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2003/6/EC on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (2),

—

having regard to the G20 declarations of 2 April 2009 in London, of 25 September 2009 in Pittsburgh and of 26 and 27 June 2010 in Toronto,

—

having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID Review – Equity Markets (Ref.: CESR/10-394),

—

having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID review –Transaction Reporting (Ref.: CESR/10-292),

—

having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID review – Investor Protection and Intermediaries (Ref.: CESR/10-417),

—

having regard to the CESR call for evidence on micro-structural issues of the European equity markets (Ref.: CESR/10-142),

—

having regard to the Report to the French Minister of Economy, Industry and Employment on the revision of the MiFID from February 2010,

—

having regard to the IOSCO consultation report on ‘Policies on direct electronic access’ of February 2009,

—

having regard to the CPSS and IOSCO recommendations for central counterparties of November 2004,

—

having regard to the concept release of the Securities and Exchanges Commission on Equity Market Structure (No. 34-61358; File No. S7-02-10),

—

having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID review and responses to the European Commission request for additional information (Ref: CESR/10-802, Ref: CESR/10-799, Ref: CESR/10-808, Ref: CESR/10-859, Ref: CESR/10-860),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0326/2010),

A.

whereas the G20 set out that no financial institution, no financial product and no territory should remain outside the scope of intelligent regulation and effective supervision and agreed that all standardised OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate,

B.

whereas the lack of transparency and the accompanying opacity of risk patterns in the financial system was an aggravating factor in the financial crisis, facilitating the spread of general distrust and thereby contributing to drastically reduced liquidity flows,

C.

whereas consumer protection, transparency, particularly as regards the price formation process, efficient and liquid markets and competition on a level playing field were the key objectives when MiFID came into force, but have not yet been achieved and must therefore remain a priority; whereas, following the financial crisis, limiting systemic risk must also be prioritised in the review of MiFID,

D.

whereas changes to MiFID should always take into account its importance in governing capital flows into the real economy and therefore the potential impact on jobs, investments and pensions,

E.

whereas up to 40 % of trading volume is still carried out OTC; whereas market participants should be encouraged to transact more on organised trading venues,

F.

whereas the inclusion in the MIFID of waivers to pre-trade transparency requirements and the establishment of MTF and dark pools were intended to facilitate a shift towards more regulated and transparent venues,

G.

whereas MiFID defines OTC trading as having the characteristics of being ad hoc and irregular, carried out with wholesale counterparties, and being part of a business relationship which is itself characterised by dealings above standard market size and where the deals are carried out outside the systems usually used by the firm concerned for its business as a systematic internaliser,

H.

whereas despite the provision in MiFID of waivers to allow dark trading on organised markets, the establishment of MTFs and Systematic Internalisers (SIs) and the definition of OTC trades as being irregular and ad hoc, OTC trades not carried out on an SI basis continue to account for a high proportion of equities trading at 38 % of all reported trades according to CESR/10-394, and whereas this proportion has not declined since the implementation of MiFID; whereas tighter and more effective enforcement of MiFID rules and waivers should therefore be ensured,

I.

whereas market fragmentation in equities trading has had an undesired impact upon liquidity and market efficiency owing to a decrease in transparency based on an increase in dark pools and crossing networks, the effect of an increased number of venues both in the on-exchange and off-exchange space, and increasingly technology-driven trading, and has decreased average transaction size from EUR 22 266 in 2006 to EUR 9 923 in 2009, increasing the total cost of transactions for some users,

J.

whereas the decrease in transaction size has led to a reduction in the capacity of market participants to instantly execute large orders on a particular market and the desire to prevent market impact for large orders has encouraged the expansion of dark-pool trading; whereas less than 10 % of all trading in EEA equities shares on organised markets use the MiFID pre-trade transparency waivers (CESR/10-394), whereas these MiFID waivers allows for dark-pool trading as a more transparent and better regulated alternative to dark trading in the OTC space but whereas the absence of sufficient regulation for OTC transactions, including Broker Crossing Networks, provides a competitive advantage to the OTC space and encourages an increase in trading in the dark, undermining market transparency in general; whereas in total around half of trades are currently not covered by pre-trade transparency requirements, but half of OTC transactions are below market size and therefore do not require protection against market impact,

K.

whereas, to ensure a level playing field, broker crossing networks (BCNs) should be subject to an in-depth investigation of their business models, to ensure that where they provide services which mean they are essentially functioning as regulated markets (RMs), multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) or as Systematic Internalisers they are regulated as such,

L.

whereas the benefits of competition in terms of more competitive and innovative trading infrastructure has not been proved, as the total transaction costs have not been reduced, and opacity has increased, while at the same time it is clear that quality and integrity for all participants in a more fragmented market are not properly guaranteed,

M.

whereas given that HFT claims to provide liquidity to financial markets it would be useful to determine whether there are risks associated with electronic order systems and the significant share of trading volumes attributable to HFT strategies, estimated at 70 % in the US, particularly in view of the conclusions of the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the US ‘flash crash’ on 6 May 2010 when HFT liquidity providers exited the market,

N.

whereas HFT strategies are a relatively new phenomenon in Europe and are now estimated to make up 35 % of the market by volume,

O.

whereas greater transparency via pre- and post-trade reporting of trading activity across all asset classes should be established in order to provide improved early warning of the build-up and scale of developing problems, as well as to improve the efficiency of the price formation process and foster trust between market actors,

P.

whereas the G20 decisions of 24 and 25 September 2009 in Pittsburgh stated that ‘all standardised OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms’,

Q.

whereas divergence of implementation between Member States has led to an incomplete application of the MiFID framework,

1.

Recognises that market infrastructures have been resilient throughout the crisis and calls upon the Commission to nonetheless strengthen market infrastructures across all trading venues and clearing systems to enable them to cope with future risk through enhanced transparency, improved resilience and regulatory oversight of all aggregated trades;

2.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a Regulation on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories as a necessary prerequisite for increasing transparency and safety within the markets in financial instruments and regards it as the first step towards shifting the significant proportions of OTC trade to trade venues subject to MIFID regulation;

3.

Suggests that, in the interests of equitable treatment, MTFs should be subject to the same level of supervision as, and therefore regulated in a comparable way to, competition between MTFs and that RMs should happen on a level playing field, while noting the important role of MTFs for market entry;

4.

Asks for ESMA to conduct an investigation into the functioning and purpose of the Systematic Internaliser (SI) regime and the bringing forward of improvements to the way in which this category is regulated in order to ensure that this regime is used for execution of orders on a bilateral basis with the financial counterparty;

5.

Demands that investment firms which provide a portfolio management service and act in a portfolio management capacity must be provided with best execution by the investment firms with whom they place orders, notwithstanding the fact that the portfolio manager is categorised by MiFID as an eligible counterparty;

6.

Calls for ESMA to conduct a review of whether order-by-order best execution needs to be better served by regulation in relation to the availability of data, both post-trade and in relation to execution quality, and in relation to market technology, such as order routers and venue connections;

7.

Calls for thorough enforcement of the provisions in MIFID in order to ensure that BCNs that are carrying out activities equivalent to an RM, MTF or SI are regulated as such, and, in order to facilitate this enforcement, insists that all BCNs should be required to submit to the competent authorities all necessary information including:

8.

Asks for an investigation into OTC trading of equities and calls for improvements to the way in which OTC trading is regulated with a view to ensuring that the use of RMs and MTFs in the execution of orders on a multilateral basis and of SIs in the execution of orders on a bilateral basis increases, and that the proportion of equities trading carried out OTC declines substantially;

9.

Asks for an investigation by the Commission into the effects of setting a minimum order size for all dark transactions, and whether it could be rigorously enforced so as to maintain adequate flow of trade through the lit venues in the interests of price discovery;

10.

Calls on the Commission to conduct a review of the existing MiFID pre-trade transparency waivers to:

11.

Asks for a uniform application of pre-trade waivers across Member States to limit implementing differences that can lead to uncertainty, regulatory arbitrage and an uneven playing field; suggests that technical standards defined by ESMA could be an appropriate way of achieving this, in keeping with the concept of a single rule book for financial services;

12.

Welcomes the recent announcement by market participants that they will be unbundling their pre- and post-trade data, and calls for further efforts towards common data standards and better availability of data;

13.

Calls on the Commission to establish a working group to overcome the difficulties preventing the consolidation of market data in Europe and particularly the poor quality of reporting data across all transactions;

14.

Calls upon ESMA to draw up common reporting standards and formats for the reporting of all post-trade data, both on organised trading venues and OTC, to aid in data consolidation;

15.

Asks that all reporting venues be required to unbundle post-trade data from pre-trade data so information can be made available to all market participants at a commercially reasonable and comparable cost; further, asks the Commission to consider the introduction of Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) in order to introduce quality standards for trade publication and reduce the number of venues that trades can be reported to, as well as the use of internet pages, which are an obstacle to consolidation;

16.

Calls for a reduction in the time limit for deferred publication so transactions are reported to the regulators within twenty-four hours of taking place; takes the view, with regard to publication of transactions, that in ordinary circumstances delays of more than one minute should be considered unacceptable;

17.

Deems that it is essential to analyse the breakdown and business models of OTC trading, and therefore calls for the introduction of specific flags in pre- and post-trade transparency for OTC trades with a view to further understanding the characteristics of such OTC trades and assessing which types of transaction can legitimately be done OTC owing to their specific characteristics;

18.

Insists that post-‘flash crash’, all trading platforms must be able to demonstrate to national supervisors that their technology and surveillance systems are able to withstand the kind of barrage of orders experienced on 6 May 2010 so as to ensure that they could successfully deal with the activity associated with HFT and algorithmic trading in extreme circumstances and show that they are able to re-create their order books by end of day so that causes of unusual market activity can be pinpointed and any suspected market abuse identified;

19.

Calls on ESMA to conduct an examination of the costs and benefits of algorithmic and high-frequency trading (HFT) on markets and its impact upon other market users, particularly institutional investors, to determine whether the significant market flow generated automatically is providing real liquidity to the market and what effect this has on overall price discovery, as well as the potential for abuses by manipulation of the market leading to an uneven playing field between market participants, and its impact on overall market stability;

20.

Calls for the practice of ‘layering’ or ‘quote stuffing’ to be explicitly defined as market abuse;

21.

Calls for an investigation into whether to regulate firms that pursue HFT strategies in order to ensure that they have robust systems and controls with ongoing regulatory reviews of the algorithms they use, the capacity for intra-day monitoring and interrogation about real-time outstanding positions and leverage, and the ability to demonstrate that they have strong management procedures in place for abnormal events;

22.

Calls for an examination of HFT’s challenges in terms of market monitoring; recognises the need for regulators to have the appropriate means to detect and monitor potential abusive behaviour; with this in mind, calls for the reporting to the competent authorities of all orders received by regulated markets and MTFs, as well as of trades done on these platforms;

23.

Calls for all trading venues allowing co-location of servers, whether directly or through third-party data providers, to ensure that equal access for all co-located clients is maintained and where possible under the same infrastructure latency arrangements in order to comply with non-discriminatory practice outlined in MiFID;

24.

Calls upon regulators to monitor and regulate the provision of sponsored access and upon the Commission to consider additional measures including:

25.

Calls, notwithstanding the necessary application of safeguards, for ESMA to further investigate whether sponsored access crosses the threshold of non-discriminatory access;

26.

Calls on the Commission to adopt the principles being developed by the Technical Committee of IOSCO on direct electronic access, including sponsored access, which will cover the criteria for selecting clients who can be given sponsored access and the contractual relationship between the platform, the member and the client and will outline their respective responsibilities regarding their use with suitable controls and filters;

27.

Takes the view that, in order to comply with the principle that all investors should be treated equally, the practice of flash orders should be explicitly ruled out;

28.

Calls for an investigation by ESMA into fee structures to ensure that execution fees, ancillary fees, investment firms’ commission fees, and any other related incentives are transparent, non-discriminatory and consistent with reliable price formation and are designed and implemented so as not to encourage trading for improper purposes and to assess whether a minimal charge should be paid by users posting orders, whether these orders are executed or not, as these orders need to be processed by the market infrastructure;

29.

Suggests ESMA conduct a study of the maker/taker fee model to determine whether any recipient of the more favourable ‘maker’ fee structure should also be subject to formal market maker obligations and supervision;

30.

Asks for ESMA supervision and definition by implementing acts of robust volatility interrupts and circuit breakers which operate simultaneously across all EU trading venues in order to prevent a US-style ‘flash crash’ event;

31.

Requests that no unregulated market participant be able to gain direct or unfiltered sponsored access to formal trading venues and that significant market participants trading on their own account be required to register with the regulator and allow their trading activities to be subject to an appropriate level of supervision and scrutiny for stability purposes;

32.

Calls for proprietary trading activities conducted via algorithmic trading strategies by unregulated entities to be transacted solely through a regulated financial counterparty;

33.

Calls for the extension of the scope of the MiFID transparency regime to all ‘equity-like’ instruments including depository receipts (DRs), exchange traded funds (ETFs), exchange traded commodities (EDCs) and certificates;

34.

Asks the Commission and ESMA to consider introducing a transparency requirement, pre- and post-trade, on all non-equity financial instruments, including government and corporate bond markets and CCP eligible derivatives, to be applied in a manner that differentiates across asset classes where appropriate and at the same time combines with measures that bring about further standardisation of OTC derivative products in order to enable greater application of transparency;

35.

Takes the view, taking into account the issues that have been experienced in relation to data quality and consolidation of post-trade data for European equities, that the Commission should ensure that post-trade data for non-equity products are provided in a form which is readily consolidated;

36.

Supports the Commission’s intention to apply a wider range of MiFID provisions to derivative instruments, as the trading of such products moves increasingly to organised trading venues and is subject to increasing standardisation and central clearing requirements;

37.

Calls for a proposal from the Commission to ensure that all OTC derivative contracts that can be standardised are traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, in order to ensure that the price of such contracts is formed in a transparent, fair and efficient manner, free from conflict of interest;

38.

Requests a review of the IOSCO standards for clearing houses, securities settlement systems and systemically important payment systems with a view to improve further market transparency;

39.

Believes that it is necessary for regulators across the different physical and financial commodities markets to have access to the same data in order to identify trends and cross linkages, and calls on the Commission to coordinate efforts both within the EU and globally;

40.

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

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/8

—

having regard to Article 3 TEU and Articles 2(5), 67, 74, 196 and 222 TFEU,

—

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

—

having regard to the Programme of the Council and the Commission of 20 December 2002 to improve cooperation in the European Union for preventing and limiting the consequences of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorist threats (2002 CBRN Programme) (1),

—

having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA (3),

—

having regard to the 2003 EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Means of Delivery,

—

having regard to the 2003 European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in a Better World, as adopted by the European Council held in Brussels on 12 December 2003, as well as the 2010 EU Internal Security Strategy (4) and the Commission Comunication on it (COM(2010)0673),

—

having regard to the 2004 EU Solidarity Programme on the consequences of terrorist threats and attacks (5),

—

having regard to the 2005 EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy, as adopted by the Brussels European Council on 1 December 2005 (6), and the implementing Action Plan (7),

—

having regard to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 (8) as adopted by the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held from 18 to 22 January 2005 in Japan,

—

having regard to the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (9), in particular its funding of the CBRN Emap project (10),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument (11),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast) (12),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (13),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (14), specifically in the case of actions with a cross-border impact, which, inter alia, lays down guidelines for an integrated approach to increasing capabilities for critical infrastructure protection at EU level, including the need for a Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN), and confers on the Commission a role of drawing up proposals and providing coordination in connection with the improvement of the protection of such critical infrastructures,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Strengthening Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Security in the European Union - an EU CBRN Action Plan (COM(2009)0273),

—

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 (15),

—

having regard to the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (16),

—

having regard to the Communication on the EU Counter-Terrorism Policy: Main achievements and future challenges (COM(2010)0386),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (COM(2010)0171),

—

having regard to its past resolutions on CBRN topics and disaster prevention and response, and in that regard to its recent resolution of 10 February 2010 on the earthquake in Haiti (17), which calls for the establishment of a European civil protection force,

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 September 2010 on the Commission communication: A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters (18),

—

having regard to the revised Council Presidency proposal of 25 October 2010 for draft Council conclusions on preparedness and response in the event of a CBRN attack, drawn up on the basis of the objectives set out in Action H.29, improving emergency planning, of the EU CBRN Action Plan (19), as adopted by the Council on 8 November 2010,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (COM(2010)0600),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0349/2010),

A.

whereas the EU can point to a long-term involvement in CBRN programmes, starting with the conclusions of the Ghent European Council of 19 October 2001 and of the Laeken European Council of 13-14 December 2001; whereas a CBRN Programme was adopted in 2002, and then replaced by the EU Solidarity Programme in 2004, and whereas a new EU CBRN Action Plan was adopted by the Council on 12 November 2009,

B.

whereas CBRN disasters, whether accidental or resulting from a terrorist attack, pose serious threats to the security and health of the people living in the EU, affecting their lives, the environment and assets, including their cultural heritage and the functioning of society in one or several EU Member States, by disrupting critical infrastructures and governance capabilities,

C.

whereas both the Council and the Commission agree that the number of incidents involving CBRN material, including acts of terrorism, has so far been relatively small, and whereas the majority of the disasters involving CBRN substances have been due to industrial accidents or to the increase in, and worldwide spread of, dangerous pathogens,

D.

whereas the existing and continuous risk of CBRN disasters on European Union territory, whether accidental or intentional, severely compromises the full enjoyment of all fundamental rights and freedoms, and is in contradiction with the promise to create and the development of a European area of freedom, security and justice,

E.

whereas one of the greatest CBRN risks stem from proliferation of CBRN material by terrorist organisations, and whereas, therefore, an important measure concerns the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime and disarmament through the universal and full implementation of all relevant treaties and international agreements (namely the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention) and achieving agreement on a treaty on banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty),

F.

whereas the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons and explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons and instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons for illegal purposes is part of the EU definition of terrorism and training for terrorism as referred to in Council Framework Decisions 2002/475/JHA and 2008/919/JHA,

G.

whereas measures regarding CBRN material are one of the cornerstones of the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy, and whereas, consequently, an EU CBRN Action Plan was approved by the Council on 30 November 2009,

H.

whereas the problem of the misuse of certain chemicals, which are widely available to the general public on the market, as precursors to home-made explosives, may give rise to a series of terrorist and other criminal incidents in the EU; whereas this calls for strong monitoring and scrutiny of the implementation of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing and use of explosive precursors (COM(2010)0473),

I.

whereas following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty a new balance of responsibilities between the various EU institutions, on one hand, and the EU and its Member States, including defence expertise, on the other, is being established; whereas the building of such a new framework is a continuous process demanding an understanding of shared values and a common goal,

J.

whereas in principle the Member States are responsible for CBRN policy, but whereas close cooperation and coordination at EU level is nevertheless a necessity,

K.

whereas the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) offers opportunities to improve the EU's overall crisis response through actions under the Instrument for Stability (IfS),

L.

whereas an EU CBRN Action Plan should make for the efficient interaction of national and EU initiatives in addressing CBRN risks and in preparing the necessary responses, enhancing both ‘horizontal’ coordination between the Commission and Member States and ‘vertical’ coordination between the EU-level instruments and Member States’ instruments, in order to increase the effectiveness and speed of information sharing, the exchange of best practices, analytical reporting at all stages, joint planning, the development of operational procedures, operational exercises and the cost-effective pooling of existing resources,

M.

whereas several EU criminal law-enforcement agencies are involved in CBRN measures, for example Europol, through the establishment of a European Bomb Database and the Early Warning System for explosives and CBRN material; whereas this calls for the establishment of proper procedures for the exercise of scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments, as envisaged, for example, by Article 88 TFEU,

N.

whereas health risks and the related prevalence of dangerous pathogens are increasingly occurring within the EU and globally, as has been demonstrated by the recent A/H1N1 outbreak,

O.

whereas environmental pollution and contamination issues, including those of a cross-border nature, can be raised by CBRN incidents, making it necessary to include recovery and decontamination strategies in the EU CBRN policy,

P.

whereas the overall goal of the new EU CBRN policy is ‘to reduce the threat and damage from CBRN incidents to the citizens of the European Union’, and whereas this is to be achieved by ‘minimising the likelihood of CBRN incidents occurring and limiting their consequences should they materialise’,

Q.

whereas the Commission, in its Communication on the EU’s Role in Global Health (20), recognises the need to coordinate measures at EU level and globally in order to respond rapidly to health threats and commits itself to improving preparedness and response mechanisms to epidemics or outbreaks, including deliberate acts, such as bioterrorism,

R.

whereas, compared to nuclear technology and its precursors, biological materials, such as anthrax, are cheaper and much easier to acquire and spread, providing possibilities for unconventional terrorist attacks posing dire long-term threats to health and the environment, including agriculture and the food supply,

S.

whereas first responders, including police, fire and ambulance services, are unable to assist victims at the site of a CBRN incident without risk to personal safety unless they have received pre-exposure protection in the form of medical countermeasures and adequate training,

T.

whereas regional stockpiles of medical countermeasures provide adequate protection for citizens by balancing public health protection and economic concerns, while also ensuring Member State responsibility and solidarity,

U.

whereas the World Health Organisation, with its Global Alert and Response (21) programme, seeks to strengthen bio-safety, bio-security and readiness for outbreaks of dangerous and emerging pathogens,

V.

whereas the EU is an active participant, through its Member States and the Commission, in the discussions of the Global Health Security Initiative aimed at achieving concerted global action to strengthen public health preparedness and provide a response to the threat of international biological, chemical and radio-nuclear terrorism,

W.

whereas the threat to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear safety arises not only from terrorist attacks or negligence, but also from the current areas polluted with chemical weapons from the Second World War that were dumped on the seabed or on nuclear waste sites in the EU,

X.

whereas the appropriate level of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear safety in the EU also depends on the security level applied in third countries,

Y.

whereas new threats to security could arise from the use of new technologies in planning new acts of terrorism, while security standards are not being adapted fast enough to technological progress,

Z.

whereas a thorough review of the various standards currently applicable is needed in order to set necessary and sufficient security requirements,

AA.

whereas the EU CBRN Action Plan is divided into three main parts: Prevention, Detection, and Preparedness and Response, and includes a fourth chapter on ‘Actions applicable to CBRN prevention, detection and response’; and whereas recognising the importance of each of the stages is crucial to ensure proper implementation of risk-assessment studies, responses and countermeasures, while adopting a cross-cutting and cross-border approach to dealing with CBRN materials, i.e. through the proper allocation of measurable goals and actions at each stage,

AB.

whereas the changes made by the Council to the current EU CBRN Action Plan proposed by the Commission make the Action Plan weaker, making the commitment on the part of Member States non-binding and watering down the measures provided for, many of which are kept at national level instead of being given an EU-wide scope, as well as weakening the monitoring and scrutiny of their implementation by the Commission, sometimes even failing to include the Commission as an ‘involved actor’ along with the Member States,

1.

Notes that the EU CBRN Action Plan straddles the new division of competences between the Member States and the EU following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, as envisaged in Article 5 TEU in connection with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality; points out that the EU CBRN Action Plan covers the area of shared internal competences (Article 4 TFEU) regarding the area of freedom, security and justice, common safety concerns, and transport; civil protection measures (Article 196 TFEU); as well as external actions of the Union (Articles 21 and 22 TEU);

2.

Points out, however, that the implementation of the common CBRN security system should not reduce the competence of the Member States in this policy area;

3.

Considers that the action plan will play a key role in ensuring the smooth interaction of national and European initiatives in addressing CBRN risks;

4.

Acknowledges that it is crucial to leverage the competent expertise and avoid duplication, fragmentation and inconsistency in the EU institutions’ and/or the Member States’ efforts in the security and defence areas where the fundamental right to life is at risk and where the implications of carelessness and laxity know no borders;

5.

Stresses that the EU should strengthen its common approach to CBRN prevention, detection and response through the creation of specific mechanisms (regulatory, legislative or non-legislative instruments) which make cooperation and the provision of means of assistance compulsory in the event of a CBRN disaster caused by an accident or terrorist attack; recalls that the main objective of the EU institutions should be to ensure the efficiency of a national or transnational response to a CBRN accident or terrorist attack, on the basis of EU solidarity, in a coordinated manner under the auspices of the Commission and with a pan-European outreach;

6.

Recalls that an EU CBRN Action Plan offers an opportunity to enable the EU and its Member States to find the legislative means to effectively implement the Solidarity Clause included in Article 222 TFEU, and that Member States must be informed of each others’ plans and best practices to deal with and counter CBRN disasters, whether caused accidentally or intentionally, so that they can come to each others’ assistance in a coordinated and effective manner;

7.

Stresses that it is essential to strengthen the scope for normative and regulatory intervention by the Commission, which in the present version of the EU CBRN Action Plan is afforded a somewhat vague role in connection with many of the goals and actions provided for; consequently, urges that the Commission should issue legislative proposals, as far as possible, in all areas covered by the Action Plan; and stresses that only if a robust regulatory role is entrusted to the Commission can gaps in the efforts developed by each Member State be filled;

8.

Urges that the commitment of the Member States to CBRN control must go further than the simple sharing of best practices and information, and that technologies and infrastructures should also be pooled/shared, so as to avoid duplication and waste of resources, in order to create valuable and cost-effective synergies at EU level; calls on the Member States to agree on methods for the detection and prevention of CBRN disasters, the transferral of CBRN materials within the EU and response measures, including sharing of CBRN-related information and cross-border assistance;

9.

Encourages, therefore, the most advanced Member States in the field of internal security, despite its vulnerable and quintessentially national nature, to share their information, technologies and infrastructures and launch joint strategic projects as referred to above; calls on the Commission and Council to create and regularly update a database of the medical countermeasures that are available in the Member States to respond to CBRN incidents, to encourage the sharing of existing capacities and to coordinate a cost-efficient policy for the acquisition of such countermeasures;

10.

Calls for EU quality and security standards, as well as an EU system and network of laboratories for the certification of CBRN security equipment and technologies, to be developed; underlines that strict security standards and hiring procedures also need to apply to personnel employed at facilities with access to harmful agents; calls for the sharing and use of best knowledge and expertise from both the civil and military fields; again under the leadership of the Commission, stresses that the necessary research and development funding should be provided to ensure that applied research and major demonstration programmes with an EU dimension are carried out, and, given the fragmentation of this market, that an EU industrial policy in the field of civil security is needed, stimulating cooperation between enterprises in the EU and with specific support for small and medium-sized enterprises/small and medium-sized industries (SMEs/SMIs), which create a significant share of innovation under the FP7/Security, which should be increased, and that efforts should be made to stimulate cooperation (particularly cross-border cooperation) between European enterprises; wishes to see the emergence of a comprehensive project management capability to manage all aspects of CBRN security projects, covering the entire life cycle of the CBRN threat (prevention, detection and response); calls on the Commission to propose a strategy for developing the biodefence industry in Europe;

11.

Welcomes the fact that CBRN protection is being addressed as a topic under the established European Framework Cooperation (EFC) for Security and Defence Research between the Commission, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Defence Agency (EDA); stresses that complementarity, coordination and synergy between defence R&T investment and research investment for civilian security by the Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme would require genuine improvements in the relevant legal conditions governing the exchange of information within the EFC and between activities at national and EU level, as provided for by Council Decision 2006/971/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the Specific Programme Cooperation implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) (22); calls for the development of applied research with a European dimension concerning the safety of installations, in order to protect local communities and the environment, and for the launching of major demonstration programmes; encourages the creation of centres of expertise specialising in CBRN threats and mobility for researchers;

12.

Insists on the implementation of suitable safeguards and security measures when dealing with pooled databases of Member States and sensitive research data, as such a focus on security of data will encourage greater cooperation and sharing of information amongst Member State authorities and bodies;

13.

Stresses the importance of enhanced preparedness, and calls for regular mapping of national capabilities and assets, as well as joint exercises among Member States;

14.

Calls for the urgent establishment of a European crisis-response mechanism, based in the Commission's services, which should coordinate civilian and military means so as to ensure that the EU has a rapid-response capability to deal with a CBRN disaster; and reiterates its call for the establishment of a European civil protection force based on the existing EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which will enable the Union to bring together the resources necessary for providing emergency assistance, including humanitarian aid, within 24 hours of a CBRN disaster inside or outside EU territory; stresses that suitable bridges and partnerships should also be built between bodies such as Europol, Interpol and law-enforcement authorities in the Member States with a view to creating an appropriate and effective network for proactive anticipation/real-time monitoring of emergencies and operational engagement/coordination to deal with CBRN-related disasters, and stresses the need to report to the Commission as well; recalls the 2006 Barnier report entitled ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe aid’ (23) which Parliament strongly supported, and welcomes in that regard the new willingness by the Commission to create a European Emergency Response Capacity, as stated in the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (COM(2010)0600);

15.

Calls for dual-use civil-military technologies to be exploited as a source of synergies; within well-defined strategic collaboration frameworks, encourages cooperation with the EDA, NATO countries, such as the United States and Canada, and third countries which are pioneers in the field of CBRN security, through the exchange of good practices, structured dialogues between experts and joint capacity development; stresses the importance of the EU Member States’ carrying out joint exercises in preventing and tackling CBRN security incidents, with the participation of the Member States’ armed forces and civil protection forces and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism;

16.

Notes that the existing EU Civil Protection Mechanism, as defined in Council Decision 2007/779/EC, is currently the appropriate instrument to deal with CBRN disasters, and stresses that this structure should be the forum where emergency decisions concerning CBRN disaster preparedness and response should be taken; notes, however, that in order to achieve this goal and to ensure proper prevention and detection, cooperation must be established with civil protection bodies, with the intelligence and law-enforcement authorities, as well as with security-service, military information and response centres in each of the Member States and at EU level, such as the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen); recalls, further, the role of the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI), which is tasked with facilitating, promoting and strengthening operational cooperation among the relevant national authorities of the Member States in the field of internal security;

17.

Recalls that the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) has been placed within the new External Action Service, and that its personnel come mainly from the Member States’ intelligence and police services; stresses that its role is of the utmost importance in supporting national crisis management centres;

18.

Calls on the Member States to coordinate their efforts, under the supervision of the Commission, in order to enhance the interoperability of equipment, capabilities and technologies in the field of civil protection so as to efficiently put into practice the new solidarity clause in the event of a CRBN disaster;

19.

Stresses that the strengthening of the EU’s civil protection capacity must include besides the exploration of dual-use technologies, infrastructures and capabilities, as well the strategic cooperation with the EDA, as referred to above, the ESA, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and other international CBRN centres or programmes of excellence;

20.

Urges the Member States to appoint or create a national authority which, in the event of a CBRN attack or disaster, would be tasked with the responsibility of acting as the main coordinator of all the national and local bodies involved, and of all the counter measures taken to respond to such an event;

21.

Endorses the assessment that CBRN attacks are a serious threat to the security of people living in the EU; therefore supports all measures which offer greater protection against CBRN attacks;

22.

Emphasises that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with full respect for international human rights law and European fundamental rights law, principles and values, including the principle of the rule of law; recalls the need to respect the principles of the Aarhus Convention on public access to information, participation and judicial review in matters relating to the environment;

23.

Recalls that preventing terrorist access to CBRN materials is a key priority under both the current 2005 EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the future one, as well as under the 2003 EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Means of Delivery; requests, therefore, that the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator report regularly to Parliament, through the appropriate and relevant EU agencies and experts, on the level of any potential CBRN risks or threats within the Union or against EU citizens and interests elsewhere; insists that further clarification is needed of the appropriate roles of the various EU and national bodies involved in the fight against terrorism; acknowledges, in that connection, the coordination role of the COSI and the SitCen; calls for Parliament, as the only directly democratically elected body in the EU, and in the framework of its prerogatives, to guarantee democratic oversight of both these bodies and, thus, be kept promptly and fully informed about their activities, in a way that maintains their secure functioning;

24.

Urges the EU institutions to maintain democratic scrutiny of and transparency regarding the development and implementation of all parts of the EU CBRN Action plan, respecting the public's right to access to all information and relevant documentation that concerns public security and the everyday risks associated with CBRN disasters;

25.

Calls for the mainstreaming of the measures provided for in the CBRN Action Plan in all the EU’s external relations instruments for economic cooperation and political dialogue with third countries (including in the EU’s non-proliferation clauses); urges the Commission and Council, in their political and economic dialogue with third countries, to use all available means (including Common Foreign and Security Policy and external relations instruments) to promote standards for the detection and prevention, including information sharing, and response to CBRN incidents in third countries, as outlined in the Action Plan;

26.

Stresses the close link and mirror effect between security inside and security outside the European Union; welcomes, in this regard, the actions taken by CBRN regional centres of excellence in flashpoints outside the European Union with the aim of encouraging expertise networks, improving the capacity to control exports and prevent illegal trafficking in CBRN substances, and strengthening the regulatory arsenal available to these countries and regional cooperation in this field; encourages the idea of providing training in Europe for international experts from countries at risk in respecting the necessary security and confidentiality rules;

27.

Urges the EU institutions and Member States to resist pressure from industry and other interested stakeholders seeking to escape the burden of more regulation, as is to be expected (and as emerges clearly from a comparison between the Commission and the Council versions of the EU CBRN Action Plan); considers that industry concerns about the quality and impact of the proposed regulatory measures should be taken into consideration, without losing sight of what is at stake, namely the rights to life, liberty and security of all people in Europe and their societies; stresses the priority of ensuring supervision and protection of CBRN materials throughout the EU and the efficiency of the EU response to a disaster, be it accidental or intentional and the importance of working towards the elimination of such threats;

28.

Calls on the Member States to participate fully in the implementation phases of the EU CBRN Action Plan, cooperating in this respect with the EU bodies that are translating the goals and actions of the Action Plan into concrete steps, so that CBRN security is guaranteed in each of EU Member States;

29.

Calls on the Commission to act as the main facilitator and monitor in connection with the establishment and regular updating of EU lists on CBRN agents, whereby the Commission should be the one to decide on a reasonable timeframe; insists that the lists should also include possible preventive and response measures for each CBRN agent, in accordance with its level of dangerousness and potential for malicious use and vulnerability;

30.

Takes the view that the EU CBRN Action Plan must set risk-based higher standards where security assessment criteria for high-risk CBRN facilities are concerned, and stresses the role and responsibility of national authorities to carry out regular checks of these facilities since the development of ‘criteria’, as stated in the current Action Plan amended and adopted by the Council, is in itself simply not enough and sets an astonishingly low standard, coupled with the low levels of responsibility allocated to the organisations dealing with CBRN materials, relevant Member States authorities and EU bodies; notes, further, that all measures taken should be proportionate to the probable risks;

31.

Stresses that security arrangements and requirements at high-risk CBRN facilities throughout the EU must be the subject of EU regulations, rather than merely ‘good-practice documents’, through a consistent consultation process bringing together EU bodies, Member State authorities and organisations dealing with high-risk CBRN agents; urges that until such regulations are adopted and in place, a greater monitoring and inspection role should be entrusted to the Commission;

32.

Welcomes the initiatives of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in supporting IAEA programmes and nuclear inspections; recommends that measures should be taken to pool its databases and research findings with those of the Member States;

33.

Supports the drawing-up of strategies to raise awareness among enterprises, the scientific and university community and financial institutions of the risks linked to the proliferation and trafficking of CBRN material in the context of their work and activities; takes the view, in more general terms, that confidentiality is a vital component of the effectiveness of certain security measures in the action plan, and that it is important to guard against any risk of disclosure that could render them ineffective;

34.

Believes that the Commission and Member State authorities should oversee the activities carried out by the organisations dealing with high-risk CBRN materials and should ensure that these organisations comply with risk-based security and public safety standards, which implies that proper inspections of high-risk sites must be carried out regularly;

35.

Considers that the ‘Prevention’ part of the EU CBRN Action Plan should be amended in such a way as to ensure that the chemicals industry replaces the use of high-risk chemicals with suitable lower-risk alternatives, where such replacement is scientifically, technologically and environmentally possible and there is a clear increase in security; recognises the economic costs such replacement may entail and their impact on the relevant industries, but urges the EU, the Member States and the private sector to put the safety of EU citizens first; recommends, in this connection, that a specific link should be established with the existing REACH Regulation (24), something which the version of the Action Plan proposed by the Commission rightly sought to do; calls on the Commission to deliver a study on the implementation of the REACH Regulation in this respect;

36.

Stresses that the greatest CBRN risks stem from the proliferation of CBRN material by terrorists; stresses, therefore, the importance of making international control regimes more effective, and of improving border and export controls;

37.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to urge all Member States to sign and to meet their commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and to do their utmost to promote the Additional Verification Protocol to the BWC, which includes lists of dangerous biological agents and pathogens and provisions on disclosure statements and monitoring inspections; also urges the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the international community to draw up, as part of the Verification Annex to the CWC, a list of all potentially harmful chemical substances, including white phosphorus;

38.

Calls, further, on the Commission and the Council to continue to step up activities in support of the treaty system, in particular the conventions on chemical and biological weapons, therefore calling on all EU Member States to impose a strict ban on the production and use of biological and chemical weapons and to disarm their own weapons;

39.

Is aware that proliferation increases the threat of diversion by terrorist groups and encourages the EU to continue its efforts towards universalising the legal framework for combating nuclear terrorism and ensuring that the current rules are complied with; supports cooperation projects with third countries, for example in the Mediterranean basin, in order to combat trafficking in nuclear and radiological material; calls on the EU to universalise the CWC and the BWC with a view to the Conference to review the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 2011;

40.

Calls on the Commission to present comparative data and an overall assessment of the state of play in industries in Europe when it comes to securing and increasing control over high-risk CBRN materials, including an overview of all relevant national laws regarding implementation of the CWC, the BWC and other international instruments related to CBRN materials; that overview should include reporting on the degree to which Member States and industries fulfil their international obligations; recognises, nevertheless, that enforcement measures, such as the BWC and CWC, might be insufficient to tackle the risks stemming from CBRN use by non-state actors, namely by terrorist networks;

41.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to promote the existing Draft Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, Transfer and Use of Uranium Weapons and on their Destruction, and to present this convention to the UN member countries to be signed and ratified; calls on all the EU Member States and the UN member countries to impose a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons until such time as a global ban on these weapons has been agreed;

42.

Encourages the introduction of measures to combat proliferation financing, following the model of the mechanisms set up to combat terrorism financing;

43.

Welcomes the Commission's activities under the IfS to tackle CBRN activities; considers these activities complementary to the Action Plan and calls on the Commission to expand the projects to regions other than just the former Soviet Union (SEDE); building on the experiences under the Instrument for Stability calls on the Commission to launch a call for proposals aimed at strengthening the security and the protection of civilian laboratories in order to avoid future proliferation;

44.

Considers that the EU CBRN Action Plan should unambiguously call for the development of EU guidelines on security training and standard requirements to be implemented in all 27 Member States, and should ensure that specific training programmes are provided for those security staff dealing with high-risk CBRN materials, including staff in industries and research centres where high-risk CBRN are present, and that requirements are laid down for CBRN officers (role, competence and training); stresses that safety and awareness training must also be provided to first responders;

45.

Stresses that a future short-term revision of the EU CBRN Action Plan should not simply promote self-regulation among the industries concerned, and not merely advise the industries to adopt codes of conduct, but actually call on the Commission to develop pan-European guidelines and regulations applicable to all sectors dealing with high-risk CBRN agents;

46.

Considers that it is of the utmost importance to keep a close track of all transactions involving high-risk CBRN materials in the EU, and that instead of merely ‘urging’ the industry to report on transactions, the Commission and the Member States should work on a proper legal framework to regulate and monitor transactions, thus upgrading the level of security and ensuring proper and rapid reporting of all suspicious transactions as well as the loss or theft of CBRN materials; emphasises that these regulations should establish a proper basis for full transparency in all sectors dealing with CBRN agents, thus holding industries accountable for such transactions; considers that the ability of the private sector to enforce the relevant laws and rules should be taken into account in connection with the monitoring of their reporting obligations so as to ensure proper supervision;

47.

Stresses that the securitisation of both the transport and storage of CBRN materials is undeniably and inevitably part of the process to make access to these materials as difficult as possible, and so tackling CBRN-related security problems;

48.

Stresses that the risks associated with the trading of chemicals over the Internet call for further investigations and specific action;

49.

Calls for clarification regarding the strengthening of the import/export regime with regard to the roles of the Member States and the Commission; calls on the Member States to implement and ensure the application of the existing international regulations, and on the Commission to play a monitoring role, assessing and reporting on compliance; notes that it is important, taking into account the evolution of technology, to review and revise relevant legislation and regulations on the acquisition, import, sale, safe storage and transportation of CBRN materials;

50.

Stresses the need to strengthen, where they exist, and create, where they do not, inspection and safety mechanisms in all postal services dealing with the distribution of correspondence, in view of the acts of terrorism committed in European countries by placing explosive substances in parcels sent through the post;

51.

Calls on the Commission to launch a study, in cooperation with the Member State authorities, to assess the situation on the ground when it comes to the detection of CBRN and on the safety of nuclear power stations in the EU and its neighbourhood in the the event of an accident or intentional terrorist attack; encourages the Commission to build on the results of such an assessment and work on common EU guidelines on how to handle such accidents or intentional attacks, including finding the means to ensure that Member States allocate adequate human and material resources to such an effort;

52.

Calls for the strengthening of the role of the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) which has already been established under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism so as to ensure proper exchanges of information and good practices between Member States, leading to pan-European standards in the detection of CBRN activities;

53.

Requests the Commission to monitor, assess and report to Parliament on an annual basis on Member States’ compliance, and requests national authorities to ensure that regulations and guidelines are being followed and complied with by the relevant industries and organisations dealing with high-risk CBRN materials;

54.

Considers it essential to carry out proper studies with a view to engaging all relevant national and EU bodies and stakeholders on a mandatory basis, including an assessment of ways to make exchanges and cooperation faster and easier, thus making the response to a public safety threat more effective;

55.

Calls on the Council to entrust the Commission with the role of ‘coordinator’ with regard to emergency planning, so that it can act as a monitor, thus ensuring that local and national emergency plans do exist; stresses that the Commission should take the role of a depository of such plans, putting it in the best position to identify potential gaps and to act accordingly more promptly than the relevant authorities;

56.

Welcomes the intention to strengthen the EU’s civil protection capacity; notes, however, that in many EU Member States military defence departments become proficient through practical experience of tackling CBRN disasters; calls, in that connection, on the Member States and the Commission to share best practices and make a greater investment in thorough coordination between both civilian and military expertise;

57.

Urges the Commission to continue identifying needs which must be met in order to improve civil protection capacities, with a view to common procurement projects; calls, in that connection, for a particular focus on defining the EU’s needs in terms of CBRN preparedness and response capability, including medical counter-measures, so that the availability of medical counter-measures in the event of a CBRN incident is assessed at both EU and Member State levels;

58.

Calls for the organisation of joint exercises between EU Member States, and between Member States and third countries, to prevent dangerous situations arising with regard to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security;

59.

Welcomes the planning of EU exercises to simulate CBRN incidents or attacks and stresses that an EU CBRN Action Plan should make provision for the results and assessments of such exercises to feed into what should be an ongoing debate on the development of pan-European standards;

60.

Draws attention to the fact that the Commission should be taking the lead in setting standards based on the needs of counter-measure capacities; stresses that this is the only way to achieve the highest possible standard of security throughout the EU, as it would be the only possible way to ensure that all Member States are following the same guidelines and applying the same principles when building up capacities and preparing the appropriate human and material resources to respond to a disaster, whether accidental or intentional;

61.

Stresses the need to create regional/EU-wide stockpiles of response resources, the scale of which should, as far as possible, reflect the current level of threat, whether in the form of medical or other types of relevant equipment, under the coordination of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, funded by the EU and in line with commonly agreed EU guidelines; stresses the importance of keeping well-managed stockpiles to ensure that the response resources, medical or other relevant equipment, are fully functional, current and up to date; urges that until such time as this EU/regional pooling of resources comes into effect, the EU CBRN Action Plan should point to a possible way in which Member States would share counter-measures and resources in the event of a CBRN accident or terrorist attack, so as to put the new Solidarity Clause into practice; stresses that any act of assistance to specific EU Member States must be the result of a request from the relevant political authorities in the countries affected and should not collide with a Member State’s ability to protect its own citizens;

62.

Calls for a revision of the rules governing the European Solidarity Fund to make it more accessible in the event of natural disasters, and available in the event of industrial and man made disasters, and calls on the Member States to make use of the resources available under the the Structural Funds to enhance prevention and preparedness;

63.

In order to prepare for the unfortunate event of an accident, outbreak or deliberate use of CBRN, calls on the Commission to establish reporting mechanisms to provide a link between the work of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and other EU early-warning systems in the relevant areas of health, the environment, food production and animal welfare; calls also on the Commission to establish mechanisms for exchanges of information and analyses with international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the World Meteorological Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation;

64.

Calls for the creation of EU/regional specialised response teams, including medical personnel, law-enforcement staff and military personnel, and notes that, if such teams are created, special training and operational exercises should be scheduled regularly;

65.

Calls on the Commission to provide sufficient funding to develop improved equipment for the detection and identification of biological agents in the event of an attack or incident; deplores the fact that existing detection equipment has capacity and speed limitations resulting in the loss of valuable time in an emergency; emphasises that emergency personnel must be properly equipped and medically protected in advance in order to work with maximum personal safety in a disaster area where harmful pathogens may be present; stresses that improved equipment for the identification of agents and diagnostics are also required in hospitals and other facilities receiving victims from an incident;

66.

Calls on the various EU and national bodies involved in information gathering to review their organisational structures and, where they are lacking, appoint appropriate persons with experience and understanding of identifying and assessing CBRN threats and risks;

67.

Calls on the Commission to report regularly to Parliament on CBRN threat and risk assessments;

68.

Calls for training and public awareness programmes to be launched at European level, considering the opportunities provided by the Internet as a key resource in informing citizens of CBRN issues; stresses the importance of coordinating early warning and information mechanisms for EU citizens in relation to CBRN incidents; notes with interest the feasibility study for a European nuclear security training centre within the JRC;

69.

Notes the uncoordinated over-investment in vaccines during the A/H1N1 pandemic; welcomes the Draft Council Conclusions ‘On lessons learned from the A/H1N1 pandemic - health security in the European Union’ (12665/2010), which envisage the development of a mechanism for the joint procurement of vaccines and antiviral medication to be applied in the Member States on a voluntary basis, and encourages Member States to develop together regional preparedness solutions, including the sharing of existing capacity and the coordination of cost-effective procurement of medical countermeasures, whilst ensuring high levels of CBRN preparedness across the EU;

70.

Notes that EU legislation (Council Decision 90/424/EEC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/965/EC) provides for a Community approach to the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses, including the purchase and stockpiling of veterinary medical countermeasures to protect animals from infection; regrets that no such Community approach is in place to coordinate the purchase and stockpiling of medical countermeasures to protect the EU’s human population from infection by dangerous biological pathogens;

71.

Points out that an incident or attack involving biological pathogens – for example, but not restricted to, anthrax – will contaminate the affected area for decades, seriously harming plant, animal and human life and health, and resulting in long-term economic costs; calls on the Commission to include recovery and decontamination strategies in the CBRN policy;

72.

Stresses that an incident involving CBRN materials which affects the condition of the soil and/or the drinking water supply has the potential to produce devastating and far-reaching effects on the health and welfare of all the people in the affected area; calls on the Commission to take this into account when drafting the EU CBRN Action Plan;

73.

Stresses the importance of ensuring that there is effective control of water-based contamination incidents, which involve pollution of the environment, soil contamination, disposal of waste and/or release of radioactive substances;

74.

Regrets the insufficient attention paid to preparedness and response in the Commission Communication and the Council Conclusions on the EU CBRN Action Plan, which focus heavily on detection and prevention; calls on the Commission and the Council to give greater importance to developing the preparedness and response mechanisms required to protect public health and the environment should a CBRN incident actually take place on EU territory;

75.

Regrets the lack of measures in the CBRN Action Plan to safeguard the security of radiological and nuclear facilities and materials and to improve response plans regarding the various types of radiological emergency and their consequences for the population and the environment;

76.

Is alarmed by cases of individuals and activists being able to acquire nuclear waste material from various reprocessing installations in Europe, and calls for urgent, concerted action to enhance the security of radioactive and nuclear materials and facilities;

77.

Regrets the lack of focus in the Commission Communication and Council Conclusions on the CBRN Action Plan on adequately protecting public transport networks and the health of their users, given the many terrorist attacks on transport in recent years and the generally increased risk of CBRN incidents occurring during transport of CBRN materials; calls on the Member States to guarantee pre-exposure protection of first responders to CBRN incidents and post-exposure treatment of victims, in particular against biological pathogens;

78.

Points out that a CBRN incident could have long-lasting effects on the growth of food crops and thus has the potential to adversely affect EU food safety and food security; invites to Commission to take this into account when drafting the EU CBRN Action Plan;

79.

Encourages cooperation and the sharing of best practices with countries which have developed expertise in the field of CBRN risk assessment, prevention, detection, communication and response, such as the United States, Australia and India;

80.

Encourages joint policies for the remediation of land affected by chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear contamination, so that the soil and land can be restored to use as swiftly as possible, thereby reducing risks to health and the environment;

81.

Calls on the Commission and Council to consider developing response models that provide an ideal response in the event of CBRN incidents, and in which special attention is paid to training establishments, medical care institutions and geriatric care centres;

82.

Calls on the Member States, when drafting evacuation plans in the event of a CBRN incident, to give special attention to the needs of the elderly, children, people under medical care, persons with disabilities and other such vulnerable groups;

83.

Calls on the Member States to assign special importance to the construction of civil protection shelters, both within (public and administrative) institutions and at local and regional level, in which the European public can take refuge in the event of a disaster;

84.

Urges the Commission to seek an agreement on common minimum security standards with neighbouring third countries which have on their territory objects that could pose major threats to environmental and human security in the EU in the event of an accident;

85.

Calls on the Commission to provide in its action plan for more flexible adaptation of security measures to technological development;

86.

Urges the Commission thoroughly to assess existing security measures in terms of their impact on the environment and health, and to ensure that new measures are introduced only on the basis of the results of such an assessment, which should be carried out periodically;

87.

Calls on the Commission to draw up an EU CBRN Roadmap for the period between now and 2013, when the EU CBRN Action Plan will be reviewed, in which challenges and policy responses are set out and on which the Commission will regularly report back to Parliament regarding ongoing developments and progress to date;

88.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to rapidly review and apply the EU CBRN Action Plan in accordance with its recommendations, and expects them to implement it swiftly; further urges the Commission and the Council to refer the next EU CBRN Action Plan to Parliament at least one year before it enters the implementation phase, so that Parliament can deliver its opinion in due time;

89.

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

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/23

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 174 to 178 thereof,

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for the revision of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union of 28 May 2010 (COM(2010)0260),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2010 on transparency in regional policy and its funding (3),

—

having regard to the Committee of the Regions’ White Paper on Multi-level governance of 17-18 June 2009 and the Consultation Report,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the informal Ministerial meeting which took place on 16-17 March 2010 in Málaga,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 September 2004, entitled ‘The respective responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission in the shared management of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund - Current situation and outlook for the new programming period after 2006’ (COM(2004)0580),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 14 May 2008 on the results of the negotiations concerning cohesion policy strategies and programmes for the programming period 2007-2013 (COM(2008)0301),

—

having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial years 2006 and 2008,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 19 February 2008, entitled ‘An action plan to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role under shared management of structural actions’ (COM(2008)0097),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 February 2009, entitled ‘Report on the implementation of the action plan to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role under shared management of structural actions’ (COM(2009)0042),

—

having regard to the Communication of 28 October 2009 from Commissioners Samecki and Špidla to the Commission giving an interim report on the follow-up to the action plan to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role under shared management of structural actions (SEC(2009)1463),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 18 February 2010 on the impact of the action plan to strengthen the Commission’s supervisory role under shared management of structural actions (COM(2010)0052),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0280/2010),

A.

whereas implementation of the cohesion policy is predominantly decentralised and based on sub-national authorities assuming responsibility,

B.

whereas cohesion policy plays a forerunner role in the application of multi-level governance, as an instrument to improve the quality of decision-making processes through the active involvement of sub-national authorities from the pre-legislative phase of the debates,

C.

whereas ‘multi-level governance’ means coordinated action by the Union, Member States and local and regional authorities, as well as socio-economic partners and NGOs, based on the principles of partnership and co-financing and aimed at drawing up and implementing European Union policies, a definition which implies responsibility being shared between the different tiers of government,

D.

whereas the 2006 report of the European Court of Auditors showed that the control systems in place for the cohesion policy were not effective enough, with a 12 % error rate in the expenditure reimbursed, and the 2008 report confirmed these data with 11 % of funds unduly reimbursed,

E.

whereas the Commission needs to strengthen its supervisory role to reduce the level of error, improve the control system and increase assistance to sub-national authorities and beneficiaries, all of which will lead in the long term to a more result-oriented, user-friendly policy,

F.

whereas funding application procedures that are too complicated, and an excessive number of checks, are likely to discourage potential beneficiaries of cohesion policy,

G.

whereas the practical solutions which our fellow citizens expect to see as regards public services (such as public transport, drinking water, public health, social housing and public education) can be achieved only by means of good governance, involving two complementary systems: firstly, the institutional system, which provides for the allocation of powers and budgets between the State and regional and local authorities and, secondly, the partnership system, which brings together public and private parties with an interest in a given topic in a given territory,

H.

whereas partnership should take account of all relevant communities and groups, can bring benefit and added value to the implementation of cohesion policy through enhanced legitimacy, guaranteed transparency and better absorption of funds, and should also be assessed in terms of the social and civic value it represents,

I.

whereas an integrated approach should pay attention to the regions’ special characteristics (geographical and natural disadvantages, depopulation, outermost region, etc.) if it is to meet local and regional challenges,

1.

Welcomes the CoR White Paper on multi-level governance and the recognition of sub-national subsidiarity in the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that the multi-level approach should be applied not only vertically but also horizontally, among actors of the same level, in all shared-competence Union policies including the cohesion policy;

2.

Welcomes the conclusions of the Málaga informal ministerial meeting of March 2010 and considers that multi-level governance is a precondition for achieving territorial cohesion in Europe; calls for this principle to be made compulsory for Member States in policy areas with a strong territorial impact in order to ensure balanced territorial development in line with the subsidiarity principle; points out that such a provision should in no way lead to more burdensome procedures;

3.

Considers that satisfactory multi-level governance should be based on a bottom-up approach, taking account of the diversity of administrative arrangements existing in the different Member State; calls on the Member States to identify the most efficient means of implementing governance at the various levels and to improve their cooperation with the regional and local authorities as well as with the Community’s administration by, for example, inviting officials from all tiers of government to the periodic meetings organised with the Commission or by establishing European Territorial Pacts that link on a voluntary basis the different tiers of government concerned;

4.

Recommends that the territorial impact analysis should become standard practice through the involvement, upstream of the policy decision, of the various parties concerned in order to understand the economic, social and environmental repercussions on the regions of Community legislative and non-legislative proposals;

5.

Stresses that multi-level governance allows better exploitation of the potential of territorial cooperation thanks to the relations developed among private and public actors across borders; urges those Member States which have not yet done so to adopt as soon as possible the necessary provisions allowing the setting up of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation; recommends that the Commission promote exchange of information between the EGTCs already created and those in the process of being set up in the framework of existing programmes; congratulates the Committee of the Regions on the quality of its work on EGTCs and calls for its available instruments, in particular its Lisbon Monitoring Platform and its Subsidiarity Monitoring Network, to be used to promote the exchange of best practices between regions and Member States with a view to the joint identification and determination of objectives, subsequent planning actions, and, finally, a comparative evaluation of the outcomes of cohesion policy;

6.

Calls on national, regional and local authorities to intensify their use of the integrated approach during the current programming period; proposes that this approach be made compulsory in the context of the future cohesion policy; considers that a flexible and integrated approach should not only take into account the economic, social and environmental aspects of territorial development but also enable coordination of the interests of the various partners, in the light of territorial characteristics, in order to respond to challenges at local and regional level;

7.

Urges the Commission to develop a guide for public and private actors on how to implement in practice the principles of multi-level governance and the integrated approach; recommends that actions aimed at promoting these two approaches be financed under ERDF technical assistance;

8.

Recommends that the Committee of the Regions use the 2011 Open Days, and as far as still possible at this stage, the 2010 Open Days as an occasion to promote and deepen the debate on identifying the most suitable means of promoting multi-governance; suggests that a European multi-level governance label be launched and put in place in all regions across the EU as from 2011;

9.

Notes that decentralised delivery mechanisms are a key factor for multi-level governance; given the necessity for simplification, urges Member States and regions to sub-delegate the implementation of a part of an operational programme, where appropriate and in particular to better exploit the use of global grants; calls on them to take the decentralisation measures required, at both legislative and budgetary levels, so that the system of multi-level governance can work effectively and in keeping with the principles of partnership and subsidiarity; stresses that regional and local authorities, especially those having legislative powers, should be more closely involved, as they are the best informed on their regions’ potentialities and needs and could therefore contribute to an improved implementation of cohesion policy;

10.

Urges the Member States to involve relevant regional and local authorities and civil society actors from the very early stages of negotiations on Union legislation and on programmes benefiting from the Structural Funds so as to allow a timely dialogue between the different layers of government; calls for these authorities to participate in the responsible decision-making bodies on an equal footing with the national representatives;

11.

Emphasises that for the efficient absorption of funds and maximisation of their impact there must be sufficient administrative capacity both at EU and at regional and local level; calls therefore on the Commission to improve its administrative capacity in order to increase the added value of the cohesion policy and ensure the sustainability of the actions and on the Member States to ensure adequate administrative structures and human capital in terms of recruitment, remuneration, training, resources, procedures, transparency and accessibility;

12.

Calls on the Member States also to strengthen, where appropriate, the role of regional and local authorities in programme preparation, management and implementation as well as boosting the resources at their disposal; recommends the adoption in the cohesion policy of the local development methodology based on local partnerships, in particular for projects related to urban, rural and cross-border issues; calls on the Commission to encourage partnership between regions having a similar specific development potential and to ensure that there is an appropriate framework at EU level put in place for the coordination of macroregional cooperation;

13.

Considers that the principles of partnership and co-financing foster the assumption of responsibility by sub-national authorities in the implementation of cohesion policy; reiterates its commitment to these principles of good management and calls for their continued application despite the restrictions on public spending arising from the economic crisis;

14.

Recommends enhancing partnership practice and urges the Commission to come up with an agreed definition of the concept of partnership as a condition for building up real partnerships with regional and local authorities and civil society actors; asks the Commission to seriously verify the implementation of this principle by developing specific evaluation tools and to spread best practices in this area through ICT tools; emphasises that partnership can contribute to effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and transparency in all the phases of Structural Fund programming and implementation and can increase commitment to and ownership of programme outputs; underlines the important role of the voluntary sector in the partnership process;

15.

Draws attention to the requirement to consult the general public through organisations representing civil society and NGOs in order to reflect their proposals, and stresses that the participation of civil society helps to legitimise the decision-making process; notes that the efforts to involve the public in the preparations for the operational programmes for the period 2007-2013 were not as successful as hoped for; calls on the Commission to identify good practices and to facilitate their application with a view to improving public involvement ahead of the next programming period;

16.

Calls for the multi-level governance principle to be integrated into all phases of design and implementation of the EU2020 Strategy to ensure real ownership of the results by the regional and local authorities, which have to implement it; highlights in this connection the proposal for a ‘Territorial Pact of Local and Regional Authorities for Europe 2020’ to encourage regions and cities to contribute to the successful achievement of the objectives of the 2020 Strategy;

17.

Recommends that the Commission re-analyse the possibilities of implementing the pilot project initiated by the European Parliament entitled ‘Erasmus for elected local and regional representatives’ and, with a view to raising the standard of proposed projects and meet the objective of efficiency, calls on the Commission to implement, under the ERDF operational technical assistance budget line, a training and mobility scheme for local and regional actors involved in running cohesion policy programmes together with the partners specialised in implementing the concepts of integrated approach and multilevel governance; asks the Commission, therefore, to allocate funding for these initiatives effectively and to reinforce networking with regional and local authorities, including through the Committee of the Regions;

18.

Takes the view that the European networks of regions should broaden their work in the area of good practices in governance and partnership, should put more emphasis on political and strategic lessons learnt from previous programme cycles and should ensure public access to key information on best practices in all European Union languages and thus help to ensure that good practices are in fact implemented;

19.

Is of the opinion that a stronger role for the regional and local level must correspond to a strengthened supervisory role for the Commission focusing on checking audit systems rather than single projects; calls in this connection for an EU certification system for national audit bodies; urges the Commission to complete the approval of the compliance assessment reports so as to avoid delays in payments and loss of funds due to decommittment, and to come up with a proposal on the tolerable risk of error before 2012;

20.

Welcomes the findings of the Commission report on the February 2010 Action Plan and the corrective and preventive actions begun so far; calls on DG REGIO to continue with this exercise during the whole period of implementation to keep up the momentum generated by the Action Plan;

21.

Stresses that European initiatives in the field of cohesion and structural policy need to be better coordinated so as not to jeopardise the coherence of regional policy; calls therefore for strengthened coordination in the Commission between DG REGIO, which is responsible for cohesion and structural policy, and the DGs responsible for the relevant sector-specific initiatives; calls, in view of the Lisbon Treaty’s strengthening of the rights of regional and local authorities, for these authorities to be more closely involved in the development of policy at Commission level, in order to enhance project responsibility among project promoters; also calls, however, for more control of results by the Commission on the spot, so as to improve evaluation both of the efficiency of project structures and of the effectiveness of measures in terms of the objective they seek to achieve;

22.

Invites the Commission to reinforce the ‘Train the trainers’ initiative for managing and certifying authorities; stresses that there should be constant monitoring to ensure that training contents are actually transferred to the lower levels in a balanced way, not neglecting the local actors;

23.

Urges the Commission to quickly launch the new portal in the SFC 2007 database allowing direct access to relevant information for all actors dealing with Structural Funds; recommends that Member States promote and circulate information on this instrument among regional and local authorities as well as final beneficiaries;

24.

Invites the Commission to put in place additional technical assistance mechanisms to promote knowledge at regional and local level on implementation-related problems, especially in Member States where, according to the Commission’s ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2000-2006, there are very persistent problems regarding their administrative capacity when it comes to the implementation of these programmes;

25.

Asks for a standardised application of the single information, single audit (SISA)- model at all audit levels to avoid duplication of audits and over-control; urges the Commission to issue a single audit manual including all the guidance notes produced so far;

26.

Invites Member States to further exploit the financial engineering instruments as a means to increase the quality of the projects and the participation of private actors, especially SMEs, in European projects; calls on the Commission to simplify the functioning rules of these instruments, whose current complexity limits their use;

27.

Is convinced that compliance with the procedures cannot be at the expense of the quality of interventions; asks the Commission for a more result-oriented policy in the future, focused on quality performance and strategic project development rather than on controls; to this end, urges the Commission to develop objective and measurable indicators which are comparable across the Union for better monitoring and evaluating systems and to give further consideration to the need for flexible rules in the event of economic crises;

28.

Emphasises that transparent and clear procedures are factors in good governance; therefore welcomes the ongoing simplification of the Financial Regulation and of the Structural Funds rules and calls on the Member States to fully comply with the requirements of the revised Financial Regulation and to disclose information on final beneficiaries of Structural Funds; urges the Commission to propose understandable rules, which will not require frequent modifications; calls for a simpler architecture for the Funds after 2013, not as a consequence of the economic crisis but as a general principle of the future cohesion policy, in order to facilitate absorption of the funds, and recommends greater transparency and flexibility in the use of the EU Funds in order to avoid an additional administrative burden which may discourage potential partners from taking part in projects;

29.

Welcomes the Commission’s Strategic Report on the implementation of the Cohesion Policy Programmes 2010 as it can feed important information back to the policy-making process; considers that its findings also have to be seriously taken into account when formulating proposals for improving the effective implementation of Cohesion Policy programmes;

30.

Reiterates its commitment to a strong and properly funded cohesion policy that ensures that all European Union regions develop harmoniously; calls for the budget for the policy to be maintained after 2013 and for any attempt to renationalise it to be rejected;

31.

Calls on the Commission to take on board the principles of differentiation and proportionality in future regulations and to adapt requirements according to the size of programmes and nature of partners, especially when small public authorities are involved; asks for wider use of lump-sums and flat rates for all Funds, in particular for overheads and technical assistance; proposes that provision be made for more flexible evaluation criteria with a view to encouraging innovative projects and softer control requirements for pilot projects; encourages the Commission to develop the principle of a ‘bond of trust’ with Member States which undertake to, and succeed in, making good use of the Funds;

32.

With a view to building up a more user-friendly policy in the future, calls for deeper harmonisation and integration of the Structural Funds rules, avoiding the breakdown of a project into different parts to apply to different funds; recommends that the focus be put not just on the regularity of expenditure but on quality of interventions and that resources be concentrated in potentiating assistance on the management side;

33.

Calls on the Commission to present as soon as possible proposals for the next programming period regulations, to adopt the implementing regulation, elaborate the necessary guidance and provide training on them in due time, and to facilitate the process of negotiations and approval of the operational programmes in order to avoid any delay in the cohesion policy implementation and absorption of funds after 2013;

34.

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

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/29

—

having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Title I and Title XVIII thereof,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 25 and 26 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World – A Contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),

—

having regard to the OECD Annual Report 2009,

—

having regard to Successful partnerships: a guide, OECD LEED Forum for Partnerships and Local Governance, 2006,

—

having regard to the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, World Economic Forum Geneva, Switzerland, 2009,

—

having regard to ‘An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy – A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations’, independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, by Fabrizio Barca, April 2009,

—

having regard to the Council of European Municipalities and Regions’ policy paper on the ‘Future of EU Cohesion Policy’, Brussels, December 2009,

—

having regard to the Assembly of European Regions (AER) resolution on regional policy post-2013, adopted by the AER General Assembly on 8 November 2007 in Udine, Italy,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the results of the negotiations concerning cohesion policy strategies and programmes for the programming period 2007-2013 (COM(2008)0301),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation 2007-2013: the results of the negotiations on the national cohesion strategies and the operational programmes (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the structural funds (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion and the state of the debate on the future reform of cohesion policy (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 June 2010 on EU 2020 (5),

—

having regard to the fourth report on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2007)0273),

—

having regard to the Commission’s 20th annual report on implementation of the structural funds (2008) (COM(2009)0617),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Mobilising private and public investment for recovery and long-term structural change: developing Public Private Partnerships’ (COM(2009)0615),

—

having regard to paragraph 37 of its resolution of 14 February 2006 on State aid reform 2005-2009 (6),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0309/2010),

A.

whereas promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States, is one of the European Union’s objectives, as stipulated in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

B.

whereas the Union can be globally competitive only insofar as internal policies bolster its capacity to respond to global challenges by running a sustainable, low-carbon economy which safeguards biodiversity – periods of recession having illustrated how less-developed regions have a lesser capacity for recuperation,

C.

whereas competitiveness and cohesion are neither contradictory nor incompatible but have elements of complementarity,

D.

whereas, even though significant progress has been made in terms of convergence within the Union, a trend can be observed towards worsening territorial disparities between EU regions, for instance in terms of accessibility, in particular for the structurally disadvantaged regions, but also at an intra-regional level and within EU territories, which could lead to spatial segregation, widen the differences between levels of prosperity in EU regions and impair the EU’s global competitiveness,

E.

whereas in its Annual Report 2009 the OECD made a recommendation for long-term growth that focused on the importance of taxation, investment in infrastructure, education and the workforce, and the regulation of production markets, hence emphasising their role,

F.

whereas the World Economic Forum, in its Global Competitiveness Report 2009 as in other reports, pointed to the decisive role of infrastructure as the second of the 12 pillars on which global competitiveness is assessed, and specified that quality infrastructure is key to reducing the effect of distance, attracting foreign investment and ensuring that economic development is possible,

G.

whereas competitiveness can ultimately be achieved only if economic growth is genuinely sustainable throughout the EU,

H.

whereas the report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation, appointed following the Hampton Court Summit and chaired by Esko Aho, entitled ‘Creating an Innovative Europe’ identifies the key areas – e-health, pharmaceuticals, transport and logistics, environment, digital content, energy and security – where a market for innovation can work and public policy can have a significant role,

I.

whereas, in order for the EU 2020 targets to be achieved, it is necessary that the starting position of disparity in levels of development and in limitations be acknowledged, and that objectives be set which tally with the real situation and the needs identified in consultation with all the actors involved at the various levels of government,

J.

whereas the European Council of March 2010 acknowledged the importance of promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion inter alia through the development of infrastructure, to help ensure the success of the EU 2020 strategy in circumstances where this new strategy will be addressing blockages in economic development,

K.

whereas cohesion policy has proved to be an effective instrument for responding flexibly to the socio-economic challenges arising from the financial crisis,

L.

whereas, in addition to good infrastructure, the main prerequisites for competitiveness are the promotion of research, innovation and technological development and the provision of correspondingly high-quality training for people in the regions,

M.

whereas regions will play a crucial role in limiting the impact of the crisis on the public and they should therefore embrace the partnership principle and develop suitable instruments for ex-ante assessment of the territorial impact of different policy types, with a view to facing major challenges such as adjusting to globalisation, demographic changes and the consequent depopulation of the regions, climate change, energy-related issues and the protection of biodiversity, as well as new challenges arising from the crisis,

N.

whereas, as the outcome of the discussions on cohesion-policy strategies and programmes for the programming period 2007-2013 has shown, programme quality and stakeholder involvement have increased at every level of government, thereby representing a step forward towards achieving the Lisbon objectives of economic competitiveness and employment,

O.

whereas the reform of cohesion policy needs to enhance that policy through better correlation and better coordination and synergy among European policies, without subordinating any one policy to another, on the basis of the Union’s needs and objectives in terms of sustainable development,

P.

whereas the involvement of local and regional actors in cohesion policy is reflected in their regional and local strategies to advance economic development and social inclusion,

Q.

whereas the economic competitiveness of regions that are lagging behind is being bolstered by the development of their capacities, including the development of infrastructure of all types, enabling access to education, research and innovation,

R.

whereas, while some elements of the architecture of these instruments, such as a common time frame and alignment with the Lisbon agenda, allow for synergies, there remain differences, such as different legal bases, thematic versus territorial focus, and shared versus centralised management,

1.

Highlights the achievements of the EU cohesion policy and the fact that its implementation is indispensable for the success of the EU 2020 strategy as an instrument for eliminating the disparities between regions, making them more competitive, facilitating the launch of structural reforms and enhancing the regions’ ability to adapt to the global economic climate;

2.

Appreciates that, for the period 2007-2013, all the Member States have devoted a significant amount of their total financial allocations to R&D, innovation and development of a knowledge-based economy, resulting in 246 National or Regional Operational Programmes, with around EUR 86 billion allocated to research and innovation, of which EUR 50 billion has already been allocated for core R&D and innovation activities; stresses that, since research and innovation are essential for the improvement of EU competitiveness in the face of global challenges, investments in these fields must continue and regular results-based assessments of progress must be conducted; recommends, therefore, with a view to the next programming period, that the Member States and the Commission allocate sufficient resources from the structural funds for research and innovation, in particular sustainable innovation, and strengthen research capacities; stresses the need to promote and apply successful models in the knowledge triangle to ensure the sustainable development of regional research and strategic frameworks for innovation, in collaboration with enterprises, research centres, universities and public authorities; highlights the potential of knowledge-intensive regional innovative clusters in mobilising regional competitiveness and calls for better coordination of the structural funds and the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development;

3.

Stresses that enhancing the concentration of cohesion-policy resources can ensure that this policy makes a significant contribution to fostering competitiveness, innovation and employment in the EU;

4.

Stresses the key role played by both the public sector, at all levels of government, and the private sector in the implementation of cohesion policy, in rebuilding confidence and solidarity in times of recession and thereafter by guaranteeing equal opportunities in terms of access to public investment, especially in infrastructure, new technologies and human capital, and by ensuring sustainable development;

5.

Underlines the fact that the economic competitiveness of the EU regions is closely linked to the existence of adequate levels of employment, educated and skilled workforces, social security and access to public services; notes, in this regard, that the support for social cohesion provided by the cohesion policy increases the importance of this policy in terms of overall regional competitiveness on a global scale;

6.

Takes the view that, in accordance with the spirit of the Treaties, a cohesion policy which aims at reducing disparities in levels of development and prepares the regions to meet long-term and short-term challenges (globalisation, demographic change, the depopulation of rural areas, climate change and biodiversity protection), by taking into account their specific strengths and weaknesses, has proved to be essential to the process of European integration;

7.

Points out that, by increasing the synergies between research, development and innovation and cohesion policies, the EU 2020 strategy challenges can be better met; stresses that cohesion policy must play a significant role in the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy, since it stimulates structural change across Europe and supports key investment priorities at all levels, local, regional, national and cross-border, ensuring social, economic and territorial cohesion; points out, however, that, while the priorities of the cohesion policy should be aligned with the EU 2020 objectives, it must remain an independent policy capable of accommodating regional specificities and of supporting the weaker and neediest regions so that they overcome their socio-economic difficulties and natural handicaps and reduce disparities; takes the view that ensuring the continuity of cohesion-policy guidelines already in operation will safeguard the regional dimension of RDI and generate jobs in innovative sectors;

8.

Endorses the views expressed in the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion concerning competitiveness, which ‘depends on building links with other territories to ensure that common assets are used in a coordinated and sustainable way’ in order to release the potential inherent in the EU’s territorial diversity; stresses, in that connection, that the smooth and coordinated operation of transport services, sufficient access to telecommunications and the pooling, where appropriate, of energy, healthcare, research, education, environmental protection and infrastructure are basic conditions for further boosting competitiveness; calls on the Commission to bring forward concrete proposals for the definition and consistent implementation of the objective of territorial cohesion;

9.

Takes the view that the Member States must support a place-based approach to framing and implementing cohesion policy; acknowledges that the role of the regions varies between Member States depending on their political and administrative structure; requests that the principle of subsidiarity, in its strengthened and widened concept as defined in the TFEU, should be duly applied and that improvement should be sought, over the current programming period, by promoting the principle of decentralisation down to local-authority level, with a view to improving the absorption of funds; considers it to be counterproductive, in this context, that regions administer on average only 30,5 % of the overall budget allocated to cohesion policy, with the remainder being administered by central governments; considers, therefore, that in future the partnership principle must be significantly strengthened;

10.

Takes the view that border territories, in particular, highlight the problems that the EU faces in connection with the challenges of opening up borders, completing the internal market and globalisation; emphasises that the competitiveness of such territories may be undermined by the need to cope with competing fiscal and welfare systems, complex administrative arrangements and migratory flows between regions and states; stresses the importance of developing the tools needed for cross-border cooperation and multi-level governance and calls on the Commission to encourage exchanges of information and best practice;

11.

Points out that territorial cohesion has a horizontal, multi-sectoral character and that Union policies must therefore contribute to its achievement; reiterates that this concept is not confined to the effects of regional policy but also implies coordination with other Union policies which target sustainable development and offer tangible results at regional level, with a view to developing and fully using the specific forms of regional potential and increasing their impact on the ground, boosting regions’ competitiveness and attractiveness and achieving territorial cohesion; is of the opinion that ‘concentration, cooperation and connection’ are the key coordinates of territorial cohesion with a view to more balanced territorial development in the EU;

12.

Stresses that multi-level governance entails the devolution of responsibility for programmes, allowing for better exploitation of the potential of territorial cooperation, and that, therefore, in order for the Union to be able to pursue common objectives, using coherent and result-oriented measures while establishing specific regional and local priorities, the principles of multi-level governance should be implemented;

13.

Welcomes the results of the URBAN and LEADER initiatives and highlights the need to use this past experience and the associated examples of best practice in providing the framework for integrated, balanced rural-urban development, in accordance with the necessities of each region; calls on the Commission to examine and propose working methodologies that promote urban-rural partnerships, combat the depopulation of rural areas and, at the same time, stimulate sustainable urban development, since nearly 80 % of the EU population lives in urban areas; points out that both urban and rural areas play a dynamic role in regional economic development and stresses the need, with a view to the next programming period, for investment in urban as well as sub-urban projects and for better coordination with rural development programmes;

14.

Views partnership as a key principle in the determination of cohesion-policy content, with the ‘bottom-up’ approach enhancing administrative capacities and the quality of the programming process; believes that all levels of government need to play a cohesive, complementary and productive role in boosting the economic competitiveness of the EU; calls on the Commission to give a clearer definition of the partnership principle in order to ensure that real partnerships with regional and local authorities are set up and to facilitate exchanges of best practice between regions;

15.

Points out that co-financing is a principle fundamental to the sound management of cohesion policy; calls for its continued application despite the restrictions on public spending which the economic crisis has brought about;

16.

Highlights the need to promote entrepreneurship and support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), recognising the key role they have played in fostering economic competitiveness and creating jobs; stresses the need to review and consolidate the role of the EU instruments that support European competitiveness with a view to rationalising administrative procedures, facilitating access to funding, especially for SMEs, introducing innovative incentive mechanisms based on achieving objectives linked to intelligent, sustainable and integrative growth, and promoting closer cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other financial institutions; appreciates, in this context, the added value offered by financial engineering instruments and encourages their use, as well as that of revolving funds and global grants, on the widest possible scale, with a view to achieving positive synergies and maximising results; calls, too, for simplified access to risk capital and micro-finance;

17.

Emphasises, moreover, that the efficient implementation of cohesion policy depends strongly on how it is conceived and that it is, therefore, crucial to involve local and regional authorities at an early stage in shaping and implementing future cohesion policy; highlights, likewise, the need to develop horizontal and vertical partnerships between public authorities at all levels with a view to achieving the most efficient governance possible at a number of levels; recalls that multi-level governance is one of the key principles of cohesion policy and that it is fundamental to ensuring the quality of the decision-making process; stresses too, in this context, the importance of the partnership that regional authorities have with the Committee of the Regions;

18.

Welcomes the amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 simplifying the procedures for utilisation of the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund and invites the Commission to continue simplifying such procedures to ensure their flexibility and reduce the administrative burden on funding beneficiaries, so that the authorities can address major challenges in a timely manner and with the appropriate resources; takes the view that public-private partnerships can provide genuine support by supplementing the efforts made at local and regional level, and calls on the Commission to bring forward concrete proposals for the consolidation of public-private partnerships within the framework of cohesion policy;

19.

Stresses the importance, in the interests of eliminating disparities, of continuing to provide support primarily for projects aimed at regions that are lagging behind, so that the impact expected in this programming period can be maintained and will be in line with initial estimates; notes that improving accessibility and infrastructural facilities will help to make those regions which lag behind in the internal market more competitive, and will thus contribute to the external competitiveness of the EU as a whole; takes the view that withdrawing this support would reduce the impact of the positive initial results;

20.

Stresses that, although cohesion policy traditionally focuses on the least prosperous regions, it concerns all European regions, regardless of their level of development; emphasises, therefore, the need to encourage the objective of regional competitiveness and employment; reiterates that a strong and well financed cohesion policy, with a budget at least equivalent to the current one in both absolute and relative terms, is a precondition for delivering the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, in order both to secure an intelligent, sustainable and integrative economy, making the EU globally competitive, and to ensure that all regions develop harmoniously, achieving the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion;

21.

Takes the view that GDP must remain the principal criterion for determining the eligibility of regions for cohesion-policy assistance, while other measurable indicators might be added if proven to be relevant, leaving room for national authorities to apply, at the appropriate level of decision making, other indicators which take into account the specific attributes of regions and cities;

22.

Stresses the importance of taking into account, in the allocation of funds, the specific characteristics of, for example, coastal, mountainous outermost regions, regions suffering from depopulation, or remote border regions and towns; encourages the regions to put forward initiatives for exploiting their regional specificity; calls on the Commission to adapt the various financial instruments so as to create added value in the short and medium term, while also taking into consideration the effects of the economic and financial crisis;

23.

Invites the Commission to study ways in which new techniques in financial engineering can improve the effectiveness and impact of the cohesion policy, with a view to obtaining the best possible results in the projects chosen;

24.

Emphasises the positive effects of gender equality on the EU’s economic growth and social cohesion and, therefore, on its competitiveness;

25.

Emphasises the decisive role which regional development and territorial cohesion throughout Europe play, by virtue of their European added value, in enhancing the economic competitiveness of the EU and meeting the EU 2020 targets, with the place-based approach being one of the main ways of achieving economic balance;

26.

Stresses the need for an integrated approach to the application of the structural funds as an important means of helping regions to achieve sustainable growth, employment and prosperity;

27.

Stresses the need to keep transitional arrangements in place to consolidate and improve the current level of development, which could fall if financing is significantly reduced once a given objective is met; points out that this would ensure equal treatment for regions in similar situations, which would in turn lead to the efficient organisation of programmes;

28.

Reminds the Commission and the Member States that the expectations of the European public are based on people’s needs, and especially on the desire for access to adequate infrastructure and quality public services, which must be provided equitably and at prices affordable by all European citizens regardless of where they live and work; insists that the right to equal opportunities must be respected and stresses the need for disabled access to all infrastructure and projects financed under the structural funds;

29.

Stresses that, in order to consolidate knowledge and innovation as motors of future economic growth and European competitiveness, it is necessary to improve the quality of education, build on the results of research, promote innovation and the transfer of knowledge Union-wide, exploit ICTs to the maximum, ensure that innovative ideas are reflected in new products and services which generate growth and quality jobs and contribute to meeting the challenges of social change in Europe and the world, encourage entrepreneurship, prioritise user needs and market opportunities, and guarantee accessible and adequate funding on the basis of a key role for the structural funds;

30.

Highlights the fact that economic, social and territorial cohesion provides an opportunity to harness the full potential of research, development and innovation and to ensure that the European public have better living standards and greater confidence in the EU; selective and combined investment in research, development and innovation must take into account regional and urban capacities and potential and help to develop key areas such as e-health, pharmaceuticals, transport and logistics, environment, digital content, energy and security, by means of institutional development and capacity-building programmes;

31.

Takes the view that some of the funding allocated to research, development and innovation under the cohesion policy should be used to attain and maintain the role of world leader in sectors where Europe already has a competitive advantage and in those where it has a fresh opportunity to become a world leader;

32.

Takes the view that, in order to consolidate the internal market, specific measures are needed to stimulate competition at European level, without however creating an imbalance among Member States; believes that in this way a comfortable level of stability and economic prosperity can be achieved at European level;

33.

Recommends that the Member States and the Commission pay greater attention to supporting major projects covering two or more operational programmes with a major impact at European level, which will generate added value, create high-quality jobs and safeguard the sustainable development of the regions;

34.

Takes the view that the cohesion policy should continue promoting measures that will generate the greatest possible number of jobs, making it possible to harness local human resources and ensure their ongoing development so as to guarantee high productivity;

35.

Maintains that the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion is a necessary condition but that it is not sufficient to guarantee economic competitiveness at world level, which requires significant investments in key areas such as energy, the environment, infrastructure, education, research and development, creative industries and services, logistics and transport;

36.

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

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/37

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on the Commission Work Programme for 2011 (COM(2010)0623),

—

having regard to the last Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, in particular Annex 4 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas it is crucial that the Dialogue between the European Parliament and the Commission should be carried out in good time so that efforts can focus on defining the EU's key strategic objectives for the next year and the coming years,

B.

whereas political priorities should be matched with the available financial resources,

C.

whereas European policy and action, hand in hand with that of Member States, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, can and must have a real influence in helping citizens anticipate and react to a rapidly changing society,

D.

whereas 2011 will be of crucial importance to the future success of the Union and a significant challenge for the European Commission and the Union as a whole,

E.

whereas the financial crisis is still having significant effects on the economies of the Member States and major adjustments must be made at both national and EU level; whereas a full recovery requires a common European strategy for sustainable growth and employment creation, backed by the necessary powers and resources,

1.

Notes that this work programme is the first to be adopted under the new programming cycle, and underlines that the dialogue established with the Commission needs to be deepened in order to improve the obvious link between the political priorities and the budget to finance them at EU level;

2.

Urges the Commission to commit itself to performing a realistic and operational programming exercise which must be effective and be translated into reality and better implemented than in the past; asks for a clearer timetable relating to major proposals to be put forward;

3.

Urges the Commission to adapt the acquis to the provisions of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU as soon as possible, according to a clear timetable;

4.

Calls on the Commission to act to the fullest extent of its legal powers and political authority; notes that the European Union cannot function effectively unless the Commission identifies, articulates and promotes the general interest of the Union and citizens, and efficiently performs its duty to oversee the application of the Treaties and EU law;

5.

Notes that the efforts made so far to solve the financial crisis and to sustain Europe’s economic recovery have fallen way below what is necessary; and deplores that the work programme does not include additional measures to create more jobs; calls on the Commission, therefore, to spell out its detailed response to how its initiatives and proposals will meet the challenge;

6.

Believes that the EU must address structural reform without delay in order to improve its competitiveness and re-launch growth; believes also that the modernisation of infrastructure (including broadband), increased effort regarding research, development and innovation, a policy ensuring sufficient, economical and clean energy, innovation and the development of new technologies and the quality of education and training are central planks of the strategy;

7.

Welcomes the priority given to the reform of European economic governance; warns that, unless the EU can develop credible economic governance, particularly in the eurozone, capable of ensuring sound fiscal policy and restoring growth, the future of the euro will be in jeopardy; insists that such reform must take full account of Parliament's position, as set out in its resolution of 20 October 2010, and must have as its purpose the furtherance of the Union's economic and social objectives, as set out in Article 3 of the Lisbon Treaty;

8.

Recalls that Parliament and the Council, as the two arms of the budgetary authority, should be equally involved in any mobilisation of the European Financial Stability Mechanism; asks that proposals be presented rapidly to make the crisis resolution mechanism permanent (e.g. European Monetary Fund), to fully integrate the EU 2020 strategy into the long-term macroeconomic framework, to take initial steps towards the mutual issuance of a part of sovereign debt and the introduction of bonds to that effect, as described in Parliament’s previous reports, and to ensure a single external representation of the Eurozone; favours a light Treaty change that provides a legal basis to such a mechanism rather than resorting to a profound amendment of the Treaty;

9.

Insists that the Commission must rapidly bring forward proposals to revise the current financial framework; states that the MFF for the period after 2013 must also reflect the increased scope of those responsibilities; calls on the Commission to present an ambitious investment proposal in order to meet the targets of the EU 2020 strategy, and to create jobs, boost growth and guarantee the security of European citizens; considers that flexibility within this framework will be essential and that the EU budget should allow for the mobilising of alternative sources of financing (earmarking, project bonds, etc.);

10.

Recalls that the adoption of the MFF Regulation requires the consent of Parliament; calls on the Commission to facilitate the rapid adoption of an inter-institutional agreement on the role of Parliament in the preparation and negotiation of the next MFF;

11.

Strongly urges the Commission to come forward in June 2011, following the adoption of Parliament's position on the new MFF, with bold and innovative proposals for a substantive revision of the own-resources system, to create a system which is fair, clear, transparent and neutral concerning the tax burden for EU citizens; strongly believes that the MFF and the issue of own resources are interlinked, should be decided at the same time on the basis of an open inter-institutional debate, with strong involvement of national parliaments, and cannot be further postponed;

12.

Stresses that cohesion policy represents one of the most important EU instruments responding to the economic crisis, by promoting investment in the real economy; welcomes, in this context, the Commission’s first assessment of the implementation of cohesion policy-related measures within the European Economic Recovery Plan, which underlines the key role played by this policy in the process of countering the effects of the crisis; underlines the unquestionable linkage of cohesion policy with all three major priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy, by facilitating the delivery of higher smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, while promoting harmonious development across the Union's 271 regions;

13.

Notes the introduction of a ‘European Semester’; believes that Parliament's committees must have a more important role in order to demonstrate their expertise by producing ‘end-of-year reports’ on progress in achieving important objectives, followed by political group (joint) resolutions;

14.

Regrets that the proposals for the European Semester and the governance package provide little opportunity for European democratic scrutiny, and insists on strong parliamentary involvement in both;

15.

Calls on the Commission to come forward with proposals on the recast of the Market Abuse Directive and Market in Financial Instruments Directive as soon as possible; notes that the Commission must bear in mind the possible cumulative impact of the proposals that it is introducing to ensure that they enhance the stability, transparency and accountability of the financial sector and its capacity to serve the real economy in terms of growth and jobs;

16.

Asks for the legislative initiative on crisis resolution in the banking sector to be coordinated with competition policy rules to create a comprehensive framework for crisis management, covering private and public actors and protecting the taxpayer; believes that the revision of the Regulation on Credit Rating Agencies should address the lack of competition in the sector and asks the Commission to act on Parliament's recent request to examine options for an independent European credit rating agency and stronger involvement of independent public entities in the issuing of ratings;

17.

Calls for the Commission to present a comprehensive action plan, with a timetable and targets, to deliver a single market for online content and services, in the interests of an open and prosperous digital society, and to overcome the digital divide;

18.

Stresses that the digital agenda and investment in ICTs is crucial to Europe's long-term competitiveness, and urges Member States and the Commission to continue market roll-out of next generation networks and access to them through continued liberalisation of the internal market for communications in order to boost innovation in the EU;

19.

Strongly encourages the Commission to foster knowledge and innovation in the FP8 further to the midterm review, and recalls the importance of Parliament having the opportunity to express its own priorities prior to the adoption of the FP8 in 2012;

20.

Welcomes the Commission's ambition with regard to the Innovation Union which will involve reviewing state aid for R&D and innovation frameworks, enhancing the role of the EIB and venture capital; also acknowledges the role public procurement can play in stimulating innovation;

21.

Urges the Commission to reduce red tape in its R&D programmes and increase the participation of innovative firms in the projects; considers that the Commission should further promote public private partnerships to foster European research, development and innovation;

22.

Stresses the importance to be given to the new multiannual programmes after 2013 in the field of education, culture, audiovisual, youth and citizenship, expected to be presented in 2011; considers that actions and measures taken in these programmes should respond to the needs of the European citizens and be based on an adequate and efficient budgetary framework; considers that the initiative ‘Youth on the Move’ underlines the importance of those programmes;

23.

Underlines the strategic importance of the flagship initiative on resource efficiency, and urges the Commission to work swiftly on an ambitious proposal aimed at achieving binding targets and concrete benchmarks within the framework of the EU 2020 European Semester of policy coordination; and calls on the Commission to come forward with legislation to further reduce EU emissions;

24.

Considers that priority should be given to the proper and functional implementation of existing legislative instruments such as the Third Energy Package, and fully supports the 2050 strategy, smart grids and security of supply initiatives;

25.

Emphasises that, for economic growth to be sustainable, energy security is vitally important to ensure uninterrupted supply, respect for contractual arrangements, a fair market price, and the avoidance of dependence on too small a number of producers;

26.

Believes that the Communication on the new Industrial Policy for Europe should be followed by effective measures, in particular to achieve the desired shift towards a low-carbon and sustainable economy and to ensure that the 20 % EU energy efficiency target will be met;

27.

Underlines that climate change mitigation and adaptation is a high priority which will also benefit the competitiveness of the European industry and SMEs;

28.

Welcomes the key priorities as regards the publication of the White Paper and urges the Commission to speed up the preparation of the revision of the TEN-T guidelines and its modernised financing mechanisms, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy and the review of the EU budget;

29.

Insists from the outset that the CAP reform process must result in a strong, fair, genuinely common and multifunctional policy that meets the expectations of consumers and producers and effectively delivers ‘public goods’, especially food security, and guarantees the EU's food self-sufficiency;

30.

Recalls that, in its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013, it insisted that the amounts allocated to the CAP in the budget year 2013 should be at least maintained during the next financial programming period;

31.

Demands that agricultural imports from third countries should only be allowed into the EU if they have been produced in a manner consistent with European consumer protection, animal welfare and environmental protection standards and minimum social standards; insists that the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral trade agreements should not be to the detriment of EU agricultural producers;

32.

Urges the Commission, in the light of the findings of the Court of Auditors' report on the reform of the sugar market, to review its impact assessment procedures in order to ensure that the best and most timely information is used when preparing all assessments, which will be critical when assessing the impact of future bilateral trade agreements for key sectors of the EU economy;

33.

Welcomes the forthcoming Commission proposals to implement the Integrated Maritime Policy, such as the proposal on the framework for Marine Spatial Planning and the Communication for sustainable growth in coastal regions and maritime sectors, as well as the communication on the integration of maritime surveillance; stresses, however, that funding to implement the IMP must be guaranteed in the Community budget by means of a proportional contribution from all the sectors affected by this policy;

34.

Believes that inclusive growth can only be built on a foundation of equal treatment for all workers within the workplace and a level playing field for all businesses; believes the Commission Work Programme should include proposals to guarantee these principles, and insists that the legislative proposal on implementation of the Posting of Workers, as foreseen in the Communication on the Single Market Act, must clarify the exercise of fundamental social rights;

35.

Calls for the presentation of a Commission proposal on the financial participation of employees in company earnings;

36.

Calls on the Commission, in its reports on ‘New Skills and Jobs’ and ‘a Platform against Poverty’, to take into consideration specific difficulties that women face, specifically to promote equality in the workplace as a means of tackling poverty, and to encourage women to become entrepreneurs, by pursuing measures which share best practice;

37.

Strongly believes that closing the gender pay gap remains a real challenge that needs to be overcome, and reiterates the requests made to the Commission in Parliament’s 2008 resolution to submit to Parliament a legislative proposal on the revision of the existing legislation relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, taking into consideration the recommendations annexed to its 2008 resolution;

38.

Calls on the Commission to heed the views of the social partners in the area of pensions and ensure that the White Paper reflects the expectations of both sides of industry, including the strengthening of the first pillar;

39.

Welcomes the reform of the EURES job portal, making information and job advice to young workers more accessible, but regrets that this proposal has been postponed until 2012, while young people need it today;

40.

Calls for more effectiveness and delivery concerning two major EU training agencies – Cedefop, the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and ETF, the European Training Foundation;

41.

Strongly supports greater market integration, targeting the significant persistent gaps, as identified by Professor Monti, and enhancing the trust of Europe's citizens, workers, small businesses and consumers; believes, whilst welcoming the publication of the Single Market Act, that the proposals should be more ambitious and concrete; calls on the Commission to put forward, as soon as possible, clear priorities and legislative proposals;

42.

Asks for modernisation of the EU public procurement legislative framework, through harmonisation of the directives and the Government Procurement Agreement, and calls for a clearer timetable for next year;

43.

Calls on the Commission to ensure a consistent approach between the legal instrument on European contract law and the Consumer Rights Directive; considers it essential for a clear Commission Policy Strategy for Consumers to be tackled in an integrated manner as a matter of urgency in 2011, and not in 2014 as currently proposed;

44.

Supports the revision of the Package Travel Directive and the review of the General Product Safety Directive focusing on market surveillance;

45.

Underlines the need for an efficient legal framework for product safety in the EU; supports the review of the General Product Safety Directive, which requires a clearer calendar to be established, in line with the review of the NLF; calls on the Commission to review the CE marking system to ensure that CE marking can be considered as a safety mark by consumers;

46.

Underlines that civil law initiatives are crucial for revitalisation of the Single Market; supports the Commission's actions as far as civil justice is concerned, calling for civil law instruments to be made more e-justice friendly;

47.

Calls on a final resolution of the problems surrounding the establishment of a European patent and calls on the Commission, if necessary, to come forward with a proposal for enhanced cooperation;

48.

Strongly regrets the lack of legislative initiative on cabotage and the delaying until 2012 of rail market access, including the opening of the market to domestic passengers; reiterates Parliament's firm conviction that a comprehensive passenger rights policy in Europe must be preserved and developed;

49.

Is deeply concerned that there are no concrete proposals on fundamental rights or the horizontal Non-Discrimination Directive, and that the issue of non-discrimination is not even mentioned; calls on the Commission to act swiftly to unblock the Non-Discrimination Directive;

50.

Calls for a proposal for a Communication on enhanced intra-EU solidarity in the field of asylum, but regrets the absence of legislative proposals on asylum, bearing in mind that the Union should have a common asylum policy in place by 2012;

51.

Calls for proposals on migration; recalls that the correct functioning of the proposed Entry/Exit System will depend on the success of VIS and SIS II, although SIS II is not yet fully operational;

52.

Underlines the need for an ambitious fundamental rights policy, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and the need to make the fundamental rights provided for in the Charter as effective as possible; asks the Commission to ensure the compatibility of each legal initiative with fundamental rights as well as guarantee that Member States respect the Charter when implementing EU law; calls for the strengthening of capabilities for monitoring, and applying the treaty mechanisms against, violations of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

53.

Emphasises that, in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, the rights and freedoms of EU citizens should be fully respected and that data protection and the right to legal redress are essential in creating a credible and effective security policy; considers that the increasing number of crimes requires more Community plans on organised crime and cyber-security;

54.

Welcomes the proposal on the rights of victims of crime and, above all, on the right to legal assistance and legal aid, but regrets that this is the only measure foreseen; calls for a clear timetable for the remaining measures of the procedural rights roadmap;

55.

Welcomes the launch in 2011 of a new comprehensive legal framework for the protection of personal data in the EU: underlines that it will carefully scrutinise all proposals, including EU-PNR and EU-TFTP, to ensure their compliance with fundamental rights;

56.

Welcomes the proposals on civil law, but asks the Commission, in order to achieve common standards for EU citizens across Member States, to consider speeding up the revision of the acquis in the field of civil and criminal law and report to Parliament;

57.

Supports initiatives aimed at reconciling work and family life inter alia through measures on minimum parental leave and the promotion of flexible working arrangements for women and men, as well as help for carers to combine employment with caring responsibilities;

58.

Regrets the delay in the Commission’s putting forward legislative proposals in the area of the ‘Lisbonisation’ of the current acquis in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is a Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs priority;

59.

Considers that, following the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the revision of the legal framework is essential, and regrets that this revision is only proposed for 2012 – 2013; insists that all JHA agencies must be efficient and - most importantly - accountable;

60.

Emphasises that the promotion of human rights across the world is a key objective of the European Union on the global stage and that improved trade relations and reinforced development assistance can help encourage progress in this field;

61.

Calls on the Commission to keep up the momentum for the enlargement process;

62.

Stresses that, regarding the following topics, new initiatives would be welcomed:

63.

Believes that, in order for it to effectively project its values and principles and to contribute to political stability and economic development in its neighbourhood, the EU must support young democracies across Europe and strengthen relations with its partners; calls on the Commission to finalise the review of the ENP with the aim of ensuring better coherence between policy objectives and financial instruments; considers that human rights and democracy conditionality should be strengthened in its relations with neighbours;

64.

Calls on the Commission to afford greater priority to food security throughout Africa; underlines the need to reinforce the agricultural sector in Africa, in a sustainable manner; in this context, urges the Commission to ensure greater access for the poor to credit and financial services in Africa; urges the Commission to promote measures to boost intra-continental African trade, including upgraded support packages for the regional economic communities and for improving infrastructures across the African continent;

65.

Calls on the Commission to provide a yearly report on EU progress towards achieving the MDGs by 2015 and to introduce measures to ensure Member States fulfil their commitments to 0,7 % GNI to ODA, and to monitor such undertakings;

66.

Stresses that, in the context of the ongoing negotiations on EPAs, there should be renewed focus on the development dimension;

67.

Calls on the Commission to actively promote tangible progress in the ongoing WTO negotiations in order to conclude the Doha Round as soon as possible; insists that the strengthening of existing bilateral and regional Free Trade Agreements and the conclusion of new ones is of importance, but should be considered as a complementary strategy and not as an alternative to the multilateral framework;

68.

Recalls that multilateralism must remain the EU's first priority, and demands that ongoing and new trade negotiations should respect the principle of special and differential treatment for developing countries; firmly believes that an effective and reformed multilateral trade framework is needed to build a more balanced and fair economic system as part of a new global governance at the service of development and of the eradication of poverty;

69.

Underlines that imports from third countries should be put on the EU market only if they comply with European consumer protection; considers that, in international negotiations, the Commission should insist that our trading partners comply with European environmental, social and labour standards;

70.

Calls for a CSR clause to be included in international trade agreements signed by the EU; considers that this must include reporting and transparency for corporations and due diligence for undertakings and groups of undertakings, investigations in case of proven breaches of CSR commitments and better access to the courts for victims of the actions of corporations;

71.

Asks the Commission to bring forward a legislative initiative along the lines of the new US ‘Conflict Minerals’ Law in order to reinforce transparency and good governance in the extractive industry sector in developing countries; calls on the Commission to step up the fight against corruption in such countries, which undermines human rights and good governance;

72.

Calls on the Commission to rapidly present proposals amending the OLAF Regulations;

73.

Stresses that the Commission should contribute more openly to a positive attitude towards National Management Declarations (NMD) signed by finance ministers; emphasises that the Commission should urge Members States to issue NMDs; calls for the introduction of comprehensive user-friendly online databases;

74.

Calls, therefore, for systematic, regular and independent evaluations of EU programmes - both internal policies and development assistance - in order to ensure that they are achieving the desired outcomes and are doing so in a cost-effective way, in order to:

75.

Strongly believes that a correct and timely transposition and implementation of European directives is particularly important to eliminate citizens' mistrust of EU actions; considers that this requires effective cooperation between the Commission and Member States;

76.

Urges that EU legislation be simplified and underlines that impact assessments, prior to legislation, must be used impartially and efficiently, taking implementation into account; strongly supports the Commission's ongoing efforts on the Smart Regulation project;

77.

Welcomes the fact that the Commission will pay more attention to competitiveness aspects in the impact assessments and underlines the importance of evaluating the cumulative effects on competitiveness of combined pieces of legislation (‘fitness checks’);

78.

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

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/45

—

having regard to the Tripoli Declaration issued by Heads of State or Government on 30 November 2010,

—

having regard to the Pre-Summit Declaration of the European and Pan-African Parliaments of 27 November 2010,

—

having regard to Articles 177 to 181 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the partnership between Africa and the EU is based on the mutual interest in exploiting their combined potentials,

B.

whereas the Tripoli Declaration embodies the will of the different leaders to consolidate the strategic partnership established three years ago between the two continents to meet common challenges together and promote sustainable economic growth to the advantage of all those in Africa,

C.

whereas the EU is responsible for more than half of development aid and remains Africa’s most important trading partner,

D.

whereas Africa is diversifying its partnerships, particularly with major countries in Asia and Latin America,

1.

Welcomes the adoption of the Strategic Action Plan 2010-2013 and of its partnerships, and hopes that it will contribute added value in relation to the Cotonou Agreement and the Union for the Mediterranean and that it is an expression of an ambitious approach to intercontinental relations;

2.

Stresses that the Africa-EU joint strategy’s founding principles should be designed to support developing countries’ sustainable needs in order to fight poverty, guarantee a decent income and livelihood as well as the fulfilment of basic human rights, including social, economic and environmental rights;

3.

Hopes that the lessons will be learned from the difficulties which arose during the implementation of the first ‘Action Plan’, for 2008-2010 and hopes that the intentions expressed in principle in the Final Declaration by Heads of State and of Government will be acted on;

4.

Notes with interest that both the private sector and civil society, particularly from Africa, could be allowed to make a far more effective contribution to the strategy than has been the case to date;

5.

Recognises also the important dimension of regional integration for growth and development and stresses in particular the commitment of the Tripoli Declaration to make the African Peace and Security Architecture fully operational in close collaboration with regional organisations;

6.

Welcomes the progress achieved in the implementation of an African Peace and Security Architecture in order to address peace and security challenges on the African continent; stresses in this respect the importance of providing predictable and sustainable funding for African peace-support operations, the necessity of building local resilience capacities, and the determination to protect civilians in armed conflicts;

7.

Takes the view that conflict prevention policy is an essential precondition for lasting peace and that the structural causes of conflicts should be addressed by putting in place a sustainable development policy in order to meet the basic needs of the African population and fight unemployment, social and economic injustices;

8.

Considers that the adoption of the new US ‘Conflict Minerals’ law is a huge step forward in combating illegal exploitation of minerals in Africa, which fuel civil wars and conflicts; is of the view that the Commission and the Council should come out with similar proposals to ensure tractability of imported minerals in the EU market while taking into account the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI);

9.

Calls on the EU and the African Union (AU) to jointly address key issues of common concern such as responses to political crisis and support for economic governance with a view to formulating shared governance agendas via the newly established Platform for Dialogue on Governance and Human Rights;

10.

Welcomes the Africa-EU joint commitment to founding principles which include respect for human rights, democratic principles, rule of law and the condemnation of all forms of terrorism;

11.

Notes that, in their Declaration, the Heads of State or Government indicate that they are ‘united in (…) the protection of human rights on both continents’; stresses the principle of universality of these rights, which must particularly be observed in the actions planned as part of the ‘Partnership on Democratic Governance and Human Rights’;

12.

Strongly regrets, given our repeated commitments to democratic governance and human rights, the fact that Robert Mugabe was invited to and actively participated in the 3rd Africa EU-Summit; calls for all actors to take a stronger political stance in future in order to send a clear message of our firm belief in the rule of law and democracy;

13.

Urges that all actions conducted under the terms of the various partnerships be pursued without any discrimination on grounds of gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or conviction, disability, age or sexual orientation or against people living with HIV/AIDS;

14.

Endorses the call by the Pan-African Parliament on all Member States of the African Union to ratify the African Union Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance;

15.

Stresses European Council President Herman Van Rompuy’s call to African leaders to support the ICC and ‘fully subscribe to the principle of the fight against impunity’;

16.

Urges the EU and the AU to commit themselves to working together in order to ensure better African and European cooperation in relevant international bodies, including the UN;

17.

Welcomes the agreement between the EU and the AU to engage in political dialogue in order to find solutions to common concerns on Economic Partnership Agreements; recognises that regional integration, trade and investments are crucial for economic stability and sustainable growth;

18.

Urges the EU and the AU to cooperate on sustainable exploitation of raw materials, especially by focusing on capacity building, governance, infrastructure development, investments, geological knowledge and skills, and transparency of mining contracts; calls in this respect for the introduction of environmentally sound and socially sustainable policies on raw materials which also benefit the local population;

19.

Urges all member states of the African Union to facilitate the establishment of a legal and fiscal framework which is conducive to stimulating economic growth and attracting FDI on the one hand, and to stamping out corruption and cutting down red tape and maladministration on the other;

20.

Urges African and EU leaders to honour the Tripoli commitment and to use the strategy as a tool to boost intra-continental African trade, including upgraded support packages for the regional economic communities and for improving infrastructures across the African continent;

21.

Notes the renewal of the commitment of the European Union countries to allocate 0,7 % of their GDP by 2015, which is vital if the MDGs are to be achieved by 2015;

22.

Will seek to ensure, in particular, that the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals is central to the pursuit of all the Partnerships;

23.

Recalls that specific activities on maternal, newborn and child health, gender, education, land policy and sustainable development, access to water and sanitation, and on people with disabilities are crucial for attaining the MDGs; encourages the continuance of programmes in the field of education and health;

24.

Stresses the importance of guaranteeing food security throughout Africa and underlines the need to reinforce the agricultural and fisheries sectors in Africa, in a sustainable way, especially as regards smallholder farmers and fishermen;

25.

Recalls the dominant role that agriculture plays in African national economies; stresses therefore the central role of harmonisation of sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards, as well as capacity building for the African agricultural sector;

26.

Regrets that the current acquisition of farmland in Africa by some government-backed foreign investors, which, if not handled properly, threatens to undermine local food security and lead to serious and far-reaching consequences, was not addressed by the Summit;

27.

Believes that African and EU leaders should demonstrate their real commitment to putting in place a mechanism to circumvent the illicit flight of capital for tax evasion, to promote full transparency on country-by-country reporting and to stand up to international pressure on juridical that might allow tax avoidance or evasion in Africa;

28.

Believes that renewable energy is vital for the economic and social development of Africa and stresses President Barroso’s call for an energetic green revolution in Africa;

29.

Welcomes the Africa-EU Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme and the political targets agreed at the Vienna High Level Meeting on Energy in September 2010, to be reached by 2020, including bringing access to modern and sustainable energy services to an additional 100 million Africans, doubling the capacity of cross-border electricity connections within Africa and doubling the use of natural gas in Africa, and increasing the use of renewable energy in Africa and improving energy efficiency in Africa in all sectors;

30.

Invites the EU and the AU to unite their efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation;

31.

Recalls the EU commitment of EUR 7.2 bn in 2010-2012 for fast-start climate change projects and initiatives, a significant part of which will be available for Africa;

32.

Stresses that world’s poorest people are hit first and hardest by climate change and calls on all actors to support developing countries in adapting to the impact of climate change and growing in a low carbon way in order to eradicate poverty;

33.

Notes that achieving progress on a global climate deal is crucial to tackling poverty and, in this context, stresses the immense potential for natural resources – sun, wind, rivers and tides – that African countries often possess in abundance;

34.

Observes that migration does have positive effects and insists on the need for a common strategy complete with a timetable and targeted projects to reduce the negative effects of illegal migration;

35.

Recalls the commitment of all partners to creating more and better jobs through the promotion of sustainable and inclusive growth;

36.

Welcomes the reinforcement of existing programmes with respect to the mobility of students and academics, together with initiatives such as the Pan-African University and Tuning Educational Structures and Programmes;

37.

Considers that brain drain is a major problem for Africa and that professional people who have left the country should be given strong incentives to return and apply the benefit of their training in their countries of origin;

38.

Welcomes the launching of a high-level science and technology policy dialogue at senior official and ministerial level in order to strengthen the science and technology cooperation framework in order to leverage faster inclusive economic growth and social development in Africa;

39.

Notes that Sudan is not represented, the authorities of this country not considering themselves bound by the Tripoli Declaration of Heads of State and Government, and wishes to see all elements of the 2005 Peace Agreement implemented, as stated in said Declaration, including therefore the referendum scheduled for January 2011which must allow the people of southern Sudan to choose their own destiny;

40.

Regrets that certain Heads of State or Government from the EU’s larger Member States were not able to attend the EU-Africa Summit;

41.

Regrets that there is no financing plan to accompany the Africa-EU joint strategy andcalls once again for the EDF to come under the EU budget so that there may be parliamentary oversight of the implementation of the various EU financial instruments employed in the creation of the different partnerships;

42.

Hopes for greater involvement by ministerial bodies in the Strategy’s implementation;

43.

Calls for the Pan-African and European Parliaments to be able to exercise their supervisory role in the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan;

44.

Calls on the national parliaments of all the African and EU countries to examine and debate the Strategic Plan;

45.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the EU and AU Councils and Commissions, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly and the PAN-African Parliament (PAP).

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/49

—

having regard to the preamble of the Treaty on European Union, notably its second and its fourth to seventh indents,

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3(3) second indent, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as proclaimed on 12 December 2007 in Strasbourg,

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to all the related conventions and recommendations of the Council of Europe and the United Nations, including specialised monitoring bodies, in the fundamental rights area,

—

having regard to the decisions and case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) and of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),

—

having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union (1),

—

having regard to the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens,

—

having regard to the activity and annual reports of the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union (FRA),

—

having regard to NGO reports on human rights,

—

having regard to the public hearing organised by the European Parliament on 21 and 22 June 2010 on the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the development of a European area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 January 2009 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2004-2008) (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0344/2010),

A.

whereas Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union founds the Union on a community of indivisible and universal values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, solidarity, the rule of law and respect for human rights, for all persons on the territory of the European Union, including those belonging to minorities; whereas the effective safeguarding and promotion of rights has to be an overall objective of all European policies, including their external dimension, and an essential condition of the consolidation of the European Union contributing to the promotion of peace, the values and principles related to human rights and fundamental freedoms and people’s well-being,

B.

whereas the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon created a new situation in the EU in the field of human rights by making the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) legally binding, thus transforming basic values into concrete rights; whereas since its adoption the Charter has become a source of inspiration for the case-law of European courts; whereas the Commission has issued an annual report on implementation of the Charter, and the promotion and implementation of fundamental rights based on the Charter have to be covered by the FRA annual reports,

C.

whereas a genuine culture of fundamental rights must be developed, promoted and reinforced in both the EU institutions and the Member States, in particular when they apply and implement Union law, whether internally and in relations with third countries,

D.

whereas, according to its Rules of Procedure, the European Parliament can address, examine and evaluate the situation of fundamental rights on a yearly basis and make recommendations,

1.

Stresses that the effective protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes the core of democracy and the rule of law in the EU and an essential condition of the consolidation of the European area of freedom, security and justice and that it requires actions at various levels (international, European, national, regional and local level); stresses, moreover, the role that regional and local authorities can play in the concrete implementation and in the promotion of such rights; therefore calls on all EU institutions, Member States’ governments and parliaments to build on the new institutional and legal framework created by the Treaty of Lisbon to devise a comprehensive internal human rights policy for the Union which ensures effective accountability mechanisms, both at national and EU level, to address human rights violations;

2.

Draws attention to its resolutions, as well as its oral questions with debates and its findings from missions in 2009 on concrete cases of fundamental rights, such as on privacy, personal dignity and data protection, on the prohibition of torture, on freedom of thought, conscience and religion, on freedom of expression and information, on freedom of the press and media, on non-discrimination, on the use of minority languages, on the situation of the Roma and on free movement, on Roma women, on discrimination against same sex marriages and civil-partnership couples, on minors, on retention centres for immigrants, and on the alleged illegal detention of prisoners under the CIA rendition programme; stresses that all these resolutions reflect the values enshrined in the Charter, show its clear commitment to the everyday protection of fundamental rights, and send political messages to all individuals in the EU, the Member States and the EU institutions as well as international partners;

3.

Regrets that the Council and Commission have not followed up any of the recommendations contained in the European Parliament’s 2007 report on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (3) nor shared with the European Parliament information on EU-US discussions on this topic;

4.

Considers it necessary to reflect on developments in relation to the protection of fundamental rights in the post-Lisbon period and, in that context, intends this resolution to clarify the role that each institution and mechanism should play in the new European architecture of fundamental rights;

5.

Reiterates that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009 has fundamentally changed the legal face of the EU, which should establish itself increasingly as a community of shared values and principles; thus welcomes the new, multi-level EU system of fundamental rights protection that emanates from multiple sources and is enforced through a variety of mechanisms, including the legally binding Charter; the rights guaranteed by the ECHR, recognition of which flows from the Union’s obligation to accede; and the rights based on the Member States’ constitutional traditions and their interpretation according to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the CJ;

6.

Reaffirms that the Charter has the same legal value as the Treaties and represents the most modern codification of fundamental rights, offering a good balance between rights and solidarity and encompassing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as well as ‘third generation’ rights (i.e. the rights to good administration, freedom of information, a healthy environment and consumer protection); considers that the EU should develop a regulatory framework to protect against fundamental rights abuses by businesses;

7.

Stresses that the incorporation of the Charter into primary EU law, while not extending the Union’s competences and respecting the principle of subsidiarity as defined in its Article 51, creates new responsibilities for the decision-making and implementing institutions, as well as for Member States when implementing EU legislation at national level, and that the Charter’s provisions have thus become directly enforceable by European and national courts; calls on the EU institutions and Member States to increase coherence among their various bodies responsible for monitoring and implementation, with a view to effective application of the established comprehensive framework, and to reinforce a cross-EU monitoring mechanism, as well as an early warning system, such as the Universal Periodic Review;

8.

Recalls that respect for the core values of the EU and protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms constitute common ground in the Union’s relations with third countries, and stresses that the EU is bound by the Charter also in this respect; in this regard, recalls that the promotion of democracy and of the rule of law goes hand in hand with the respect, protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms; underlines the fact that, within the new institutional structure of the EU, the European External Action Service (EEAS) can only offer an opportunity to enhance coherence and effectiveness in the sphere of external policy efforts to promote human rights and democracy if a human-rights-based approach to the service’s structure, resources and activities is endorsed; emphasises that the Union plays a leading role in the promotion of human rights in the world; in this regard, calls on the EU to ensure the effectiveness of the human rights clauses in the international agreements and to take into account the principles of the Charter when entering into agreements with third countries, as well as to maintain coherence between its internal and external human rights policy;

9.

Reaffirms that EU accession to the ECHR will constitute the minimum level of protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe and provide an additional mechanism for enforcing human rights, namely the possibility of lodging a complaint with the ECtHR in relation to a violation of human rights derived from an act by an EU institution or a Member State implementing EU law, falling within the remit of the ECHR; and that ECtHR case law will thus provide extra input for current and future EU action on the respect for, and promotion of, fundamental freedoms in the areas of civil liberties, justice and home affairs, in addition to the case law of the Court of Justice in this field;

10.

Calls on all the Member States of the EU and of the Council of Europe to express their clear political commitment to and their will to support the accession process and agreement as well as to ensure the transparency of the accession process while stressing the need for proper consultation with relevant stakeholders; calls on the Commission to finalise its internal consultations, as well as the negotiations with the Council of Europe, by finding adequate solutions to the main technical questions in order to complete the accession process within a reasonable time limit and in order to ensure the highest possible level of protection of human rights in Europe;

11.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise awareness of the benefits of accession to the ECHR and of all the requirements to be fulfilled by the applicants, by developing guidelines on the adequate application and the effects of this additional mechanism in order to ensure that it can be used efficiently and effectively, as well as by including it in the training of all relevant professionals;

12.

Welcomes, furthermore, the new horizontal obligations created by the Treaty of Lisbon to combat social exclusion and discrimination and to promote social justice and protection, equality between men and women, respect for private and family life, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child, and to develop a common policy on asylum and immigration and combat trafficking in human beings, as well as its explicit reference to persons belonging to minorities, which reflects another founding value of the Union; welcomes the fact that the Union has acquired legal personality allowing it to accede to international treaties, the improvement in judicial protection with the extension of the jurisdiction of the CJ to areas of obvious relevance to the protection of fundamental rights, such as police and judicial cooperation in the field of criminal law, the strengthened role of the European Parliament and national parliaments in the European decision-making process, especially in evaluating the implementation of EU policy in the AFSJ, the increased role of European citizens, now invested with the power to initiate EU legislation through the European Citizens’ Initiative, and the obligation to maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society (Article 11(2) TEU);

13.

Calls for full and consistent implementation, in compliance with international and European human rights law, of the Stockholm Programme, which converts the obligations and principles deriving from the Treaty into practice by setting the strategic guidelines for the AFSJ;

14.

Considers that the European institutions have often acted in parallel in the field of protection of fundamental rights and therefore calls for reflection on actions taken and for improved cooperation among these institutions, such as established inter-institutional cooperation for the annual monitoring of the situation of human rights in the EU, so that each institution can build upon other institutions’ reports;

15.

Notes the creation of a new ‘Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship’ portfolio within the Commission as an indication of its commitment to step up its efforts in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms and as a positive response to Parliament’s repeated requests in this regard; such a division between justice and security should not reinforce the misconceived dichotomy between the need to protect the human rights of all people and the need to guarantee their security; the new Commissioner should pay particular attention to EU policies on fighting irregular migration and terrorism, and the full support of the College of Commissioners is crucial to enable the new Commissioner to maintain a high profile;

16.

Calls on the Commission to make 2013 the European Year of Citizenship in order to give momentum to the debate on European citizenship and inform EU citizens of their rights, in particular the new rights resulting from the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon;

17.

Expects concrete actions by the new Commissioner responsible, in line with already declared intentions: particularly and most importantly, welcomes the commitment to introduce a fundamental-rights impact assessment of all new legislative proposals; to oversee the legislative process to ensure that emerging final texts comply with the Charter; to apply a ‘zero tolerance’ policy on violations of the Charter, conducting in-depth investigations and initiating infringement procedures when Member States are in breach of their human rights obligations in implementing EU law; and to make sure EU citizens are properly informed on the new fundamental-rights architecture; calls for follow-up to the 2003 Communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (COM(2003)0606) to define a transparent and coherent way to address possible violations of human rights and make relevant use of Article 7 TEU on the basis of the new fundamental-rights architecture;

18.

Reminds the Commission to monitor all new legislative proposals for compliance with the Charter, and to check existing instruments in this respect; suggests that the impact assessments accompanying Commission proposals should clearly indicate whether such proposals comply with the Charter, so that this consideration becomes an integral part of the bringing forward of legislative proposals; recalls the Commission of its explicit task to involve parties concerned by broad consultations in order to ensure coherence and transparency in the Union's actions (Article 11(3) TEU); underlines in this regard the importance of the FRA Platform as a significant resource for fulfilling this task;

19.

Reminds the Commission to undertake objective investigations and start infringement proceeding whenever a Member State, in implementing EU legislation, violates the rights enshrined in the Charter; further reminds the Commission to request that Member States provide reliable data and facts and to collect information also from non-governmental sources, as well as to request the FRA and other human rights bodies for input;

20.

Draws attention to the recent revival of nationalism, xenophobia and discrimination in some Member States and stresses the central role that the Commission should take in order to prevent and combat these possible violations of fundamental rights;

21.

Emphasises the importance of the Commission’s annual monitoring of compliance with the Charter, and notes that its monitoring reports should contain an assessment of the implementation of the guaranteed rights, an evaluation of the most contentious issues and of the situation of the most vulnerable groups in the Union, existing protection gaps, key trends and structural problems at national and EU level, with a view to proposing concrete initiatives and measures, recommends the dissemination of best practices to the Member States;

22.

Welcomes the Commission Communication on the Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union referring among others to its preventing approach in the effective implementation, the importance of internal training on fundamental rights, the systematic check of the fundamental rights aspect of the Commission's impact assessments by the Impact Assessment Board, as well as the targeted communication measures tailored to various situations needed in this respect; furthermore welcomes the emphasis of the above-mentioned Commission Communication regarding the importance of the political criteria for accession laid down by the 1993 Copenhagen European Council requiring candidate countries to have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities; the preservation of this criterion is supporting the protection of fundamental rights in the future Member States;

23.

Calls on the Commission to enforce the values and principles enshrined in the Treaty and Charter and the strategy set out in the Stockholm Programme through concrete legislative proposals while having regard to the jurisprudence of the ECtHR when carrying out these activities; furthermore, calls for the ‘Lisbonisation’ of the current acquis in the field of police and judicial cooperation and for a strengthening of democratic accountability in the AFSJ;

24.

Suggests establishing a working relationship between the Commissioners responsible for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship and Home Affairs and the Committee of Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, by regularly inviting the Commissioners to exchange views on current issues and developments related to fundamental rights;

25.

Highlights that also the European Parliament should strengthen its autonomous impact assessment on fundamental rights in relation to legislative proposals and amendments under examination in the legislative process to make it more systematic, notably by enlarging the possibilities currently foreseen by Rule 36 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure on the respect for the Charter and to ask to the Legal Service opinions on legal issues in relation to fundamental rights issues in the EU;

26.

Calls on the Council to adapt to the changes required by the Treaty and to comply with the Charter when legislating; therefore welcomes the establishment of the Council’s standing Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons and underlines the importance for this new body to have a broad mandate to include issues in relation to fundamental rights with EU and Member States relevance and provide a forum for a Council exchange of views on internal human rights matters, and for the work of this new body to be transparent and efficient, also in relation to the European Parliament;

27.

Reaffirms the inter-institutional agreement Common Approach to Impact Assessment (4) referred to in the Commission Communication on the Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union, which states that the Parliament and the Council are responsible for assessing the impact of their own amendments;

28.

Calls on the Council to ensure that the Council Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights and Free Movement of Persons (FREMP) has a broad mandate that could include, for example, discussing and responding officially to reports of the FRA (in addition to recommendations of UN treaty bodies, special procedures and mechanisms), assessing the external human rights impact of EU instruments and policies, in coordination with the Council Human Rights Working Group (COHOM), ensuring coordination with agencies without a human rights mandate but human rights impacts (e.g. EIB or FRONTEX), examining EU and Member States signature, ratification and compliance with international human rights instruments and providing a forum for Council exchanges on internal human rights matters;

29.

Calls for respect of its right to democratic scrutiny based on the treaties; insists on the necessity of enhancing transparency and access to documents between EU institutions, in order to develop more effective interinstitutional cooperation, including accountability on matters related to fundamental rights; underlines its role in following up its resolutions related to fundamental rights in the EU and its role in evaluating the work of other EU institutions in terms of their action or inaction when assessing developments in the field (e.g. through annual reports), combining as it does political messages with a facts-based approach; underlines its right, enshrined in Article 218(10) TFEU, to be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure for concluding international agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations;

30.

Reaffirms the fact of the CJ’s enhanced role in ensuring that all EU institutions, agencies and Member States implementing EU law respect the Charter accordingly, and notes that this will enable the CJ to strengthen and further develop its case law on fundamental rights; stresses the need for established cooperation between national courts, the CJ and the ECtHR in furthering the development of a coherent system of case law in the field;

31.

Emphasises the role of the FRA in the continued observance of the fundamental rights situation within the Union and the implications of the Treaty of Lisbon in this field, by providing analysis, assistance and expertise, a task which requires quality, objectivity, effective impartiality and transparency; calls on the Commission to review and strengthen the mandate of the FRA in order to align its work with the new requirements based on the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter; points out that, within the reviewed mandate, the monitoring role of the FRA should extend to the acceding countries; therefore adequate resources are needed for the increased tasks following the implementation of the Charter; reiterates its request to be fully associated in revising the multi-annual programme of the FRA; welcomes the inclusion of an Annex in the FRA’s Annual report, indicating the ratification by Member States of international human rights instruments;

32.

Stresses that the main task of the FRA is to provide the decision-making institutions with facts and data on matters related to fundamental rights and that, to this end, it collects and analyses information and data, as well as raising awareness by carrying out scientific research and surveys based on thorough methodologies, publishing thematic and annual reports and networking and promoting dialogue with civil society; welcomes its 2009 annual report and its approach of providing a comparative overview and highlighting good practice in the 27 Member States;

33.

Calls on the EU decision-making institutions to use the data and facts provided by the FRA during the preparatory stage of legislative activity, in decision-making and/or monitoring processes and to be in constant and close cooperation with the FRA, while involving its NGO Platform;

34.

Calls on all European agencies to uphold their commitment to the protection of fundamental rights and to integrate a fundamental-rights approach into all their activities; furthermore calls on the EU to ensure full legal accountability of its agencies in this regard;

35.

Is of the opinion that FRONTEX should establish structured cooperation with agencies dealing with fundamental rights or migrants or asylum and with the UNHCR, so as to facilitate operations which have implications for the protection of human rights; welcomes the cooperation agreement signed between FRONTEX and the FRA in 2010;

36.

Underlines the fact that the EU and the Member States share obligations in the field of the implementation and/or enforcement of human and fundamental rights, in their respective spheres of responsibility, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, and that this shared responsibility and competence represents both an opportunity and an obligation on the part of the Member States and of EU institutions; highlights the enhanced role of the national parliaments provided by the Treaty of Lisbon and supports the establishment of a formal ongoing dialogue between the European Parliament and national parliaments;

37.

Reminds the Member States of their duty to provide the Commission, as guardian of the treaties, with reliable data and facts, when requested;

38.

Emphasises the importance of the judiciary bodies in the Member States, which play a primary role in ensuring compliance and the enforcement of fundamental rights, and therefore urges supporting easy access to the courts and proceedings with a reasonable time limit as a means of strengthening the protection of fundamental and human rights; urges the Member States to invest effort in the ongoing training of national judges on fundamental rights and freedoms, including the new aspects in the field after the Treaty of Lisbon;

39.

Believes that EU action should not only address violations of fundamental rights after they have happened, but should also seek to prevent them; consequently calls for a reflection on mechanisms for early detection of potential violations of fundamental rights in the EU and in its Member States, temporary freezing of the measures which constitute such violations, accelerated legal procedures for determining if a measure is contrary to EU fundamental rights and for sanctions in the event that these measures are nonetheless implemented contrary to EU law;

40.

Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to redouble their efforts aimed at properly informing and raising the awareness of the public, as fundamental rights can be protected more effectively if individuals themselves are aware of their rights and the mechanisms available to protect them; calls for active use of the experience of civic bodies and relevant NGOs and for the maintenance of an ongoing working relationship with all such bodies in implementing the new architecture of fundamental rights and in taking action on specific cases;

41.

Reaffirms its right to annually issue a report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU, addressing fundamental rights issues with EU institutions, agencies or Member States if deemed necessary;

42.

Suggests that ways be found for EU institutions and agencies to cooperate better with international organisations committed to the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and to make better use of, and more effectively channel, the results of experience in the field;

43.

Calls on the EU institutions to exploit the full potential of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the EU, in the interests of greater synergy and consistency at European level, and suggests that better use be made of the expertise of the human-rights monitoring mechanisms, standards and findings developed by Council of Europe, thus avoiding duplication of work; reaffirms the need for the Union to be more involved in the work of the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and for the EU to take greater account of that work when implementing policies in the field of freedoms, justice and security;

44.

Calls on the EU Member States to sign up to, and ratify, the core Council of Europe and United Nations human-rights conventions and the additional optional protocols: among others, the European Social Charter (revised), the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of the Council of Europe, as well as the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, the UN Convention on Organised Crime and its two protocols against human trafficking and smuggling, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; furthermore, suggests that, in the European legislative process, more account be taken of international documents and more reference made to them;

45.

Stresses the need for appropriate attention to the various UN monitoring mechanisms and to the findings of the UN human-rights bodies, and suggests that their recommendations relevant to Member States be followed closely; points out the importance of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the United Nations Human Rights Council; recommends cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees of the United Nations; and welcomes the opening, in Brussels, of the first European Regional Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights;

46.

Underlines the important role and active work of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), of the OSCE Special Representatives on Freedom of the Media and for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings and of the High Commissioner on National Minorities;

47.

Calls on Member States sitting in the United Nations Security Council to ensure procedural rights guarantees in the listing and de-listing process of alleged terrorist groups or persons, as required by relevant CJ case law;

48.

Emphasises that the new architecture will be measured on how effectively the most pressing issues and the most recurrent infringements are handled by the institutions responsible, both in the Member States and at EU level, also in connection with its external relations;

49.

Recalls, therefore, all its resolutions, debates and findings from missions in 2009 on fundamental-rights issues, which have shown that there are many outstanding issues and specific cases of violation of fundamental rights, which require urgent concrete steps, mid-term strategies and long-term solutions, as well as follow-up by EU institutions; such as:

50.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council and the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Members States and the candidate countries, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

15.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 169/58

—

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

—

having regard to Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (2) (MCAD),

—

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) (3) (‘AMSD’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation) (4),

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 7 (respect for private and family life) and 8 (protection of personal data) thereof,

—

having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (5),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (6),

—

having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce in the Internal Market (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2010 on consumer protection (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2010 on the Internal Market Scoreboard (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 January 2009 on the transposition, implementation and enforcement of Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 November 2008 on the Consumer Markets Scoreboard (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 September 2008 on how marketing and advertising affect equality between women and men (12),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 28 January 2009 entitled ‘Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market: Second edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard’ (COM(2009)0025) and the accompanying Commission staff working document entitled ‘Second Consumer Markets Scoreboard’ (SEC(2009)0076),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 29 March 2010 entitled ‘Consumer Markets Scoreboard – Consumers at Home in the Internal Market: Monitoring the integration of the retail Internal Market and Benchmarking the Consumer Environment in Member States’ (SEC(2010)0385),

—

having regard to the report entitled ‘Consumer protection in the internal market’, published by the Commission in October 2008 (Special Eurobarometer 298),

—

having regard to the analytical report entitled ‘Attitudes towards cross-border sales and consumer protection’, published by the Commission in March 2010 (Flash Eurobarometer 282),

—

having regard to the European approach to media literacy in the digital environment (COM(2007)0833),

—

having regard to the Commission guidelines on the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (SEC(2009)1666),

—

having regard to Opinion 2/2010 on online behavioural advertising, adopted by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on 22 June 2010,

—

having regard to Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking, adopted by the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party on 12 June 2009,

—

having regard to the communication from the French National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties (CNIL) of 5 February 2009 entitled ‘La publicité ciblée en ligne’ (‘Targeted online advertising’),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0338/2010),

A.

whereas advertising fosters competition and competitiveness, is likely to limit abuses of dominant positions and encourages innovation in the internal market, and consequently benefits consumers, particularly by increasing the range of choice, lowering prices and providing information on new products,

B.

whereas advertising constitutes an important and often crucial source of funding for a dynamic and competitive media landscape and actively contributes to a diverse and independent press in Europe,

C.

whereas some advertising practices may nevertheless have a negative impact on the internal market and on consumers (owing to unfair practices, intrusion into public spaces and the private arena, targeting of individuals, entry barriers and distortion of the internal market),

D.

whereas it is still necessary to combat unfair commercial practices in the advertising field, as Special Eurobarometer 29 makes it clear that they are still common,

E.

bearing in mind the significant impact on advertising of the development of communications media, particularly through development of the internet, social networks, forums and blogs, the rising mobility of users and the rapid growth of digital products,

F.

whereas in view of a degree of consumer fatigue at the proliferation of advertising messages there is a temptation today to use the new communications technologies to disseminate commercial messages even when they are not clearly designated as such and are thus likely to mislead consumers,

G.

whereas the development of new advertising practices online and via mobile devices is generating a range of problems that need dealing with in order to safeguard a high level of protection for users,