2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/1

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for Stability (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (3),

—

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

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June 1996 concerning humanitarian aid (5),

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (6),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2010/427/EU of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (7),

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted on 18 December 1990,

—

having regard to the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the Status of Refugees,

—

having regard to the Global Approach to Migration, adopted by the European Council on 13 December 2005, which defines the external dimension of migration policy, and its three main priorities, namely to promote legal migration, to fight irregular migration and to enhance the link between migration and development,

—

having regard to the European Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted by the Council in October 2008, the Commission’s First Annual Report on Migration and Asylum of 2009 (COM(2010)0214) and the Council Conclusions on the follow-up to the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum of 3 June 2010,

—

having regard to the Joint Africa-EU Declaration on Migration and Development signed in Sirte on 23 November 2006, which emphasises the need for African and EU Member States to commit themselves to a partnership between countries of origin, transit and destination with a view to managing migration more effectively, taking into account its link to development,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 18 and 19 June 2009 on illegal immigration,

—

having regard to the Stockholm Programme for 2010-2014, the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, and the Commission Action Plan - Implementing the Stockholm Programme (COM(2010)0171),

—

having regard to the High Representative and Commission report on Climate Change and International Security of 14 March 2008, the related recommendations of 18 December 2008, and the Council conclusions of 8 December 2009,

—

having regard to the Joint Declaration of the Ministerial Conference on ‘Building Migration Partnerships’ held in Prague on 27 and 28 April 2009,

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime of December 2000 and the protocols thereto,

—

having regard to the agreement on an EU-Libya cooperation agenda on migration, which was signed on 4 October 2010 in Tripoli by Commissioner Malmström, Commissioner Füle and, on behalf of Libya, Mr Moussa Koussa, Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation, and Mr Yunis Al-Obeidi, Secretary of the General People's Committee for Public Security,

—

having regard to its recommendation of 20 January 2011 to the Council on the negotiations on the EU-Libya Framework Agreement (8),

—

having regard to the Tripoli Declaration issued at the Third Africa-EU Summit held in Tripoli, Libya, on 29 and 30 November 2010,

—

having regard to the speech made by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Catherine Ashton, at the UN Security Council on 4 May 2010, in which she stressed the need for a comprehensive approach to crisis management and peace-building and highlighted the evident links between security, development and human rights,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (Blue Card Directive) (9),

—

having regard to the Joint Declaration issued at the Prague Eastern Partnership Summit of 7 May 2009 inaugurating the Eastern Partnership,

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 September 2010 on poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries: the way forward (10), in particular paragraphs 71, 72 and 73 thereof,

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on Eritrean refugees held hostage in Sinai (11),

—

having regard to the Presidency Conclusions from the Conference ‘Towards a multidisciplinary approach to prevention of trafficking of human beings, prosecutions of traffickers and protection of victims’ of 27 January 2011,

—

having regard to Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which states that ‘policies regarding border controls, asylum and immigration shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States, and that whenever necessary the Union acts adopted pursuant to this Chapter shall contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle’,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0075/2011),

A.

whereas political, social and economic instability, lack of security, political repression and authoritarian regimes are the major driving forces behind migration, depriving affected communities of viable local prospects and income and, hence, of the right to choose whether to migrate or not, putting their lives at constant risk and leaving them with migration as their only option; whereas climate change and environmental degradation are becoming an increasingly common cause of migration,

B.

whereas migration arising from instability is triggered in particular by war and armed conflicts or the risk thereof, human rights abuses - including the persecution or the limitation of the rights of political opponents, minorities, including religious, ethnic and LGBTT minorities, and disadvantaged groups - natural and man-made disasters, and the lack of viable economic prospects and of a sustainable structure to guarantee democracy and good governance,andrespect for and the promotion of civil, political, cultural, economic and social rights,

C.

whereas migration, as a longstanding worldwide phenomenon, has contributed to the exchange of ideas, but has also entailed challenges in terms of the integration of immigrants into host societies, thus giving rise to both the cultural and economic enrichment of the European Union and issues of social inclusion and adaptation; whereas the EU needs substantial, but controlled, immigration to support its ageing population and address other social and economic challenges,

D.

whereas in the past migratory flows have changed their routes according to where most pressure was applied, but have never ceased, and whereas migration cannot be stopped, but is likely to change over the coming decades in terms of its scale and complexity, so that it must be dealt with in order to prevent human suffering,

E.

whereas legal migration is a process which is of optimum value for the individuals seeking to move from their country of origin and for the receiving country,

F.

whereas the pressure of migratory flows caused by instability and taking the form of illegal migration is being felt to a greater degree by Member States situated at the EU's external borders,

G.

whereas no EU Member State has ratified the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families to date; whereas that Convention is the most broadly-based international legal framework for the protection of the rights of migrant workers and their families and gives States guidance as to the approach to be adopted to ensure that migrants’ rights are respected when policies relating to the migration of labour are drawn up and implemented,

H.

whereas economic instability has a particularly strong impact on younger generations, women and minorities or disadvantaged groups, who are left without employment prospects and may thus more easily fall victim to violence, radicalisation and recruitment by terrorist groups,

I.

whereas climate change is linked to food and water scarcity, deforestation and land degradation and is increasingly identified as a major threat to international security and stability,

J.

whereas people forced from their homes by large-scale disasters brought on by climate change need to be assisted and protected; whereas, however, existing law on refugees does not recognise the right of climate refugees to international protection,

K.

whereas in some regions most affected by climate change and the resulting loss of biodiversity, such as the Sahel, migration has become the only form of adaptation to the changing climate,

L.

whereas some migrants may also be asylum seekers and may potentially become officially recognised refugees,

M.

whereas the exploitation of irregular migration not only puts the lives of migrants at serious risk, but is very often associated with the worst human rights abuses, including slave labour, sexual exploitation, child abuse and gender violence; whereas action by the EU to prevent such abuses and to protect migrants, including irregular migrants, in situations of distress should be stepped up in order to be more effective,

N.

whereas migrant smuggling affects almost every country in the world; whereas the exploitation of irregular migration, which is unfortunately a lucrative commercial activity for those engaged in organised crime, may also be combined with arms smuggling and human and drug trafficking;,whereas the exploitation of irregular migration may be one of the sources of funding for radical and terrorist groups and makes migrants vulnerable to becoming victims of organised crime rings and extremist networks,

O.

whereas EU policies should pay particular attention to the most vulnerable migrants, in particular to unaccompanied minors,

P.

whereas irregular migration has an impact on the migration-management and integration capacity of both receiving and transit countries; whereas in some cases, as regards transit countries, it might disrupt the sustainability and development prospects of local job markets and fuel more instability,

Q.

whereas the expected demographic growth in both countries of origin and transit, particularly in the Maghreb, Mashreq and North Africa as a whole, could negatively affect the prospects for economic growth and job creation, thereby exacerbating the social and economic situation in those countries if the necessary political and economical decisions are not taken; whereas this, together with a lack of democratic principles, will give rise to internal tensions and instability, as shown by the recent demonstrations in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and several other countries in the Arab world, and will consequently lead to an increase in migration flows, putting further strain on the integration capacity of receiving countries,

R.

whereas, in view of current demographic trends, the EU should reflect on how much it wants to open up its borders in coming years to migratory flows from countries of origin and transit in order to offset their internal demographic growth and the social tensions resulting therefrom, thus helping them maintain their internal stability, and how much it needs to invest in a renewed economic agenda for such countries, including an agenda focused on investment and job creation,

S.

whereas measures should be taken to avoid new waves of racism and xenophobia in receiving and transit countries,

T.

whereas migration towards the EU is only part of a much broader South-North and South-South migratory phenomenon; whereas the geographical proximity to the EU of European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) countries and, at the same time, the marked difference in standards between the migration laws of some ENP countries and those of the EU can create a competitive advantage for those countries, reinforcing their standing as transit countries and limiting their exposure and responsibilities as potential receiving countries,

U.

whereas the ENP should more actively support the capacity of the EU’s neighbouring States to manage migration,

V.

whereas the recent dramatic events in Egypt and other countries in north Africa and the Middle East are likely to increase the flow of both legal and illegal migrants to Europe,

W.

whereas tensions between countries of origin and transit and between receiving and transit countries concerning the management of migratory flows could become a source of potential conflict and disagreements in the future in the absence of a more harmonised, coordinated and effective migration policy; whereas, however, a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to migration management can enhance respect for the dignity of all migrants who can potentially contribute to meeting labour needs in countries of transit and destination and boost development in countries of origin; whereas a more coordinated and comprehensive approach to migration management should ensure full respect for the human rights of migrants who may be in situations of distress,

X.

whereas legal and transparent remittances can play a potentially positive role in fostering economic development and particular care should be taken to secure the right of migrants' to support their families and invest in their countries,

Y.

whereas the European Union needs to develop an efficient and wise migration policy similar to those implemented in Canada, Australia or New Zealand; whereas instability in the EU’s neighbouring regions jeopardises the establishment of such a policy,

Z.

whereas EU foreign policy can positively complement and strengthen EU policies on migration, and must address all sources of instability in countries of origin and pursue an active dialogue with transit countries on uniform, human rights-based standards for their national laws on migration, thereby creating a level playing field where both receiving and transit countries follow the same rules and offer migrants the same level of protection; whereas the different level of development of transit countries calls for the provision of EU financial assistance to help them reach standards comparable to those of the EU,

AA.

whereas the VP/HR has stressed the importance of a comprehensive approach to security and stability issues, through which development strategies and the creation of sustainable economic prospects can complement and further strengthen peace-keeping and peace-building operations, thereby creating the conditions for longer-term stability and security,

AB.

whereas the new foreign policy architecture introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the EEAS provide an opportunity to develop highly valuable synergies between foreign policy and defence policy, on the one hand, and the ENP and development cooperation policy, on the other, as mutually reinforcing and interconnected dimensions and strategies; whereas the new structure also makes it possible for cultural diplomacy to play a role in the EU's external actions; whereas such synergies should already be taken into consideration at the programming stage,

AC.

whereas a distinction needs to be made between migrants and asylum seekers and refugees,

1.

Welcomes the Commission’s recent proposals on legal migration for non-asylum seekers, and urges it to develop further instruments to establish a common immigration policy, to manage economic migration with a view to promoting economic and social progress in receiving, transit and origin countries, and to enhance social cohesion by improving the integration of migrants; emphasises the need for adequate information to be provided on possibilities for legal immigration to the EU, in order to prevent illegal migration, make better use of the EU schemes for legal immigration, clarify current prospects and opportunities within the EU and give the lie to the false promises made by traffickers, thereby limiting the profits generated for organised crime and human traffickers by the need for people to move; calls on the Commission to foster protection measures for vulnerable groups and people (mainly women and children) who often become victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation, and urges it to build up information centres on possibilities for migration to the EU in third countries; calls, however, for a balanced approach between promoting legal migration into the EU and ensuring that the EU has the capacity to receive and successfully integrate migrants;

2.

Recalls that well-managed legal migration can also bring benefits to third countries through the funds which immigrants remit to their countries of origin; furthermore, stresses the importance of supporting initiatives designed to promote the involvement of migrants in development and training projects in their countries of origin;

3.

Calls on the Member States to work collaboratively with non-EU countries to ensure that information relating to legal migration is readily available and that legal migration is actively advocated;

4.

Believes that forced migration is, inter alia, a result of failing economies, impoverishment, human rights violations, environmental degradation, the widening gap between rich and poor countries, civil war, wars for control of natural resources and political persecution;

5.

Supports the VP/HR's analysis and policy line highlighting the need for a comprehensive and cohesive approach based on targeted development and human rights strategies as an additional vital EU foreign policy instrument to tackle stability and security problems and enhance the effectiveness of peace-keeping and peace-building operations; in that context, calls for the role of FRONTEX to be strengthened so that it can better control migration flows; believes that, in the context of the new foreign policy architecture introduced by the Lisbon Treaty and the creation of the EEAS, it would be important to consolidate further interinstitutional dialogue and reflection on the foundations and objectives of such a comprehensive approach, in particular as regards targeted programming and partnerships with beneficiary countries that can deliver a sustainable process of democratisation, good governance, respect for human rights and economic growth and thus strengthen security and stability;

6.

Urges the Commission to develop a permanent monitoring system for all FRONTEX activities linked to the management of migration flows; considers that the human rights dimension of FRONTEX operations must be reflected clearly throughout the text of the amended version of the FRONTEX Regulation, especially the right of a person to leave his or her country, the ban on refoulement and the right to seek asylum; welcomes the successful activities carried out by FRONTEX and its cooperation with Member States to implement the Common European Asylum System, and likewise welcomes the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO); considers that the activities and operations of FRONTEX and EASO need to be stable and permanent, so that the necessary support can be given to particularly badly affected Member States; stresses the need for greater solidarity among all EU Member States, in particular the most vulnerable ones, in order to achieve the most efficient policy coordination and burden sharing;

7.

Notes that against a background of increasing multilateralism with several international players and major donors, such as the EU, the US, Japan, China and, potentially, in the longer term, other BRIC countries, such as Brazil and India, stability and security are a shared objective and an essential precondition for global economic growth; notes, further, that the stability and security challenges are such that they require not only relevant resources, at a time of budget constraints, but also economies of scale and coordinated efforts; believes that a process of reflection should be started on an active dialogue between the EU, the US, Japan and China and international financial institutions on coordinated geographical and thematic security, stability and aid strategies, which would make for greater collective leverage and the more balanced, targeted and efficient allocation of resources, whilst ensuring fair burden-sharing; believes, also in the light of the recent White House foreign aid review, which highlighted the value of aid coordination with other major donors, that an important first step in such a process of reflection could be an EU-US summit on enhanced cooperation on humanitarian and development aid in order to identify, from a transatlantic perspective, shared areas of interest and the bases for policy coordination;

8.

Urges the Commission to ensure that any readmission agreement signed by the EU and its Member States fully respects human rights and the principle of ‘non-refoulement’ and does not put at risk any persons in need of international protection;

9.

Notes that there are significant benefits to sheltering refugees in neighbouring countries, and calls for the EU to consider this as a priority;

10.

Expresses its concern that there are currently around 38 fragile states (Failed States Index 2010; Fund for Peace) worldwide in which 1 billion (World Bank) people are affected by instability-related problems; notes that fragile states are the most vulnerable to internal and external shocks, both political and economic, and that state instability contributes to the migration process;

11.

Considers that support for politically and economically fragile states, as a likely source of irregular migration and security- and stability-related tensions, should always include - in addition to budgetary relief and support, and strategies to establish or consolidate stability - direct investment and EU market-access strategies, rural development and food security strategies, MDG support, job-creation policies, infrastructure development, support for SMEs, microcredit facilities and strategies geared to promoting democratisation and good governance, social inclusion, the empowerment of women and minority or disadvantaged groups and ethnic and religious tolerance, thereby maximising local prospects and alternatives for potential migrants; firmly believes that such strategies must be based on active partnerships which draw on the principles of ownership and empowerment of the beneficiary countries, but also on targets, clear roadmaps and conditions for their achievement co-defined with donor countries, and on benchmarks and strict accountability standards; points out that programmes receiving such funding must have as their basic criterion the attainment of added value at both regional and local level, thereby ensuring that they contribute substantially to the development of local economies;

12.

Emphasises that any research and analysis of future migration trends and forms of migration such as short-term migration, circular migration and seasonal migration should take into account possible triggers of migration, for example political and economic crises or the impact of climate change in the countries of origin;

13.

Calls on the European Union and the Member States to take action both internally and at international level to encourage countries of origin to adopt and implement measures and policies which enable them to develop socially, economically and democratically, so that their nationals are not compelled to migrate;

14.

Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to make further efforts with regard to the development and democratisation of countries of origin and to promote the rule of law, in order to tackle the problems associated with migration at their root;

15.

Encourages the establishment of migration information and management centres outside the EU in order to help third countries of origin or transit to define a migration policy in response to the concerns of potential migrants and returning migrants, offer guidance on legal immigration, as well as on job opportunities and living conditions in countries of destination, and help with job training for would-be migrants, building on the experience gained with the pilot project in Bamako, Mali (CIGEM); asks the Commission to provide the its committee responsible with regular reports on new initiatives to establish such centres;

16.

Recalls that, in its resolution of 21 September 2010 on poverty reduction and job creation in developing countries: the way forward, it emphasised that the EU should not hesitate to apply sanctions when countries fail to respect their governance and human rights obligations under trade agreements, asked the EU authorities to ensure scrupulous respect for the principle of conditionality, as stipulated in the Cotonou Agreement, and emphasised that the same conditionality criteria should apply to the provision of support under both the European Development Fund (EDF) and the Financing Instrument for Development Cooperation (DCI); stresses that similar conditionality criteria also should apply to EU assistance other than development assistance and humanitarian aid, including the macro-financial aid provided via IMF loans, as well as lending operations by the EIB and EBRD programmes, and that such assistance should be based on partnership, shared objectives and values and allegiance and should be able to fulfil the expectations of both the donor and the beneficiary; stresses, further, that the active support from the EU to beneficiary countries should be effective and results-oriented and that the EU’s core values should be respected; asks the VP/HR and the Commission to pursue the objective of allegiance to the EU and its core values when shaping the architecture of EU financial assistance and in bilateral relations with countries which are beneficiaries of such assistance; believes that a process of reflection should be started at EU level on the bases of and scope for the application of conditionality criteria to EU financial assistance;

17.

Welcomes the human rights clauses in all EU bilateral trade agreements and supports the incorporation of the principle of conditionality in trade arrangements with developing countries via the Generalised System of Preferences; recognises that this conditionality principle is not always applied, as the Commission has proven to be reluctant to impose sanctions on developing countries which fail to honour commitments made regarding respect for human rights, good governance and democratisation; urges the Commission to consider sanctions whenever needed, but asks it to examine carefully the consequences of such sanctions for the populations of the beneficiary countries before doing so;

18.

Considers that policies similar to those for countries of origin should also be applied to transit countries, for example regarding poverty-reduction strategies, direct investment and market access and the emphasis on an employment agenda, which can guarantee effective long-term social inclusion prospects, stabilise the internal job market and enhance the long-term potential of transit countries;

19.

Considers that in their management of irregular migration flows the EU and its Member States must fully respect the rights of asylum seekers and refrain from taking any actions that would discourage potential refugees from requesting protection;

20.

Calls on the Commission to develop a mechanism for establishing where responsibilities lie for accommodating asylum seekers and examining their applications, as well as combating illegal migration, two areas in which a disproportionate burden is being borne by certain Member States by virtue of their geographical location or their demographic breakdown;

21.

Urges the Commission to establish a monitoring system to check that refugees’ and asylum-seekers’ rights are respected when entry (and pre-entry) controls are carried out under the Schengen Borders Code, so that possible flaws can be detected promptly;

22.

Stresses the value of EU election observation missions (EOM) as an important step in any process of democratisation and good governance, and believes that such missions should be part of a broader framework of support for a long-term democratisation process; urges the VP/HR to strengthen follow-up procedures and missions to verify whether EOM recommendations are implemented and emphasises, in this respect, that it is crucial to ensure adequate follow-up of the implementation of such recommendations; highlights the importance of mediation and conflict-prevention and resolution strategies, and of institution- and capacity-building for regional organisations, such as the African Union (AU), which plays an important role in peace-keeping and peace-building operations; believes that support for the AU should include the development of its border-control capacity and the provision of relief for all migrants in situations of distress; considers that the effective strengthening of regional organisations, such as the AU, the Union for the Mediterranean or the Eastern Partnership, as multipliers of regional peace and stability will foster regional integration and the emergence of cross-border economic areas;

23.

Notes that progress has been made in implementing the Global Approach to Migration, which aims to promote comprehensive partnerships with countries of origin and transit and encourages synergies between migration and development; emphasises the need to improve further the use of the main tools of the Global Approach to Migration (mobility partnerships, migratory missions, migration profiles, cooperation platforms); stresses the continuing need to put migration policy objectives at the centre of the political dialogue with countries of origin and of transit, as well as the need to enhance policy coherence in this respect, in particular with development policy; takes the view that the various dialogue processes should be rationalised, whilst the synergies between migration and development should be strengthened; believes that efforts should be stepped up in order to support development projects in countries of origin and transit that raise these countries’ living standards, increase their regulatory and institutional capacities, and enhance their infrastructure, in order to manage migratory flows effectively, whilst ensuring respect for international protection standards and the application of the principle of non-refoulement;

24.

Stresses the important role of the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which provides a structured framework for the promotion of enhanced dialogue and cooperation between both governmental and non-governmental actors, including civil society;

25.

Deplores the fact that in the current circumstances the only option available was the suspension of the agreement on EU-Libya cooperation, and takes the view that the suspension should be revoked as soon as there is a new transitional government willing to promote the democratic and human rights-based implementation of such an agreement, the aim being to provide financial support for African countries in order to create viable alternatives to migration and for the development in Libya of a more efficient system to manage labour migration, by maximising the skills of the migrants already present in the country, increasing the Libya’s capacity to attract and socially and economically integrate migrants, in particular from countries on its southern borders, and creating the foundations for an effective migration management system in Libya; stresses, in this context, the need for the EU to use its influence to persuade Libya to allow the UNHCR to return to the country; believes that agreements on a cooperation agenda on migration should be reached with other countries in geographic proximity to the EU with a view to providing joint support, in accordance with international agreements, to fragile States in their neighbourhood;

26.

In addressing the current humanitarian crisis in northern Africa, notes that Frontex cannot be the main tool to deal with the resulting migration flows originating in the region, and calls on the EU to devise a prompt and coordinated response as part of a coherent, long-term strategy to deal with political transitions and fragile States, thus addressing the root causes of migration flows; urges the Council to put in place a burden-sharing action plan to help resettle refugees from the region, based on the solidarity clause set out in Article 80 of the TFEU, and to provide support for displaced persons in accordance with the provisions laid down in Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons, and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof; calls on the Council urgently to move forward with the adoption of a Common EU Asylum System and to complete the codecision procedures relating to the establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme and the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013, as recommended by Parliament in May 2010; recalls that Member States are required to observe the principle of non-refoulement;

27.

Stresses the key importance of the European Parliament in enhancing freedom and democracy in our neighbourhood; in this context, believes that the European Parliament should monitor closely the democratisation process in the southern Mediterranean, and therefore suggests regular ad hoc structured dialogue with the VP/HR to assess developments in this region and so identify short- and long-term objectives and the relevant support measures required;

28.

Insists that genuine attention should be paid to the dialogues on human rights and democracy in the revised ENP; believes that pro-democracy movements and demonstrations and their brutal repression by the authorities in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt prove that the ENP dialogues on democracy and human rights have not been effective;

29.

Welcomes the completion of the negotiations on the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement and calls for the successful completion of all the necessary phases to ensure that the Agreement is implemented fully, as soon as possible, by all parties;

30.

Calls on the Commission to step up cooperation with the countries of transit and origin of illegal migrants under agreements concluded or to be concluded by the EU and under bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries, so as to curb illegal migration and encourage compliance with the law to the benefit of migrants and the inhabitants of the Member States and countries of origin;

31.

Considers that harmonisation – in cooperation with the Member States – of migration-related statistics is essential to the effective planning, adoption, implementation and assessment of migration policy; stresses the importance of the European Migration Network (EMN), which could make a substantial contribution in this area;

32.

Emphasises the urgent need for consistent, comprehensive and comparable statistical data about the migrant population, given that the constant changes in that population and the nature of current migration flows present a real challenge to policy-makers, who need reliable data and information on which to base their decisions;

33.

Calls on the Commission to consider, as part of its ongoing review of the ENP, the provision of specific funding for the development of a renewed, strong economic agenda in ENP countries, including an employment agenda; believes that a roadmap should be discussed with ENP countries on the alignment of their national migration laws with EU standards, including human rights standards, such as the right to asylum, a protection system for irregular migrants and equal rights for all migrants; encourages the conclusion of more mobility partnership agreements with ENP countries, in addition to the existing ones with Moldova and Georgia;

34.

Calls for the establishment of a comprehensive migration policy which is linked to all development strategies and instruments and founded on a high level of political and operational solidarity, mutual trust, transparency, partnership, shared responsibility and joint efforts based on common principles and concrete actions, and on the values enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty;

35.

Calls on the Commission to develop a comprehensive approach to legal migration, taking into consideration the European labour market’s need for a labour force and the each Member State’s capacity to receive and integrate migrants; believes that a common EU policy on legal migration can be a stimulus both for the European economy and for the economies of the countries of origin;

36.

Takes the view that agreements with third countries that concern several EU Member States should be negotiated at European level in full compliance with Article 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

37.

Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to coordinate donor aid more effectively so as to guarantee a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to migration-flow management;

38.

Urges that development assistance be decoupled from migration-flow management and that development aid should not be made conditional on return migration; stresses that EU development aid should aim to eliminate the reasons for migration, such as poverty, climate change and hunger;

39.

Emphasises the added value that the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) and the Eastern Partnership initiative (EaP) could bring in dealing with the issue of migration and its implications; calls on the VP/HR and the Member States to step up efforts to make the UfM fully operational; believes that the issue of migratory flows should be a priority for action in the framework of the UfM and EaP;

40.

Calls on the European Union to consider steps to revise the DCI, the EDF and the Instrument for Humanitarian Aid so as to enhance the positive effects of migration in terms of promoting human development and democracy in fragile states;

41.

Calls for additional efforts to promote policy coherence for development within the EU's migration policy and to refrain from using Official development Assistance (ODA) for policies aimed at deterring and controlling migration in ways which involve the violation of migrants’ human rights; considers that ODA should, however, be used to further effective development, thereby reducing migration caused by poverty, political instability and political oppression;

42.

Welcomes the Tripoli Declaration issued at the conclusion of the Third Africa-EU Summit, which reaffirms the need for joint efforts to address the realities and challenges of migration and its links to development;

43.

Calls for more effective partnerships with institutions promoting regional and economic integration, which can also contribute to finding lasting, long-term solutions to the realities of South-South migration;

44.

Stresses that the Commission should do more research into climate-induced South-South migration, including into the number of people affected, vulnerable regions, migration movements and host countries’ capacities; calls also for the research capacity of developing countries to be fostered;

45.

Stresses the importance of integrating migration into partner countries’ national development strategies in order to reduce poverty and achieve the MDGs;

46.

Welcomes the creation of the ACP Observatory on Migration as a useful instrument for providing policy-makers in ACP countries with data and tools to improve their national migration strategies, and the proposal to create a Migration Observatory responsible for permanently and closely monitoring all issues in connection with migratory flows in Latin America, under the supervision and coordination of the Europe–Latin America and Caribbean Foundation;

47.

Recommends that the financial resources for strengthening the ‘migration-development nexus’ should be allocated more efficiently; recognises the need to improve the arrangements for the complementary and timely mobilisation of the EU's various financing instruments for its external action;

48.

Stresses the need to strengthen LRRD strategies (aimed at linking relief, rehabilitation and development) in order to secure sustainable solutions for displaced persons and refugees; recognises the importance of a coordinated humanitarian response as a precursor to a viable development policy in post-conflict countries;

49.

Calls on the VP/HR to invest in expertise and to establish a clear mandate for staff at both headquarters and delegation level in order to achieve better coordination between the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum and the geographic programmes under the DCI;

50.

Calls for clarification of the respective roles of the EEAS and DEVCO, and for coordination between them; urges DEVCO to play a leading role in the programming phase for migration policy;

51.

Stresses the importance of taking on board the lessons learnt from the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum in terms of policy dialogue at country level in order to ensure more coherent and effective programming in the context of country and regional strategy papers;

52.

Urges the stepping-up of efforts to reduce the negative effects of the brain drain and the exodus of professionals, which particularly affect key sectors such as health and education; emphasises the importance of promoting brain gain, assisted return programmes and circular migration, regulating recruitment practices and supporting capacity-building by means of measures such as the development of vocational training; asks the Commission to study whether circular migration schemes are a useful instrument and which types of circularity (one-shot/recursive; short-term/long-term; spontaneous/managed) could produce the best results for both developing and developed countries;

53.

Calls on the Commission, when preparing the new external action instruments for the period after 2013, to ensure that the proposed architecture allows for synergies and mutual reinforcement between the development pillar and the security and stability pillar and provides for the rapid allocation of emergency and recovery funds, a rapid response in order to provide relief and assistance for migrants in a situation of distress - particularly those who are in a very vulnerable situation, such as women and unaccompanied minors - specific programmes to provide active support for minorities, including religious, ethnic and LGBTT communities, which may be under threat, shelter in the EU for human rights defenders in a situation of distress and support measures to mitigate the consequences of climate change, deforestation, desertification and biodiversity loss and to preserve the economic and social environment of affected communities;

54.

Calls for the development of policies which take into account the specific situation of vulnerable groups, such as women, children and persons with disabilities, and, by extension, for the provision of relevant infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools and educational equipment, and the necessary social, psychological and administrative support;

55.

Draws attention to the important role that rehabilitation centres for victims of torture have played in the successful integration of migrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, in the EU; notes with concern the decision that funding for these centres in the EU under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) is to be gradually phased out; calls on the Commission to ensure that funding for these centres is not cut and is not left only in the hands of the Member States;

56.

Asks the Commission to publish the external evaluation of the Regional Protection Programmes (RPPs) and to initiate a debate on whether the RPPs should be continued;

57.

With regard to CSFP/CSDP missions, believes, as also emphasised by the VP/HR, that it would be important to supplement security and stability strategies with ad hoc supporting development assistance and human rights strategies in order to ensure that in the long term the root causes of insecurity and instability are eradicated; in this context, points out that such a comprehensive approach requires not only better coordination, through the EEAS, ut also additional ad hoc budgetary appropriations for such supporting strategies;

58.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the President of the European Council, the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, the President of the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EIB, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the governments and parliaments of the EU candidate countries, the government and parliaments of the EURONEST and EUROMED member countries, the US State Department, the EBRD, the World Bank, the IMF, the African Union, the Pan-African Parliament, the International Organisation for Migration and the UNHCR.

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/13

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, particularly Articles 2 und 3 thereof, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, particularly Articles 8, 153 and 157 thereof,

—

having regard to Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (1),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2008 on the situation of women in rural areas of the EU (3),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the seminar on ‘Women in the Sustainable Development of the Rural World’ held on 27-29 April 2010 in Cáceres on the intitative of the Spanish Presidency of the EU (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC (5),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0016/2011),

A.

whereas the sustainable economic development of rural areas and the sustainable, long-term operational capability of economic units in Europe are priorities, and whereas the specific potential of relatively sparsely populated agricultural areas ought to be utilised and developed in a worthwhile way and so as to ensure that such areas continue to be inhabited,

B.

whereas regions that are – within their respective contexts – economically and culturally autonomous, with functional regional distribution circuits, can react to global changes in a more stable way,

C.

whereas a competitive agricultural sector geared towards multifunctionality is an essential basis for sustainable development strategies and for more far-reaching entrepreneurial activities in many regions, and whereas this type of potential, as part of a process of increased diversification of economic activity, has not yet been fully exploited in all areas,

D.

whereas rural areas are particularly affected by population ageing, low population density and, in some areas, depopulation,

E.

whereas, in future, as a result of demographic change, emigration and a general decrease in the proportion of women in the population of many rural areas, it will either not be possible, with existing infrastructure, to ensure adequate local provision of goods and essential everyday services, basic medical treatment and care, pre-school education, schooling and vocational and academic education and further training or adequate cultural and leisure provision, or else the structures for such provision will collapse under economic pressures,

F.

whereas about 42% of the 26,7 million people working regularly in agriculture in the European Union are women and at least one holding in five (around 29%) is managed by a woman,

G.

whereas the significant contribution made by women to local and community development is inadequately reflected in their participation in the relevant decision-making processes,

H.

whereas the principle of gender equality is a basic requirement under the Europe 2020 strategy and should be promoted in order to increase the active involvement of women in economic and social activities and to guarantee respect for human rights,

I.

whereas, against a background of economic and social change, the realities of women’s lives in rural areas have altered and become more diverse in recent decades, women themselves having played no small part in initiating and effecting the changes, and their economic and social circumstances vary widely both within and between Member States,

J.

whereas women in today’s society assume multifunctional roles in the context of their individual family and occupational ties, and this very multiplicity of roles enables them to contribute significantly to progress and innovation at all levels of society and to the improvement of quality of life, especially in rural areas,

K.

whereas, especially in rural areas, family care and care for the elderly are frequently provided by women,

L.

whereas, thanks to years of effort with policies for women and the intensive public promotion of education, advice and business start-up initiatives, inter alia under the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), there have clearly been impressive successes in improving men’s and women’s living conditions in the countryside,

M.

whereas, despite the high degree of individualisation in the way that people live, the basic challenge for both men and women will remain that of combining their own work and their social and cultural involvement, on the one hand, with responsibility for family, on the other,

N.

whereas, in the circumstances of modern society, this ‘multifunctional challenge’ can be met only by drawing on support services, facilities and structures, which need to be affordable and accessible,

O.

whereas the multifunctional role played by women in rural areas can contribute significantly to shaping a modern image of women in our society,

P.

whereas, for both men and women, employment rates are low in rural areas and indeed many women are never active in the labour market, so that they are neither registered as unemployed nor included in unemployment statistics,

Q.

whereas ensuring social cover for women who work in agriculture, including farmers’ wives with additional sources of income (from combined earnings, individual self-employment or part-time self-employment) as well as temporary and migrant workers, is an essential factor in the modern, sustainable development of rural areas,

R.

whereas the owner of a farm is the only person mentioned on bank documents and for the purposes of subsidies and accumulated rights, and is also the only person to represent a farm within associations and groups,

S.

whereas rural tourism, involving the provision of goods and services in the countryside through family and cooperative tourist enterprises, is a low-risk business, creates jobs, makes it possible to combine family obligations with work and encourages the rural population to remain in the countryside,

1.

Points out that the promotion of gender equality is a core objective of the EU and its Member States; stresses the importance of incorporating this principle into the CAP as a way to promote sustainable economic growth and rural development;

2.

Points out that efforts are needed to create living conditions in rural areas which correspond to those in urban areas while reflecting the realities of the countryside, in order to offer women and their families reasons for staying and making a successful life there;

3.

Calls for the rural world to be promoted as a multifaceted, integrated setting in which people can work and do business, and for the key function of women, their expertise and their competence to be used to this end;

4.

Calls on the Commission, therefore, in the negotiations on the next multiannual financial framework, to refrain from further reducing the proportion of the total budget accounted for by agricultural expenditure;

5.

Emphasises that the wide range of rural businesses, including service-oriented businesses (e.g. farm tourism, direct marketing, social services, such as care of the elderly and childcare, learning on farms within the context of all-day schooling), underpins service provision in rural areas and should be supported in a sustainable way via the CAP; calls, therefore, for such services to be promoted via the CAP, both opening up new prospects and paid employment opportunities for women and significantly facilitating the reconciliation of family life and work;

6.

Calls for the promotion of development strategies that have their own momentum, as a means of supporting the particular creativity of men and women in the countryside, while making use of the specific traditional resources of each rural community;

7.

Stresses the importance of a viable, dynamic rural environment with a diverse population; emphasises, in that connection, the importance of adequate development opportunities and challenges for young women;

8.

Calls for framework conditions to be provided in rural areas that will enable women of all generations to remain in their own immediate environment and contribute to revival and development there;

9.

Stresses the importance of early retirement arrangements for farmers and farm workers with regard to living conditions for women in rural areas; calls on Member States which have not already done so to implement these arrangements;

10.

Calls, in this regard, for further efforts to be made to equip all rural areas with the most up-to-date IT infrastructure, above all adequate broadband access, and for action to be taken to facilitate access to information and communication technologies and foster equal opportunities with regard to such access and appropriate training on how to use it; points out that poor levels of broadband access hinders the growth of small businesses in many rural areas across the EU.;therefore urges the Commission and the Member States to abide by their commitment to improve broadband provision in rural areas as a way to boost competitiveness;

11.

Calls for electronic forms of enterprise, such as e-business, which make it possible to do business irrespective of the distance from large urban centres, to be promoted and supported among women in rural areas;

12.

Points out that, as in urban areas, it is crucial to improve the quality and accessibility of infrastructure, facilities and services for everyday life in rural areas in order to enable men and women to balance their family and professional lives and to preserve communities in rural areas; this would include childcare facilities as part of farm infrastructure (such as ‘farm crèches’ and other pre-school facilities), healthcare services, educational facilities (including for lifelong learning), institutions and care for the elderly and other dependants, replacement services in the event of illness and pregnancy, local outlets for everyday goods, and leisure and cultural facilities; calls for agricultural policies to be framed in such a way that women in rural areas are enabled to fulfil their potential in making multifunctional and sustainable farming a reality;

13.

Urges the Member States to use the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to remedy the lack of good transport infrastructure in rural areas and to implement positive policies to improve access to transport for all, particularly people with disabilities, as transport continues to be a factor in entrenching social exclusion and inequality in society, primarily affecting women;

14.

Calls for rural development policy to focus more strongly on creating innovative and sustainable living and working conditions in rural areas;

15.

Calls on the European Union institutions, the Member States and regional and local authorities to support projects to promote and offer advice for the creation of innovative primary agricultural production enterprises in rural areas that are able to provide new jobs, especially for women, in spheres of action such as: adding value to agricultural products and seeking sales outlets for them, the use of new technologies and contributing to the economic diversification of the area and the provision of services which make it possible to reconcile working and family life;

16.

Points out that, in relation to innovative forms of provision, the positive experience gained with projects for women already carried out under the second pillar of the CAP (in particular Axis 3 and the Leader+ programme) should be utilised, and examples of best practice identified;

17.

Calls for rural development strategies to place special emphasis on the role of women in helping to achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular initiatives focusing on innovation, research and development;

18.

Welcomes, in that connection, ESF/EQUAL projects which seek to throw light on and improve the position of women in agriculture and rural areas;

19.

Calls for the new EAFRD Regulation to provide for specific measures to support women in the 2014-2020 programming periodwhich would have a beneficial impact on female employment in rural areas;

20.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to contribute to an informative database on the economic and social situation of women and their involvement in business in rural regions, and to optimise the use of data already available (e.g. from Eurostat) for the purposes of tailoring policy measures;

21.

Is convinced that, given the circumstances of the rural world, training and counselling provision for women that has a specific rural focus must be maintained and developed, in particular in connection with the financial management of farms;

22.

Considers it desirable to work towards the creation of a European rural women’s network (or a network of women’s associations) and draws attention to the successes achieved through CAP second-pillar measures;

23.

Recognises the important role played by existing women's networks at various levels, particularly in terms of the local promotion of rural areas and the way they are perceived by the public; draws attention to the need for greater social recognition and for more political and financial support for these networks at local, national and European level, in view of their major contribution to achieving greater equality, particularly as regards training for women in rural areas and the launching of local development projects, including information campaigns on screening to ensure early diagnosis of female cancers (cervical cancer, breast cancer, etc.); calls on the Member States to support increased participation by women in the political process, including their proper representation on the boards of institutions, companies and associations;

24.

Calls for social systems to make adequate provision for women in rural areas, taking account of their specific circumstances with regard to paid employment and pension entitlements;

25.

Welcomes, in this context, Directive 2010/41/EU and calls on the Member States to implement it effectively as soon as possible, in particular in order to ensure:

26.

Draws attention to the need, especially in rural areas, for sustainable strategies to maintain the vocational skills of women who decide to take a career break to bring up families or act as carers; calls for the reconcilation of work and family life to be facilitated, with a view to enabling women to become or remain involved, and further develop their involvement, in various types of work;

27.

Points out that ‘farm diversification’ is an increasingly important aspect of the rural economy; notes that the role of women in initiating, developing and managing ‘farm diversification’ projects is significant;

28.

Calls for women's entrepreneurial spirit and initiatives to be encouraged, in particular through the promotion of female ownership, networks of female entrepreneurs, and provision in the financial sector for facilitating access for rural businesswomen (including individually self-employed women, part-time self-employed women with low earnings, and young women) to investment and credit – thus empowering them more effectively in the marketplace and enabling them to develop businesses from which they can make a stable living; calls also for action to be taken to improve the entrepreneurial attitude and skills of women in order to promote their representation in managerial bodies of enterprises and associations;

29.

Calls on the relevant national, regional and local authorities to encourage the participation of women in local action groups and the development of local partnerships under the Leader programme, as well as to ensure gender-balanced participation on their management boards;

30.

Calls for greater account to be taken, in company-level and regional-level development strategies, of women’s agricultural and non-agricultural vocational skills; stresses how important it is for women farmers and other women in rural areas to be able to obtain qualifications and training as producers and entrepreneurs, and calls on the Commission and the Member States, in collaboration with regional and local authorities, rural organisations and women’s and farmers’ associations, to create incentives to promote women's participation in the labour force, to eliminate any discrimination against women at work, and to improve the training of women, including by promoting greater access to postgraduate training and specialist courses in educational establishments, to propose corresponding rural development measures under Axis 3 of the rural development programmes and to encourage existing initiatives; points out that these measures will contribute to the fight against social exclusion in rural areas and that the risk of falling into poverty is greater for women than for men;

31.

Calls for support to be given to political efforts to further the role of women in agriculture by making it easier for them, in practical and in legal terms and including with regard to farm ownership, to be active as agricultural entrepreneurs so that – on the basis of their co-responsibility for farm businesses – they can be more closely involved in the associated rights and duties, including inter alia in the representation of interests on agricultural bodies and by having a real share in all forms of farm income;

32.

Calls for support to be given to women's and farmers’ organisations that play an important role in encouraging and initiating new development programmes and diversification in such a way that women can implement new ideas in order to diversify production and service-provision in rural areas;

33.

Takes the view that, as part of the forthcoming reform of the CAP, the needs of women in rural areas and the role of women working in agriculture should be taken into account and given priority as regards access to certain services and aid, in line with territorial needs in each Member State;

34.

Is convinced that, in the medium term, women ought to be adequately represented in all political, economic and social bodies in the agricultural sector so that decision-making processes are informed by both female and male perspectives; highlights the importance of introducing specific actions for the benefit of women in order to guarantee that women participate in such bodies on an equal basis;

35.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate improved access to land and credit for women to encourage the establishment of women in rural areas and as actors in the agricultural sector;

36.

Calls for a record to be compiled of previous strategies for ensuring social cover for women working in agriculture (as farmers, farm labourers, seasonal workers, etc.), including the implementation of Directive 2010/41/EU, with reference to country-specific property-law and tax-law situations, and to make this body of experience available for the purpose of developing adequate social cover for women in agriculture in the Member States;

37.

Stresses that European policies regarding the living conditions of women in rural areas must also take into account the living and working conditions of female immigrants employed as seasonal farm workers, especially as regards the need for adequate accommodation, social protection, medical insurance and healthcare; emphasises the need to give the greatest possible value to these women's work;

38.

Calls on the Commission to include in its summary report to be presented in 2011 under Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) an in-depth analysis of the impact of the measures taken regarding the situation of women in rural areas;

39.

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

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/19

—

having regard to Accession Treaty Protocol No 4 on the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania, and Protocol No 9 on unit 1 and unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia, and Article 30 of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union,

—

having regard to the Council Regulations on the implementation of Protocol No 4 on the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania (1), on the implementation of Protocol No 9 on Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the Bohunice V1 nuclear power plant in Slovakia (2) and on financial assistance of the Union with respect to the decommissioning of Units 1 to 4 of the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant in Bulgaria (Kozloduy Programme) (3),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear installations (COM(2007)0794) and the accompanying document ‘EU decommissioning funding data’ (SEC(2007)1654),

—

having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 24 October 2006 on the management of financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear installations (4),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0054/2011),

A.

whereas the three EU candidate countries, Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria, operated old nuclear power plants (NPPs) which were agreed to be closed, and the accession negotiations led to early fixed closure dates for the units in the three NPPs concerned,

B.

whereas the EU recognised that the early shut-down and subsequent decommissioning of these units in the three NPPs represented a significant financial and economical burden which could not be fully covered by the Member States concerned, and therefore the Treaties of Accession, as well as subsequent Council Regulations for the implementation of these Treaties, provided for financial assistance to the respective Member States; whereas, however, it was not clearly decided whether the assistance should cover the full cost of decommissioning or compensate for all economic consequences; notes that both Bulgaria and Slovakia for the time being remain net exporters of electricity,

C.

whereas the assistance provides for measures in the following areas:

D.

whereas the assistance started before accession and before the respective units were shut down, and funds accumulated within the International Decommissioning Support Funds (IDSFs) while administrative preparations continued,

E.

whereas the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and the management of their waste is a technically complex operation requiring substantial financial resources and involving environmental, technical, social and financial responsibilities,

1.

Notes that Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria have fulfilled their accession treaty commitments to close the respective units in the three NPPs in a timely manner: Ignalina NPP Unit 1 was shut down on 31 December 2004 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2009; Bohunice V1 NPP Unit 1 was shut down on 31 December 2006 and Unit 2 on 31 December 2008; Kozloduy NPP Units 1 and 2 were shut down on 31 December 2002 and Units 3 and 4 on 31 December 2006;

2.

Notes also that all three Member States tried to re-negotiate their political commitments regarding closing the reactors and this led to delays in the process;

3.

Notes the existence of a legal basis for granting the financial assistance; notes that the amounts are established annually through a Commission decision, based on individual annual combined programming documents, permitting control over the development and financing of the approved projects;

4.

Notes that due to the limited EU experience and data in the field of decommissioning, the financial assistance was decided without the possibility of defining a financial ceiling; notes that there were still no clear conditions for specification on ceilings even after the plans and strategies for decommissioning had been drawn up, which meant that further financial assistance had to be decided on a stage-by-stage and case-by-case basis;

5.

Considers that the purpose of the Community assistance is to support these three Member States in coping with the financial and economical burden caused by early fixed closure dates, and to cover the cost of many important decommissioning activities, invest in energy projects with the aim of reducing energy dependency and help to mitigate the social impact of the decommissioning of the power plants; notes, however, that in all three cases the costs for decommissioning of the power plants have exceeded the planned EU assistance, and are also likely to exceed the initial estimates; notes also that a high share of the funds was used for energy projects and not for the main aim of the financial assistance, namely NPP decommissioning;

6.

Believes that the concept of European Union solidarity contributes effectively to mitigating the economic consequences of early closure in the energy sector; notes, however, that at the time of preparation of this report, the decommissioning itself is still in its initial stage;

7.

Notes that the decommissioning of the nuclear power plants concerned should be assigned the highest priority in the interests of the safety and health of all the people of Europe;

8.

Fears that a lack of financial resources for decommissioning measures will delay the decommissioning of nuclear power plants and threaten the environment and human health;

9.

Stresses that the issue of safety is of the utmost importance for the decommissioning of early closed units in the three NPPs in question; invites, therefore, the Council, the Commission and the Member States to bear that in mind in any future decisions concerning nuclear decommissioning in general and these three decommissioning programmes in particular; calls on the Commission to arrange for adequate coordination with the Member States and to establish precise timetables for the completion of the projects;

10.

Notes with concern that the detailed decommissioning plans of the three decommissioning programmes in question have not yet been finalised and, as a consequence, that there is insufficient information on the timetables, the costs of particular projects, and their sources of funding; urges therefore the relevant national bodies to finalise the plans and the Commission to report on this process and to provide a detailed long-term financial planning of the decommissioning projects; invites the Commission to clearly describe the scope of the EU financing required to accomplish these plans;

11.

Calls on the Commission to study ways of altering the EU's methods of financing decommissioning operations in view of the strategies employed in the Member States and their national administrative structures, and simplifying the rules on management of the funds in such a way that they do not affect the safety and security of the decommissioning operations;

12.

Notes the lack of a clear distribution of responsibility among the participants in the financing and the participants in the process of decommissioning; believes that the Commission should bear the main responsibility for the implementation of the EU assistance and that a joint management with the EBRD should be put in place;

13.

Considers that, for the purpose of awarding contracts, it would be desirable to apply a criterion of Community reciprocity for the benefit of European enterprises, with the application in particular of the principles set forth in Article 58 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating, inter alia, in the energy sector;

14.

Notes that the total financial assistance from the European Union to the three Member States until the end of 2013 comes to EUR 2 847,78 million; points out that, although differences among the NPPs exist, especially as regards fuel storage, in principle the programmes share the same technology; notes, however, that there are considerable differences in the allocated amounts: Ignalina (2 units) EUR 1 367 million; Bohunice (2 units): EUR 613 million; and Kozloduy (4 units) EUR 867,78 million;

15.

Notes, according to data available at the end of 2009, the differing situations among the Member States regarding the amounts disbursed:,Ignalina: total EUR 1 367 million, committed EUR 875,5 million (64,04 %), disbursed EUR 760,4 million (55,62 %); Bohunice: total EUR 613 million, committed EUR 363,72 million (59,33 %), disbursed EUR 157,87 million (25,75 %); Kozloduy: total EUR 867,78 million, committed EUR 567,78 million (65,42 %), disbursed EUR 363,149 million (41,84 %), mostly due to the different timing of the closure;

16.

Considers it necessary for the funds to be managed and their resources to be used with absolute transparency; recognises the importance of sound and transparent management of financial resources, with appropriate external supervision, to ensure fair competition on the energy market; recommends transparency and public participation in this field;

17.

Takes note of the following completed audits and evaluations: ‘Midterm Evaluation of the Decommissioning Assistance to Lithuania and Slovakia’ (2007); EC internal audits of all three programmes in 2007; European Court of Auditors (ECA) audits of CPMA in 2008 and 2009 regarding Ignalina; ECA audit for preparation of DAS 2008; ECA feasibility study in 2009; and notes the following ongoing activities: Communication from the Commission expected in early 2011; EC external financial audit for BIDSF, ECA; full performance audit for all three programmes;

18.

Considers that, taking into account the large amounts of money involved, the novelty regarding the utilisation of funds, the unknown factors which emerged throughout the process, and the numerous subsequent alterations, adaptations and allocation of additional amounts, the number and scope of the audits performed appear to be insufficient; regrets that the Commission's September 2007 Mid-term evaluation of the decommissioning assistance to Lithuania and Slovakia did not cover Bulgaria (which was already receiving assistance at the time);

19.

Regrets the lack of annual reports from the Commission to the European Parliament on the use of financial resources earmarked for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants; calls therefore on the Commission to monitor and report annually to the Parliament on the improvements in use of the funds and on the likelihood that the accumulated funds for the decommissioning of these specific units in the three NPPs will be absorbed over the next three years;

20.

Invites the Commission to conduct an analysis in order to ascertain that the possibility of allocating amounts for upcoming decommissioning projects until 2013 exists, especially since the decommissioning licences will be released for Bohunice in July 2011 and for Kozloduy at the end of 2011 and the end of 2012;

21.

Invites the Commission to provide comparative information on the implementation of the initial and revised schedules for different stages of the decommissioning processes, as well as on measures in the energy and social domains, prior to any further allocation of EU funds;

22.

Invites the Commission to report on the particular improvements stemming from the establishment of a Member State Management Committee in 2007 to assist it in the implementation of the assistance programmes, and to give an account of the procedural changes since that time;

23.

Notes that the ECA audit is still ongoing; suggests that this should help to reveal the objectives of the use of the funds and their effectiveness, as well as viable proposals for the future, and assess the additional funding required in order to perform the decommissioning; suggests that, being a full performance audit, it should clarify the following:

24.

Suggests that, as regards future activities to be financed from EU allocated amounts within the 2007-2013 period, further issues need clarifying:

25.

Notes with concern the lack of an EU team of coordinators and experts of all three projects, which would have enabled the decommissioning programme to be treated as a whole package based on EU experience, thus enabling synergies between the three cases;

26.

Stresses that enhanced coordination between the three programmes is needed in order to ensure better planning of activities and sharing of experience gained amongst them; considers that the European Union as a whole can also benefit from this experience as reactors are taken out of service at the end of their economic lives; therefore invites all parties involved to develop and collect best decommissioning practices and to ensure the best use of the experience and data gained amongst the other Member States with nuclear power plants;

27.

Calls on the Commission to set up a Coordination Team, which should be in charge of:

28.

Notes that the polluter-pays principle should be applied to the financing of decommissioning operations and that nuclear operators should ensure that adequate financial resources to cover future decommissioning costs are set aside during the productive life of nuclear installations;

29.

Notes that the early closure of the reactors prevented the planned accumulation of needed amounts in the respective national funds designed to cover all costs associated with the decommissioning of the plants;

30.

Calls on the Commission, taking into account the various strategies employed by the Member States, to explore possible ways of harmonising approaches to the funding of decommissioning in the EU in order to ensure timely accumulation of the necessary financial resources without compromising the safety and security of the decommissioning process;

31.

Welcomes the fact that most of the Ignalina programme's projects for energy efficiency and securing of the electricity supply are currently under implementation or have already been implemented;

32.

Notes with concern that key waste infrastructure management projects (spent fuel storage and waste repository project) have experienced serious delays that incurred additional costs with respect to original estimates; notes that available slack in the system is almost exhausted and that delays may start to impinge upon the critical path for the whole decommissioning plan, with a commensurate increase in cost; calls on the Commission to report on the results of the reassessment of the project timeline;

33.

Notes that a large part of the funds was allocated to energy projects, that considerable financing is still required for decommissioning and that national funds are not sufficient to cover this: the State Ignalina NPP Decommissioning Fund has so far accumulated just over EUR 100 million (while the technical costs of decommissioning alone range from EUR 987 million to EUR 1 300 million), and a significant proportion of that has been used on non-decommissioning projects; calls for appropriate measures to be taken in this respect, particularly by the Member State;

34.

Welcomes the progress on the Bohunice programme;

35.

Notes that while Community assistance is projected for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, in particular V1 reactors, as well as for security of supply, the national Nuclear Fund did not set aside any specifically earmarked source of funding for the ongoing A1 decommissioning project;

36.

Notes that some decommissioning projects, such as the reconstruction of the area's physical protection system, the historical waste treatment project and construction of the interim storage of RAW at the Bohunice site, have experienced significant delays in their implementation; urges the Commission and the Slovakian side to take steps to prevent the delays and to avoid jeopardising the scheduled progress of decommissioning work;

37.

Welcomes the overall good technical and financial performance of the Kozloduy programme, and the review of the decommissioning strategy for Units 1 to 4, which was changed from an initial deferred dismantling strategy to an immediate continuous dismantling strategy;

38.

Notes with concern a rather high share of energy projects in the distribution of allocated public funds; calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of the remaining energy projects and to report on the results; calls for an increase in the proportion of ‘Decommissioning and Waste’ projects in the remaining period of the Kozloduy programme;

39.

Stresses the need for comprehensive administrative coordination between the State Enterprise for Radioactive Waste (SERAW) and Kozloduy NPP, now responsible for Units 1-2 and Units 3-4 respectively; invites the Bulgarian side to analyse and promptly implement necessary improvement measures with regard to this divided management, and/or to bring together Units 1-4 under a common management;

40.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments of Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia.

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/26

—

having regard to the provisions of the UN legal instruments in the sphere of human rights, in particular those concerning women's rights, such as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the principle of non-refoulement,

—

having regard to other UN instruments on violence against women, such as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 25 June 1993 adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights (A/CONF. 157/23) and the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women of 20 December 1993 (A/RES/48/104),

—

having regard to the UN General Assembly resolutions of 12 December 1997 entitled ‘Crime prevention and criminal justice measures to eliminate violence against women’ (A/RES/52/86), of 18 December 2002 entitled ‘Working towards the elimination of crimes against women committed in the name of honour’ (A/RES/57/179), and of 22 December 2003 entitled ‘Elimination of domestic violence against women’ (A/RES/58/147),

—

having regard to the reports by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ Special Rapporteurs on violence against women and to General Recommendation No 19 adopted by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (11th session, 1992),

—

having regard to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women on 15 September 1995 and to Parliament's resolutions of 18 May 2000 on the follow-up to the Beijing Action Platform (1) and of 10 March 2005 on the follow-up to the Fourth World Conference on Women - Platform for Action (Beijing+10) (2) and of 25 February 2010 on the follow-up to the Beijing Action Platform (Beijing +15) (3),

—

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

—

having regard to the UN General Assembly resolution of 19 December 2006 entitled ‘Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women’ (A/RES/61/143), and to UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women, peace and security,

—

having regard to the work of the Council of Europe's Ad hoc Committee on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CAHVIO), established in December 2008 to prepare a future Council of Europe Convention on this subject,

—

having regard to the EPSCO Council Conclusions of 8 March 2010 on violence,

—

having regard to its position of 14 December 2010 on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection Order (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2009 on the elimination of violence against women (5),

—

having regard to its Declaration of 21 April 2009 on the ‘Say NO to Violence against Women’ campaign (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on combating female genital mutilation in the EU (7),

—

having regard to the Commission's Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 which was presented on 21 September 2010,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0065/2011),

A.

whereas no single intervention will eliminate gender-based violence, but a combination of infrastructural, legal, judicial, enforcement, educational, health, and other service-related actions can significantly reduce it and its consequences,

B.

whereas although there is no internationally recognised definition of the term ‘violence against women’, it is defined by the United Nations as any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life (8),

C.

whereas violence is a traumatic experience for any man, woman or child, but gender-based violence is preponderantly inflicted by men on women and girls, and both reflects and reinforces inequalities between men and women and compromises the health, dignity, security and autonomy of its victims,

D.

whereas studies on gender-based violence estimate that one-fifth to one-quarter of all women in Europe have experienced physical acts of violence at least once during their adult lives, and more than one-tenth have suffered sexual violence involving the use of force; whereas research also shows that 26 % of children and young people report physical violence in childhood,

E.

whereas advertising and pornography often portray various types of gender-based violence, therefore trivialising violence against women and hindering gender equality strategies,

F.

whereas male violence against women shapes women's place in society: their health, access to employment and education, integration into social and cultural activities, economic independence, participation in public and political life and decision-making, and relations with men,

G.

whereas in many cases women fail to lodge complaints against acts of gender violence against them, for reasons that are complex and diverse and include psychological, economic, social and cultural factors, while they may also lack trust in the police, the legal system and the social and health services,

H.

whereas gender-based violence, predominantly by men against women, is a structural and widespread problem throughout Europe and the world, is a phenomenon that involves victims and perpetrators of all ages, educational backgrounds, incomes and social positions and is linked to the unequal distribution of power between women and men in our society,

I.

whereas economic stress often leads to more frequent, more violent and more dangerous abuse; whereas studies have shown that violence against women intensifies when men experience displacement and dispossession as a result of the economic crisis,

J.

whereas violence against women encompasses a wide range of human rights violations, including: sexual abuse, rape, domestic violence, sexual assault and harassment, prostitution, trafficking of women and girls, violation of women's sexual and reproductive rights, violence against women at work, violence against women in conflict situations, violence against women in prison or care institutions, and several harmful traditional practices; whereas any one of these abuses can leave deep psychological scars, damage the general health of women and girls, including their reproductive and sexual health, and in some instances results in death,

K.

whereas in several Member States male violence against women in the form of rape is not treated as an offence giving rise to ex officio prosecution (9),

L.

whereas comparable data on different types of violence against women in the European Union are not collected on a regular basis, which makes it difficult to ascertain the real extent of the problem and to find appropriate solutions; whereas it is very difficult to collect reliable data as women and men are reluctant, due to fear or shame, to report their experiences to the relevant stakeholders,

M.

whereas, according to the existing studies concerning Council of Europe member states, the annual cost of violence against women is estimated to be in the region of EUR 33 billion (10),

N.

whereas women in the European Union are not equally protected against male violence, due to differing policies and legislation across Member States,

O.

whereas the European Union, with the Lisbon Treaty, has a broader competence in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, including on criminal procedural law and substantive criminal law, as well as in the area of police cooperation,

P.

having regard to the alarming number of women who are victims of gender violence,

Q.

whereas the harassment of mothers and pregnant women is another form of violence or abuse suffered by women, which takes place primarily within the family or couple and in the social and professional spheres, leading to them either being dismissed from or voluntarily leaving their jobs and to situations of discrimination and depression,

R.

whereas the Commission stressed in its strategy for gender equality 2010-2015 that gender-based violence was one of the key problems to be addressed in order to achieve genuine gender equality,

S.

whereas the Commission announced that it would submit a proposal in 2011 for a strategy to combat violence against women, but no explicit reference to this strategy was made in the Commission Work Programme for 2011,

1.

Welcomes the commitment by the Commission in its Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme to present in 2011-2012 a ‘Communication on a strategy to combat violence against women, domestic violence and female genital mutilation, to be followed up by an EU action plan’ (11);

2.

Proposes a new comprehensive policy approach against gender-based violence including:

3.

Urges the Member States to recognise rape and sexual violence against women, particularly within marriage and intimate informal relationships and/or where committed by male relatives, as a crime in cases where the victim did not give consent, to ensure that such offences result in automatic prosecution, and to reject any reference to cultural, traditional or religious practices as a mitigating factor in cases of violence against women, including so-called ‘crimes of honour’ and female genital mutilation;

4.

Recognises that violence against women is one of the most serious forms of gender-based violations of human rights and that domestic violence – against other victims such as children, men and the elderly – is also a hidden phenomenon that affects too many families to be ignored;

5.

Stresses that exposure to physical, sexual or psychological violence and abuse between parents or other family members has a severe impact on children;

6.

Calls for Member States where child witnesses of all forms of violence are concerned to develop age-appropriate psychosocial counselling that is specifically tailored to children to cope with their traumatic experiences and that due regard is given to the best interests of the child;

7.

Highlights that migrant women, including undocumented migrant women, and women asylum-seekers form two subcategories of women that are particularly vulnerable to gender-based violence;

8.

Stresses the importance of suitable training for all those working with women who are victims of gender-based violence, especially of those representing the legal system and law enforcement, with special reference to the police, judges, social workers and healthcare workers;

9.

Calls on the European Commission, using all available expertise, to develop and provide annual statistics on gender-based violence, including figures on how many women are killed annually by their partner or ex-partner, based on data from the Member States;

10.

Emphasises that research into the area of violence against children, young people and women, and on a more general level on gender and sexual violence, should be included as a multidisciplinary research area in the future Eighth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development;

11.

Asks the Commission to consider establishing an observatory on violence against women based on the reporting of court cases involving violence against women;

12.

Calls on the Commission to continue its efforts to combat gender-based violence through Community programmes, especially the Daphne programme that has already been successful in combating violence against women;

13.

Notes that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) will survey a representative sample of women from all Member States regarding their experiences of violence, and asks that the focus be placed on examining the responses women receive from the various authorities and support services when reporting;

14.

Urges Member States, in their national statistics, to show clearly the magnitude of gender-based violence and to take steps to ensure that data are collected on gender-based violence, inter alia on the sex of the victims, the sex of the perpetrators, their relationship, age, crime scene, and injuries;

15.

Calls on the Commission to submit a study on the financial impact of violence against women, building on research using methodologies that can financially quantify the impact of this form of violence on health services, welfare systems and the labour market;

16.

Calls on the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Institute for Gender Equality to carry out research which looks at the pervasiveness of violence in teenage relationships and the impact this has on their welfare;

17.

Notes that stalking, of which 87 percent of all victims are female, causes psychological trauma and severe emotional stress and should therefore be considered as a form of violence against women and be subject to a legal framework in all Members States;

18.

Notes that traditional harmful practices such as Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and so-called ‘honour killings’ are highly contextualised forms of violence against women and therefore urges the Commission to give specific attention to traditional harmful practices in its strategy to combat violence against women;

19.

Recognises the serious problem of prostitution, including child prostitution, in the European Union, and requests further studies into the link between the legal framework in the Member State in question and the form and extent of the prostitution taking place; draws attention to the worrying increase in human trafficking into and within the EU – a trade which targets women and children in particular – and urges Member States to take firm action to combat this illegal practice;

20.

Asks Member States to acknowledge the serious problem of surrogacy which constitutes an exploitation of the female body and her reproductive organs;

21.

Emphasises that women and children are subject to the same forms of exploitation and both can be regarded as commodities on the international reproductive market, and that these new reproductive arrangements, such as surrogacy, augment the trafficking of women and children and illegal adoption across national boarders;

22.

Notes that domestic violence has been identified as a major cause of miscarriage or stillbirth and of maternal deaths during childbirth, and asks the Commission to focus more closely on violence against pregnant women in which the offender harms more than one party;

23.

Points out that civil society, particularly NGOs, women's associations and other public and private voluntary organisations providing support to victims of violence, offers a service of great value, particularly by assisting women victims who wish to break the silence in which violence encloses them, and should be given support by the Member States;

24.

Reiterates the need to work with both victims and aggressors, with a view to enhancing awareness in the latter and helping to change stereotypes and socially determined beliefs which help perpetuate the conditions that generate this type of violence and acceptance of it;

25.

Calls on the Member States to provide shelters for women in order to help women and children live a self-determined life free of violence and poverty, and that these offer specialised services, medical treatment, legal aid, psychosocial and therapeutic counselling, legal support during court procedures, support for children affected by violence, etc;

26.

Emphasises that Member States should devote appropriate resources to preventing and combating violence against women, including through recourse to the Structural Funds;

27.

Stresses the importance of the Member States and the regional and local authorities taking action to facilitate the return to the labour market of women who have been victims of gender-based violence through instruments such as the ESF or the Progress Programme;

28.

Calls on the EU and its Member States to establish a legal framework that gives immigrant women the right to hold their own passport and residence permit and makes it possible to hold a person criminally responsible for taking these documents away;

29.

Reiterates the view expressed in its resolution of 25 February 2010 that the European Union, within the new legal framework established by the Treaty of Lisbon, should become a party to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its optional protocol;

30.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address violence against women and the gender-related dimension of human rights violations internationally, in particular in the context of bilateral association and international trade agreements in force and those under negotiation;

31.

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

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/34

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 7 July 2010 entitled ‘Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy’ (COM(2010)0343), as well as to the Commission Proposal of 7 July 2010 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between Member States and third countries (COM(2010)0344),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020), and to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 25 October 2010 on a comprehensive European international investment policy,

—

having regard to the updated OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,

—

having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the failure by Member States to fulfil their obligations, and notably to the judgment of 3 March 2009 in Commission v Austria (Case C-205/06), the judgment of 3 March 2009 in Commission v Sweden (Case C-249/06), and the judgment of 19 November 2009 in Commission v Finland (Case C-118/07),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0070/2011),

A.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon brought foreign direct investment (FDI) under exclusive EU competence, as enshrined in Articles 3(1)(e), 206 and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

B.

whereas since 1959 more than 1 200 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been concluded by the Member States at bilateral level and nearly 3 000 BITs have been concluded in total,

C.

whereas it is generally acknowledged that inward investment can improve host countries’ competitiveness but adjustment assistance for low-skilled workers may be necessary in the case of outward investment; whereas it is the responsibility of any government to encourage the beneficial impacts of investments while preventing any harmful effects,

D.

whereas Articles 206 and 207 TFEU do not define FDI, whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union (1) has specified its understanding of the term FDI, on the basis of three criteria: it should be considered as a long-lasting investment, representing at least 10 % of the affiliated company's equity capital / shares and providing the investor with managerial control over the affiliated company's operations, whereas this definition is in line with those of the IMF and the OECD and is opposed to, in particular, portfolio investments and intellectual property rights; whereas it is difficult to distinguish clearly between FDI and portfolio investments and applying a rigid legal definition to investment practice in the real world will be hard,

E.

whereas some Member States use broad definitions of the term‘foreign investor’, with a simple postal address deemed sufficient to determine the nationality of an enterprise, whereas this has enabled some enterprises to file suits against their own countries via BITs signed by third countries, whereas any European company should be able to rely on future EU investment agreements or free trade agreements (FTAs) with investment chapters,

F.

whereas the emergence of new countries with strong investment capacity as local or global powers has changed the classic view whereby the only investors were from developed countries,

G.

whereas after the first dispute settlement cases of the 1990s, and in spite of generally positive experiences, a number of problems became clear because of the use of vague language in agreements being left open for interpretation, particularly concerning the possibility of conflict between private interests and the regulatory tasks of public authorities, for example in cases where the adoption of legitimate legislation led to a state being condemned by international arbitrators for a breach of the principle of ‘fair and equitable treatment’,

H.

whereas the USA and Canada, which were among the first states to face such rulings, have adapted their model BITs in order to restrict the breadth of interpretation by the arbitration and ensure better protection of their public intervention domain,

I.

whereas the Commission has compiled a list of countries which will be privileged partners for the negotiation of the first investment agreements (Canada, China, India, Mercosur, Russia and Singapore),

J.

whereas the newly established European External Action Service (EEAS) shall also reinforce the EU's global presence and role, including the promotion and defence of the EU's trade goals, in the investment field,

1.

Acknowledges that, as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon, FDI now falls under the exclusive competence of the EU; notes that this new EU competence poses a double challenge, on one hand for managing the existing BITs and on the other hand for defining a European investment policy which meets the expectations of investors and beneficiary states but also the EU's broader economic interests and external policy objectives;

2.

Welcomes this new EU competence and calls on the Commission and the Member States to seize this opportunity to build with Parliament an integrated and coherent investment policy which promotes high-quality investments and makes a positive contribution to worldwide economic progress and sustainable development; takes the view that Parliament must be adequately involved in the shaping of the future investment policy and that this requires proper consultation on the mandates for upcoming negotiations, as well as regular meaningful briefings on the state of ongoing negotiations;

3.

Notes that the EU is an important economic bloc that carries considerable weight in negotiations; believes that a common policy on investment will meet the expectations of both investors and the states concerned and help increase the competitiveness of the EU and its businesses and to increase employment;

4.

Notes the need for a coordinated European framework, one that is designed to provide certainty and to encourage the promotion of the principles and objectives of the EU;

5.

Recalls that the current phase of globalisation has seen a dramatic increase in FDI, reaching in 2007, the year before investment was affected by the global economic and financial crisis, a record high of almost EUR 1 500 billion, with the EU being the largest source of FDI in the entire global economy; underlines, however, that in 2008 and 2009 investment has declined due to the global financial and economic crisis; stresses also that about 80 % of the total value of global FDI concerns cross-border mergers and acquisitions;

6.

Welcomes the Commission's Communication ‘Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy’ but stresses that, while focusing extensively on investor protection, it should better address the right to protect the public capacity to regulate and meet the EU's obligation to exercise policy coherence for development;

7.

Considers that investment can have a positive impact on growth and jobs, not only in the EU but also in developing countries, insofar as investors actively contribute to the development goals of the host states, i.e. by supporting the local economy through technology transfer and by utilising local labour and inputs;

8.

Calls on the Commission to bear in mind the lessons learnt on a multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral level, in particular regarding the failure of OECD negotiations on a Multilateral Agreement on Investment;

9.

Urges the Commission to develop the EU's investment strategy in a careful and coordinated manner drawing on the best practices of BITs; notes the divergence of content within Member State agreements and calls on the Commission to reconcile these divergences to provide a strong EU template for investment agreements, which would also be adjustable according to the level of development of the partner country;

10.

Calls on the Commission to issue non-mandatory guidance as expediently as possible, e.g. in the form of a template for BITs, that may be used by Member States to enhance certainty and consistency;

11.

Asks the Commission to provide a clear definition of the investments to be protected, including both FDI and portfolio investment; considers, however, that speculative forms of investment, as defined by the Commission, shall not be protected; insists that where intellectual property rights are included in the scope of the investment agreement, including these agreements where draft mandates have already been proposed, the provisions should avoid negatively impacting the production of generic medicines and must respect the TRIPS exceptions for public health;

12.

Notes with concern that negotiating a broad variety of investments would lead to mixing exclusive and shared competences;

13.

Calls for the introduction of the term ‘EU investor’ which would, reflecting the spirit of Article 207 TFEU, underline the significance of promoting investors from all Member States on equal terms, ensuring them conditions of functioning and protection of their investments on equal footing;

14.

Recalls that the standard EU Member State BIT uses a broad definition of ‘foreign investor’; asks the Commission to assess where this has led to abusive practices; asks the Commission to provide a clear definition of a foreign investor based on this assessment and drawing on the latest OECD benchmark definition of FDI;

15.

Stresses that investor protection for all EU investors must remain the first priority of investment agreements;

16.

Notes that the negotiation of BITs is a time-consuming process; calls on the Commission to invest in terms of its personnel and its material resources in the negotiation and conclusion of EU investment agreements;

17.

Considers that the request made by the Council in its conclusions on the Communication – that the new European legal framework should not negatively affect investor protection and guarantees enjoyed under the existing agreements – could create a risk of having any new agreement opposed, and could lead to the necessary balance between investor protection and the protection of the right to regulate – in an era of increased inward investment – being put at risk; considers, moreover, that such a formulation of the evaluation criterion may contradict the meaning and spirit of Article 207 TFEU;

18.

Believes that the need to identify best practices, to which the Council's conclusions also point, is a more sensible and more effective option, enabling the development of a consistent European investment policy;

19.

Considers that future investment agreements concluded by the EU should be based on the best practices drawn from Member State experiences and include the following standards:

20.

Asks the Commission to assess the potential impact of the inclusion of an umbrella-clause in future European investment agreements and to present a report to both the European Parliament and the Council;

21.

Calls on the Commission to ensure reciprocity when negotiating market access with its main developed trading partners and the major emerging economies, while bearing in mind the need to exclude sensitive sectors and to maintain asymmetry in the EU's trading relations with developing countries;

22.

Notes that the expected improvement in certainty will help SMEs to invest abroad, and notes in this regard that the voice of SMEs must be heard during negotiations;

23.

Stresses that future investment agreements concluded by the EU must respect the capacity for public intervention;

24.

Expresses its deep concern regarding the level of discretion of international arbitrators to make a broad interpretation of investor protection clauses, thereby leading to the ruling out of legitimate public regulations; calls on the Commission to produce clear definitions of investor protection standards in order to avoid such problems in the new investment agreements;

25.

Calls on the Commission to include in all future agreements specific clauses laying down the right of parties to the agreement to regulate, inter alia, in the areas of protection of national security, the environment, public health, workers’ and consumers’ rights, industrial policy and cultural diversity;

26.

Underlines that the Commission shall decide on a case-by-case basis on sectors not to be covered by future agreements, for example sensitive sectors such as culture, education, public health and those sectors which are strategically important for national defence, and asks the Commission to inform the European Parliament about the mandate it received in each case; notes that the EU should also be aware of the concerns of its developing partners and should not call for more liberalisation if the latter deem it necessary for their development to protect certain sectors, particularly public services;

27.

Stresses that the EU's future policy must also promote investment which is sustainable, respects the environment (particularly in the area of extractive industries) and encourages good quality working conditions in the enterprises targeted by the investment; asks the Commission to include, in all future agreements, a reference to the updated OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises;

28.

Reiterates, with regard to the investment chapters in wider FTAs, its call for a corporate social responsibility clause and effective social and environmental clauses to be included in every FTA the EU signs;

29.

Requests that the Commission assess how such clauses have been included in Member State BITs and how they could be included in future stand-alone investment agreements as well;

30.

Welcomes the fact that a number of BITs currently have a clause which prevents the watering-down of social and environmental legislation in order to attract investment and calls on the Commission to consider the inclusion of such a clause in its future agreements;

31.

Believes that changes must be made to the present dispute settlement regime, in order to include greater transparency, the opportunity for parties to appeal, the obligation to exhaust local judicial remedies where they are reliable enough to guarantee due process, the possibility to use amicus curiae briefs and the obligation to select one single place of investor-state arbitration;

32.

Takes the view that, in addition to state-to-state dispute settlement procedures, investor-state procedures must also be applicable in order to secure comprehensive investment protection;

33.

Is aware that the EU cannot use existing International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)and United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) dispute settlement mechanisms since the EU as such is a member of neither organisation; calls on the EU to include a chapter on dispute settlement in each new EU investment treaty in line with the reforms suggested in this resolution; requests that the Commission and the Member States take up their responsibility as major international players to work towards the necessary reforms of the ICSID and UNCITRAL rules;

34.

Calls on the Commission to put forward solutions that enable small businesses to improve their funding of the high cost of dispute settlement procedures;

35.

Calls on the Commission to present, as soon as possible, a regulation on how responsibilities are to be divided between the EU and national levels, particularly in financial terms, in the event that the EU loses a case in international arbitration;

36.

Endorses the principle that priority partners for future EU investment agreements shall be countries that have great market potential but where foreign investments need better protection;

37.

Notes that investment risk is generally higher in developing and least developed countries and that strong, effective investor protection in the form of investment treaties are key to protecting European investors and can improve governance, thereby bringing about the stable environment needed to increase FDI into these countries; notes that, for investment agreements to further benefit these countries, they should also be based on investor obligations in terms of compliance with human rights and anti-corruption standards as part of a broader partnership between the EU and developing countries for the purpose of reducing poverty; calls on the Commission to assess viable future partners, drawing on Member State best practices with BITs;

38.

Expresses its concern that FDI in least developed countries is extremely limited and tends to be concentrated in natural resources;

39.

Considers that in developing countries greater support should be given to local firms, notably through incentives for strengthening their productivity, engaging in closer cooperation and improving workforce skills – areas of considerable potential in terms of boosting economic development, competitiveness and growth in developing countries; encourages, likewise, the transfer of new, green EU technologies to developing countries, as the best way of promoting green and sustainable growth;

40.

Urges Parliament's position to be taken fully into account by the Commission and the Member States before investment negotiations are initiated, as well as during such negotiations; recalls the content of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission and calls on the Commission to consult Parliament on draft negotiating mandates in good time to enable it to state its position, which must, in turn, be properly taken into account by the Commission and the Council;

41.

Stresses the need to include the role of the EEAS delegations in the strategy of the future investment policy, acknowledging their potential and local know-how as strategic assets in achieving the new policy goals;

42.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, to the Member States, to the European Economic and Social Committee, and to the Committee of the Regions.

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/40

—

having regard to its resolutions on previous annual reports of the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),

—

having regard to the report of 14 July 2010 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual Report 2009’ (COM(2010)0382) and its accompanying documents (SEC(2010)0897 and SEC(2010)0898),

—

having regard to OLAF’s Tenth Activity Report – Annual Report 2010 (1),

—

having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2009, together with the institutions’ replies (2),

—

having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the activities funded by the eighth, ninth and tenth European Development Funds (EDFs) concerning the financial year 2009, together with the Commission's replies (3),

—

having regard to Articles 319(3) and 325(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4),

—

having regard to its declaration of 18 May 2010 on the Union's efforts in combating corruption (5), with a view to ensuring that EU funds are not subject to corruption,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0050/2011),

1.

Regrets that, in general, the Commission's report on the Protection of the European Union's financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual Report 2009 (COM(2010)0382) (the ‘PIF report 2009’), presented in accordance with Article 325(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), does not provide information on the estimated level of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States, as it concentrates on the level of reporting, and it is therefore not possible to have an overview of the actual level of irregularities and fraud in the Member States and to identify and discipline those with the highest level of irregularities and fraud;

2.

Stresses that fraud is an example of purposeful wrongdoing and is a criminal offence, and that an irregularity is a failure to comply with a rule; regrets that the Commission's report fails to consider fraud in detail and deals with irregularities very broadly; points out that Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relates to fraud, not irregularities, and calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities;

3.

Points out that over the last few years techniques have been developed for measuring fraud as part of a broader attempt to combat corruption, and urges the Commission to boost these research efforts and to implement, initially as pilot projects, in cooperation with Member States, appropriate new methodologies which are being developed to measure the phenomena of irregularities and fraud;

4.

Calls on the Commission to exercise its responsibility in ensuring compliance by Member States in their reporting obligations with a view to providing reliable and comparable data on irregularities and fraud even if this requires the Commission to modify the penalty system for non-compliance with these reporting obligations;

5.

Deplores the fact that large amounts of EU funds are still wrongly spent and calls on the Commission to take appropriate action with a view to ensuring prompt recovery of those funds;

6.

Is concerned about the level of outstanding irregularities not recovered or declared unrecoverable in Italy at the end of the fiscal year of 2009;

7.

Calls on the Commission to hold Member States more accountable for the amount of irregularities that have yet to be recovered;

8.

Notes that Union legislation requires Member States to report all irregularities no later than two months after the end of the quarter in which an irregularity has been subject to a primary administrative or judicial finding and/or new information about a reported irregularity becomes known; calls on the Member States to make all the necessary efforts, including the streamlining of national administrative procedures, to meet the required deadlines and reduce the time gap between the identification and the reporting of an irregularity; calls on the Member States to act primarily as protectors of taxpayers’ money in their efforts to combat fraud;

9.

Asks what steps the Commission has taken to combat the increase in suspected fraud, in number of cases and amounts as compared to the total number of cases of irregularities in the Member States of Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria;

10.

Is concerned at the suspiciously low suspected fraud rates in Spain and France, especially considering their size and the financial support received, as described by the Commission in the PIF report 2009, and therefore calls on the Commission to include detailed information on the applied reporting methodology and the fraud detection capability in these states;

11.

Calls on those Member States which have not yet ratified either the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (6) or its protocols (7) (the PIF instruments) i.e. the Czech Republic, Malta and Estonia, to proceed with the ratification of those legal instruments without delay; urges those Member States which have ratified the PIF instruments to step up their efforts to reinforce their national criminal legislation to protect the Union's financial interests, in particular by addressing the existing shortcomings revealed in the second report from the Commission on Implementation of the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and its protocols (COM(2008)0077);

12.

Welcomes the introduction in 2009 of the Irregularity Management System (IMS), an application developed and maintained by OLAF, and the positive developments it has brought about; is concerned that the Commission explains the increase in the number of cases reported and the financial impact by the use of new technological reporting; calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with a detailed methodology of the newly implemented technological reporting and to include it in next year's report; calls on the Member States to fully implement the IMS and to further improve their reporting compliance;

13.

Asks the Commission to include in its next year's report the amount of irregularities reported using the new technological reporting as against the traditional methods of reporting; calls on the Member States to improve the speed with which irregularities are reported;

14.

Reiterates its regret – given the serious doubts about the quality of the information provided by the Member States – that the Commission puts more effort into convincing the European Parliament of the need to introduce a ‘tolerable risk of error’ than into persuading Member States of the need for mandatory national management declarations duly audited by the national audit office and consolidated by the Court of Auditors; calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and by drawing up an appropriate report in line with the Treaty, to provide Parliament with a reasonable assurance that this objective has been attained and that action to combat fraud is being carried out properly;

15.

Is concerned about the amount of fraud as compared to irregularities in the Own Resources sector in the Member States Austria, Spain, Italy, Romania, and Slovakia, as fraud constitutes more than half the total amount of irregularities in each Member State; calls on the Member States to take all necessary measures, including close cooperation with European institutions, to address all causes of fraud relating to EU funds;

16.

Deplores the deficiencies in national customs supervision revealed by the Court of Auditors – in particular as regards the performance of risk analysis for the selection of traders and imports to be subject to customs controls – which increase the risk of irregularities remaining undetected and could lead to a loss of Traditional Own Resources (TOR); calls on the Member States to strengthen their customs supervision systems and on the Commission to provide the relevant support in that respect;

17.

Emphasises the fact that around 70 % of all customs import procedures are simplified, which means that they have a substantial impact on the collection of TOR and on the effectiveness of the common trade policy; finds unacceptable, in that context, the lack of effective controls on simplified procedures for imports in the Member States, as revealed in the Special Report of the Court of Auditors No 1/2010, and calls on the Commission to further investigate the effectiveness of controls for simplified procedures in the Member States, and in particular to investigate progress in the conduct by Member States of ex-post audits, and to present the results of such investigation to the Parliament by the end of 2011;

18.

Notes the outcome of investigations carried out by OLAF in the area of own resources; is deeply concerned at the scale of fraud involving merchandise imported from China, and urges the Member States to recover the sums in question without delay;

19.

Welcomes the successful outcome of the joint customs operation Diabolo II, involving customs officials from 13 Asian countries and 27 EU Member States, coordinated by the European Commission through OLAF;

20.

Welcomes the agreements the European Union and its Member States have concluded with tobacco manufacturers to combat the illicit tobacco trade; is of the opinion that it is in the EU's financial interest to continue working to combat cigarette smuggling, from which the annual loss of revenue for the EU budget is estimated at around EUR one billion; urges OLAF to continue playing a leading role in the international negotiations for a Protocol on the Elimination of the Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products under Article 15 of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which would help to combat illicit trade in the Union; and takes the view that the EUR 500 million to be paid by the two companies concerned – British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco – should also be used by the Commission and the Member States concerned to reinforce anti-fraud measures;

21.

Welcomes the Commission's conclusion that the overall reporting discipline in this policy group has improved and that compliance now stands at 95 %; calls on those Member States which still do not report in good time (Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovakia and the United Kingdom) to remedy the situation promptly;

22.

Calls on the Commission to monitor closely the situation in Spain and Italy, which reported, respectively, the highest number of cases of irregularities and the highest amounts involved, and to report to the European Parliament on the specific measures undertaken in order to address the problems in those two Member States;

23.

Calls on the Commission to ascertain whether the disparity between higher expenditure and a minimum rate of reported irregularities, and the significant variation in the rates of irregularities reported (Estonia 88,25 %; Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Slovenia and Slovakia 0.00 %), are related to the effectiveness of the control systems, with a view to carrying out a review of those systems;

24.

Is deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ finding that payments for the year 2009 in this policy group were affected by material error and that the supervisory and control systems were generally, at most, partially effective in ensuring the regularity of payments; deplores the finding of the Court of Auditors that, although the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) is, in principle, well designed, its effectiveness is adversely affected by inaccurate data in the databases, incomplete cross-checks or incorrect or incomplete follow-up of anomalies; calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of the supervisory and control systems in place in Member States to ensure that information on the irregularity rate per Member State represents a true and fair view of the actual situation; calls on the Commission to address the weaknesses in the effectiveness of IACS;

25.

Notes that final figures can only be established for those financial years that can be deemed finalised, and that in this light, to date, the most recent financial year that can be deemed finalised is 2004;

26.

Deplores the catastrophic situation regarding the overall recovery rate in this policy group, which in 2009 was 42 % of the EUR 1 266 million outstanding at the end of the 2006 financial year; is particularly concerned at the Court of Auditors’ observation that the EUR 121 million recovered in the years 2007-2009 from the beneficiaries represents less than 10 % of total recoveries; finds that situation unacceptable and calls on the Member States to urgently address it; urges the Commission to take all necessary steps in order to put in place an effective system of recovery and to inform the European Parliament, in its next year's report on the protection of EU's financial interests, of the progress made;

27.

Deplores the fact that the data contained in the PIF report 2009 does not provide a reliable picture of the number of irregularities and fraud in this policy group, as a high level of irregularities and/or fraud may simply be an indication of efficient reporting and/or anti-fraud systems;

28.

Is deeply concerned at the fact that payments for the year 2009 were found by the Court of Auditors to be affected by high material error (above 5 %);

29.

Notes that one important source of error in cohesion spending is a serious failure in applying public procurement rules; asks, therefore, the Commission to propose, without delay, new legislation to simplify and modernise these rules;

30.

Is deeply concerned at the Court of Auditors’ finding that at least 30 % of the errors found by the Court in the 2009 sample could have been detected and corrected by the Member States prior to certifying the expenditure to the Commission on the basis of the information available to them; calls on the Member States to intensify their efforts in order to enhance their detection and correction mechanisms;

31.

Calls on the Commission to provide the European Parliament with information on the measures that have been taken with regard to the irregularities reported by the Member States and detected by the Commission in this policy group;

32.

Is not satisfied by a recovery rate exceeding 50 % for the programming period 2000-2006; urges the Member States to deploy further efforts for the recovery of irregular amounts and calls on the Commission to take action to ensure a higher recovery rate, given that the Commission implements the budget on its own responsibility, as stated in Article 317 TFEU;

33.

Is deeply concerned about the suspected high fraud rate in Bulgaria for the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD) in 2009, which – for the whole programming period – stands at 20 % and represents the highest rate seen in all funds analysed (Cohesion and Agriculture); notes that more suspected fraud cases were initiated by external controls/interventions than by internal/national ones; notes that the Commission exercised its obligations properly in suspending the payments from SAPARD in 2008 and lifted that suspension on 14 September 2009 after thorough checks; calls on the Commission to continue supervision of the Bulgarian authorities in order to further improve this situation;

34.

Notes that the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia reported a zero fraud rate for SAPARD, and questions the reliability of the reported information or the fraud detection capability of those States; underlines that similar zero or low level fraud rates could signify weaknesses in the control systems and vice versa; urges the Commission to provide data on effectiveness of control mechanisms and to implement, together with OLAF, stricter control on how EU money is spent;

35.

Finds unacceptable the very low recovery rate for suspected fraud in the pre-accession funds, which is only 4.6 % for the whole programming period, and calls on the Commission to put in place an efficient system in order to address this situation;

36.

Calls on the Commission, the relevant Union agencies and the Member States to take measures and provide resources to ensure that EU funds are not subject to corruption, to adopt dissuasive sanctions where corruption and fraud are found, and to step up the confiscation of criminal assets involved in fraud, tax evasion and money-laundering-related crimes;

37.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to design, implement and periodically evaluate uniform systems of procurement to prevent fraud and corruption, to define and implement clear conditions for participation in public procurement, and criteria on which public procurement decisions are made, and also to adopt and implement systems to review public procurement decisions at national level, to ensure transparency and accountability in public finances, and to adopt and implement risk management and internal control systems;

38.

Welcomes the Commission's Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy ‘Towards a more efficient European Procurement Market’; calls on the Council and Commission to finalize the adoption of the reform of the basic EU public procurement rules (Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC) by no later than the end of 2012;

39.

Following its request in its last year's report on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests, urges OLAF to present in its next annual report a detailed analysis of the strategies and measures put in place by each Member State in the fight against fraud and for preventing and identifying irregularities in the spending of European funds, including where these are caused by corruption; considers that specific attention should be paid to the implementation of agricultural and structural funds; takes the view that the report, with 27 country profiles, should analyse the approach followed by national judicial and investigating bodies and the quantity and quality of controls performed, as well as statistics and reasons in the cases where national authorities did not file indictments following reports by OLAF;

40.

Following its request in the last year's report on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests, urges the Council to complete the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreements with Liechtenstein in the shortest possible time and urges the Council to give the Commission a mandate to negotiate antifraud agreements with Andorra, Monaco, San Marino and Switzerland;

41.

Urges the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency of the beneficiaries of EU funds; calls on the Commission to design measures to increase the transparency of legal arrangements and a system whereby all beneficiaries of EU funds are published on the same website, independently of the administrator of the funds and based on standard categories of information to be provided by all Member States in at least one working language of the Union; calls on the Member States to cooperate with the Commission and provide it with full and reliable information regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States; invites the Commission to evaluate the system of ‘shared management’ and provide Parliament with a report as a matter of priority;

42.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Auditors, the OLAF Supervisory Committee and OLAF.

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/46

—

having regard to Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 224 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 12(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level (political parties and their foundations as defined in Article 2(3) and (4) thereof) and the rules regarding their funding (1) (the Funding Regulation), particularly Article 12 thereof,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 March 2006 on European political parties (2),

—

having regard to the Secretary-General’s report to the Bureau of 18 October 2010 on party funding at European level, submitted pursuant to Article 15 of the Bureau decision of 29 March 2004 (3) on implementing the Funding Regulation,

—

having regard to the Bureau note of 10 January 2011 as the revised version of the Bureau decisions taken on 13 December 2010,

—

having regard to Rules 210(6) and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0062/2011),

A.

whereas Article 10(4) of the Treaty on European Union states that ‘political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union’, while Parliament and the Council, in accordance with Article 224 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, lay down the regulations governing these parties and their political foundations and, in particular, the rules regarding their funding,

B.

whereas the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states clearly that political parties at Union level contribute to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union,

C.

whereas the European Union must function on the basis of the principle of ‘representative democracy’, as stated in Article 10(1) of the Treaty on European Union,

D.

whereas the foundations for European political parties were laid in the Treaties of Maastricht and Nice, which introduced the possibility of funding and thus gave them operational autonomy vis-à-vis the parliamentary groups,

E.

whereas in 2007, following a call by Parliament (4), the Commission presented a proposal introducing the funding of political foundations at European level (European political foundations), which was adopted in December 2007, with a view to supporting the European political parties in the debate on public policy issues and on European integration,

F.

whereas the 2007 amending Regulation (5) seeks to facilitate the integration process for European political parties by enabling the political parties within the Union to structure and organise themselves more effectively,

G.

whereas the 2007 amending Regulation considerably enhanced the role of the European political parties in elections to the European Parliament by stipulating that their expenditure could include funding for election campaigns; whereas, however, this option was restricted by the condition that the appropriations concerned should not be used for the direct or indirect funding of national political parties or candidates,

H.

whereas all the European political parties that are funded have signed a code of conduct, regarded by the Bureau as binding on all parties, laying down rules to be complied with during election campaigns,

I.

whereas the enhancement of the role of European political parties is necessarily tied to their involvement in elections to the European Parliament,

J.

whereas the 2007 amending Regulation calls for more formal recognition of the European political parties,

K.

whereas the 2007 amending Regulation is oriented towards the creation of fully organised and effective political parties at European and Member State level through a balanced process of institutionalisation,

L.

whereas the 2007 amending Regulation seeks to bring about the organisational convergence of political parties and their foundations at European level, while at the same time recognising the different tasks pursued by, respectively, political parties and political foundations,

M.

whereas this organisational convergence can be achieved only by establishing a common political, legal and fiscal status for the European political parties, although this must not entail any standardisation of the organisation of European political parties and their foundations, for which the European political parties and their foundations themselves have sole competence,

N.

whereas the requirement to adopt a legal statute for the European political parties and their political foundations based on the law of the European Union is a clear and substantial step towards enhancing democracy in the Union,

O.

whereas organisational and functional convergence and improvements to the funding process can be achieved only by adopting a uniform and common European statute for all European political parties and their political foundations based on the law of the European Union,

P.

whereas the regulation on political parties at European level does not draw a distinction between the recognition and the funding of political parties,

Q.

whereas the Bureau note of 10 January 2011 recommended tightening the criteria for the funding of European political parties; whereas this amounts to a restriction of party competition at European level as long as the criteria for the legal recognition and funding of political parties are identical,

R.

whereas the 2007 amending Regulation provides a clear legal and financial basis for the establishment of integrated political parties at European Union level in order to raise European awareness and effectively express the will of the citizens of the European Union,

S.

whereas the funding of European political parties is subject to the provisions of Title VI, ‘Grants’, of the Financial Regulation (6) and its Implementing Rules (7),

T.

whereas the Bureau, as the body responsible for implementing the Funding Regulation within Parliament, decided in 2006 on a number of significant improvements to the implementing rules, such as increasing the prefinancing option from 50 % to 80 % in order to simplify the procedure and improve the solvency of the beneficiaries, and relaxing the rules on transfers between chapters in the budgets of beneficiaries in order to enable them to adjust their budgets to changing political circumstances,

U.

whereas experience with the funding of European political parties and their affiliated European political foundations has shown that they need more flexibility and comparable conditions as regards the carrying-over of funds to the following financial year and the building-up of reserves from own resources over and above the prescribed minimum level of expenditure to be financed from their own funds,

V.

whereas the European political parties spend on average almost half of their budgets on centralised administration (staff, rent, etc.) and another quarter on meetings of (statutory and non-statutory) party bodies, the rest being spent on election campaigns and support for affiliated organisations,

W.

whereas the European political foundations have a different expenditure pattern, spending on average 40 % of their budgets on centralised administration and meetings and another 40 % on external services, such as studies, research, publications and seminars,

X.

whereas the main source of the European political parties’ own resources is membership fees collected from the member parties, and whereas less than 5 % of their total income is made up of individual membership subscriptions and donations,

Y.

whereas the share of their total income accounted for by funding from the Union budget is higher in the case of the European political parties than in that of the European political foundations,

Z.

whereas donations do not yet represent a significant part of the funding, with only three parties and two foundations receiving donations on a regular basis in 2009,

AA.

whereas there is a potential conflict between, on the one hand, the aim of facilitating and speeding up funding, thus making it more effective, and, on the other, the aim of minimising the financial risk to the Union budget,

AB.

whereas during the period covered by this report, 2008-2011, no penalties have had to be imposed on any party or foundation funded,

AC.

whereas the European political parties and foundations have to acquire legal personality in accordance with the law of the Member State of their seat in order to be eligible for funding, and whereas they do not have a common legal status,

AD.

whereas the subsidies for European political parties and foundations are ‘grants’ within the meaning of Title VI of the Financial Regulation and its Implementing Rules, but their specific nature means that they are not comparable with any grant awarded and administered by the Commission; whereas this is reflected in a significant number of provisions in the Funding Regulation setting out exceptions; whereas this solution is not satisfactory,

1.

Notes that political parties – and their linked political foundations – are essential instruments of a parliamentary democracy, holding parliamentarians to account, helping to shape the political will of citizens, drawing up political programmes, training and selecting candidates, maintaining dialogue with citizens and enabling citizens to express their views;

2.

Stresses that the Treaty of Lisbon provides for this role of the political parties and their foundations with a view to creating a European polis, a political space at EU level, and a European democracy, of which the European Citizens' Initiative is a key constitutive element;

3.

Notes that the European political parties, as they stand, are not in a position to play this role to the full because they are merely umbrella organisations for national parties and not directly in touch with the electorate in the Member States;

4.

Notes with satisfaction, however, that the European political parties and political foundations have nevertheless become indispensable actors in the political life of the European Union, in particular by shaping and voicing the respective positions of the various ‘political families’;

5.

Emphasises the need for all European political parties to conform to the highest standards of internal party democracy (as regards the democratic election of party bodies and democratic decision-making processes, including for the selection of candidates);

6.

Takes the view that, once it has met the conditions for being regarded as a political party at EU level, a party may receive funding only if it is represented in the European Parliament by at least one of its members;

7.

Points out that political parties have rights, obligations and responsibilities and should therefore follow converging general organisational patterns; considers that this organisational convergence can only be achieved by establishing a common legal and fiscal status based on EU law for the European political parties and their political foundations;

8.

Is convinced that authentic legal status for the European political parties and a legal personality of their own, based directly on the law of the European Union, will enable the European political parties and their political foundations to act as representative agents of the European public interest;

9.

Takes the view that the European political parties should interact and compete on matters relating to common European challenges and the European Union and its development at three levels: regionally, nationally and at European level; considers that it is of the utmost importance for European political parties to be efficient and productive at EU and national level and beyond;

10.

Stresses the important challenges in terms of organisational capacity that the European political parties will have to face in the light of the reforms that may be made to the European electoral system (creation of an additional constituency, establishment of transnational lists),;

11.

Notes that this is, in principle, in keeping with the idea of European political parties participating in referendum campaigns, when the referendums concerned are directly linked to issues relating to the European Union;

12.

Decides, therefore, to request the Commission to propose a draft statute for European political parties in accordance with Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

13.

Notes that what is needed on a shorter-term basis is an improved regulatory environment for the European political parties and foundations, involving, as a first step, the adoption of the European statute;

14.

Considers that Members sitting in regional parliaments or assemblies should be taken into account in connection with the fulfilment of the funding conditions only if the parliament or assembly in question is endowed with legislative powers;

15.

Points out that the award of funding and the closure of the accounts of the European political parties and foundations are bureaucratic and cumbersome procedures; considers that this stems to a great extent from the fact that funding payments are regarded as ‘grants’ within the meaning of the Financial Regulation, which is appropriate for the funding of projects or associations, but not for parties;

16.

Takes the view, therefore, that the Commission should propose the creation of a new title in the Financial Regulation devoted solely and tailored specifically to the funding of European parties and foundations; considers that the Funding Regulation should, as far as its implementation is concerned, refer to the provisions of this new title;

17.

Stresses that the self-financing of parties and foundations is a sign of vitality; believes that it should be encouraged by raising the present limit of EUR 12 000 per year for donations to EUR 25 000 per year/per donor, combined, however, with a requirement to disclose the donor’s identity at the time of receipt, in accordance with the legislation in force and in the interests of transparency;

18.

Considers that requiring the submission of ‘annual work programmes’ as a precondition for funding is inappropriate for political parties; points out, moreover, that such a requirement does not exist in any EU Member State;

19.

Underlines the fact that the timing of funding is crucial if it is to fulfil its purpose; calls, as an exception to the implementing rules for the Financial Regulation, for the funding to be made available at the beginning of the financial year at 100 %, not 80 %; considers that in view of positive past experiences the risk to Parliament is negligible;

20.

Points out that the Financial Regulation stipulates that grants ‘may not finance the entire operating expenditure of the beneficiary body’; observes that complying with this rule is especially difficult for foundations and leads to evasive bookkeeping techniques (for example ‘contributions in kind’); points out that almost none of the funding schemes in Member States require partial self-financing, as this can disadvantage smaller or recently established parties;

21.

Points out that the independent resources that the European political parties are required to demonstrate could be reduced to 10 % of their total budget, in order to further enhance their development; at the same time, believes that their own resources in the form of physical resources should not exceed 7.5 % of their total budget;

22.

Notes that in the case of European political foundations the revision of the legal instrument should be taken as an opportunity to abolish the requirement to demonstrate that they have resources of their own;

23.

Points out that in the context of this revision the limitation imposed on European political foundations requiring them to use their funds within the European Union should be removed; thereby enabling the foundations to play a role both inside and outside the EU;

24.

Emphasises, however, that relaxing the funding regime would have to be counterbalanced by providing for sanctions in the Funding Regulation where they are currently lacking; these sanctions could take the form of financial penalties in the event of infringements of the rules concerning, for example, the transparency of donations; emphasises the need to lay down the same conditions governing the building-up of reserves from own resources above the limit and the carrying-over of funds for both European political parties and their affiliated European political foundations;

25.

Points out that since 2008 European political parties have been entitled to use sums received as grants for ‘financing campaigns conducted … in the context of the elections to the European Parliament’ (Article 8, third paragraph, of the Funding Regulation); also points out, however, that they are prohibited from using these sums for financing ‘referendum campaigns’; believes, however, that if European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union;

26.

Invites the European political parties to start a process of considering the terms for direct individual membership and appropriate arrangements for individuals’ direct or indirect participation in the internal activities and decision-making processes of the parties;

27.

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

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/51

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Towards a Single Market Act for a highly competitive social market economy: 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another’ (COM(2010)0608),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Europe 2020 – a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘A single market for 21st century Europe’ (COM(2007)0724) and the accompanying Commission staff working document ‘The Single Market: review of achievements’ (SEC(2007)1521),

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market review (1) and the Commission staff working document ‘The Single Market review: one year on’ (SEC(2008)3064),

—

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

—

having regard to the Commission’s 27th Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU Law and to the accompanying Commission staff working document entitled ‘Situation in the different sectors’ (SEC(2010)1143),

—

having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 29 June 2009 on measures to improve the functioning of the single market (2),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 10 December 2010 on the Single Market Act,

—

having regard to Professor Mario Monti’s report to the Commission on revitalising the single market,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a single market to consumers and citizens (3),

—

having regard to the Internal Market Scoreboard No 21 (2010), and to its resolutions of 9 March 2010 (4) and 23 September 2008 (5) on the Internal Market Scoreboard,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘A Europe of Results - Applying Community Law’ (COM(2007)0502),

—

having regard to Articles 258 to 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 7, 10 and 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

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 opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0083/2011),

A.

whereas relaunching the Single Market requires the active support of all citizens, European institutions, Member States and stakeholders,

B.

whereas in order to gain the active support of all stakeholders, it is essential that during consultations and dialogue with the Commission, as well as in expert groups, effective representation of civil society and SMEs is ensured,

C.

whereas the proper dissemination, articulation and management of the various EU Institutions’ consultations and reports (EU 2010, the Citizenship Report 2010, the Integrated Industrial Policy, the Digital Agenda for Europe, the Monti report, Parliament’s Resolution on ‘delivering a Single Market to consumers and citizens’, the Gonzales and IMCO reports, etc.) are of particular importance for the successful relaunch of the Single Market,

D.

whereas a substantial gap still persists between the single market rules and the benefits that citizens and businesses can draw from them in practice,

E.

whereas the EU’s average transposition deficit amounts to 1,7 % when taking into account the cases in which the transposition time of a directive exceeds the deadline and in which infringement proceedings for non-conformity have been initiated by the Commission,

1.

Welcomes with interest the Commission Communication ‘Towards a Single Market Act’, especially its third chapter and the global approach which it proposes in order to rebalance the single market between enterprises and citizens and to improve the democracy and transparency of the decision-making process; stresses that this approach seeks to guarantee the best balance between the proposals in the three parts of the communication;

2.

Considers that the three chapters of the Communication are equally important and interconnected, and should be dealt with in a consistent approach without isolating the different issues at stake from each other;

3.

Urges the Commission and the Council to reinforce the holistic approach to relaunching the Single Market, mainstreaming Single Market priorities to all policy areas which are crucial to achieving the Single Market for the benefit of European citizens, consumers and businesses;

4.

Believes that enhancement of European economic governance, implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and the relaunch of the Single Market are equally important for revitalising the European economy and should be seen in combination;

5.

Considers that a barrier-free and competitive single market should be completed in order to bring concrete advantages for workers, students, pensioners and citizens in general, and for businesses, particularly SMEs, in their daily lives;

6.

Calls on the Commission to indicate the implementation timetable for the Single Market Act and to publish regular updates of tangible progress in order to make the EU public more aware of the Act’s implementation and highlight its benefits;

7.

Is convinced that one of the main challenges in relaunching the Single Market is ensuring political leadership, commitment and coordination; believes that comprehensive guidance from the highest political level is crucial for the relaunch of the Single Market;

8.

Suggests that the President of the Commission should be given the mandate to coordinate and supervise the relaunch of the Single Market, in close cooperation with the President of the European Council and the competent authorities in the Member States; urges the Presidents of the Commission and of the European Council to coordinate closely their respective actions that are to boost economic growth, competitiveness, the social market economy and sustainability in the Union;

9.

Highlights the enhanced role of the EP and the national parliaments under the Lisbon Treaty; urges that Parliament’s role in the single market legislation process be strengthened; encourages national parliaments to engage with Single Market rules throughout the legislative cycle and participate in joint activities with the European Parliament, leading to a better synergy between the two parliamentary levels;

10.

Welcomes the Commission’s approach which puts dialogue and partnership at the core of the renewed single market, and calls for strengthened efforts by all stakeholders to ensure that this approach is put into practice so that the single market can play its full role in promoting growth and a highly competitive market economy;

11.

Calls on the Commission jointly with the Presidency to organise a yearly Single Market Forum involving stakeholders from the EU institutions, Member States, civil society and business organisations to assess progress in relaunching the Single Market, exchange best practices and address the top concerns of European citizens; encourages the Commission to continue the exercise of identifying the top 20 single-market-related sources of dissatisfaction and frustration which citizens encounter; proposes that the Single Market Forum could be used by the Commission to present these problems and their respective solutions;

12.

Urges Member States’ governments to take ownership of the relaunch of the Single Market; welcomes initiatives taken by Member States to optimise the way in which they deal with Single Market directives in terms of improving coordination, creating incentive structures and increasing the political importance given to transposition; considers it crucial, when discussing priorities for new legislation, to enhance focus on and incentives for timely and correct transposition, correct application and better enforcement of single market legislation;

13.

Notes that Single Market rules are frequently implemented by local and regional authorities; stresses the need for greater involvement of regional and local authorities in the construction of the single market, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and partnership, at all stages of the decision-making process; proposes, in order to emphasise this decentralised approach, the establishment of a ‘Territorial Pact of Local and Regional Authorities on the Europe 2020 Strategy’ in every Member State to create stronger ownership in the implementation of the EU 2020 Strategy;

14.

Believes that the ‘good governance’ of the single market must respect the role of the two advisory institutions existing at European level – the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – as well as that of the social partners;

15.

Emphasises that dialogue with the social partners and civil society is of the essence in restoring confidence in the single market; expects new and bold ideas from the Commission as to how this dialogue can actually be improved; demands that the social partners be involved and consulted in all relevant single market legislation affecting the labour market;

16.

Welcomes the intention of the Commission to enhance an open, transparent and regular dialogue with civil society;

17.

Calls on the Commission to publish a Green Paper on guidelines for the consultations of the EU institutions with representative associations and civil society, ensuring that these consultations are broad, interactive and add value to the proposed policies;

18.

Calls on the Commission to adapt dialogue and communication to the needs of ordinary citizens to the fullest extent possible, for example by making all its public consultations available in all EU official languages or by using language in such a way that the ordinary citizen can understand;

19.

Urges the Commission to launch an information and education campaign on the essence of the single market and the objectives set in order to increase its dynamism while incorporating the dimensions of social and regional cohesion; stresses the need for this communication campaign to favour better participation – and a better ability to participate – by each citizen, worker and consumer in bringing about a competitive, just and balanced market;

20.

Considers that the use of the new collaborative tools and approaches of Web 2.0 offers an opportunity to achieve more open, accountable, responsive and efficient governance of the Single Market;

21.

Takes the view that initiatives by single Member States cannot be effective without coordinated action at EU level, and that it is thus of fundamental importance that the European Union should speak with a strong single voice and implement common actions; considers that solidarity, on which the European social economy model is based, and the coordination of national responses have been crucial to avoiding protectionist measures of short duration by single Member States; expresses its concern that the re-emergence of economic protectionism at national level would most probably result in fragmentation of the internal market and a reduction in competitiveness, and therefore needs to be avoided; is concerned that the current economic and financial crisis could be used to justify reviving protectionist measures in various Member States, whereas the downturn calls for common safeguard mechanisms instead;

22.

Takes the view that progress in the internal market should not be based on the lowest common denominator; encourages the Commission, therefore, to take the lead and come forward with bold proposals; encourages the Member States to use the method of enhanced cooperation in areas where the process of reaching an agreement among 27 is not achievable; notes that other countries would be free to join these spearhead initiatives at a later stage;

23.

Believes that the overall efficiency and legitimacy of the Single Market suffers because of the complexity of Single Market governance;

24.

Considers that more attention should be paid to the quality and clarity of EU legislation in order to facilitate the implementation of the Single Market rules by the Member States;

25.

Considers that the use of regulations instead of directives where appropriate would contribute to a clearer regulatory environment and reduce the transaction costs associated with transposition; calls on the Commission to develop a more targeted approach to choosing legislative instruments, depending on the legal and substantial characteristics of the provisions to be implemented, while respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

26.

Encourages the Commission and the Council to intensify their efforts to implement the Smart Regulation strategy to further enhance the quality of regulation, fully respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

27.

Urges the Commission to continue independent ex-ante and ex-post evaluation of legislation with the participation of stakeholders to improve the effectiveness of legislation;

28.

Suggests that the Commission systematises and refines the SME test, taking into account the diversity of their situations, to evaluate the consequences of legislative proposals on these businesses;

29.

Believes that correlation tables contribute to better transposition and significantly facilitate enforcement of the Single Market rules; urges Member States to create and make publicly available correlation tables on all Single Market legislation; points out that in future Parliament may not include reports on compromise texts agreed with Council on the plenary agenda if provisions on correlation tables are not provided for;

30.

Supports the proposals of the Single Market Act that aim at developing further administrative cooperation between the Member States, including extending the Internal Market Information (IMI) System to other relevant legislative areas taking into account the security and usability of the system; calls on the Commission to support Member States by providing training and guidance;

31.

Considers that local and regional authorities could be involved in developing and expanding the Internal Market Information System after thorough evaluation of the benefits and problems such an expansion of the system may cause;

32.

Stresses the importance of better communication and extension of the internal market information system as it is essential to provide SMEs in particular with clear information on the internal market;

33.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to cooperate with Member States to consolidate and strengthen informal problem solving tools like SOLVIT, the EU Pilot project and European Consumer Centres; calls on the Commission to come up with a roadmap regarding the development and interlinking of different problem-solving tools to ensure efficiency and user friendliness and avoid unnecessary overlaps; calls on the Member States to provide these problem-solving tools with adequate resources;

34.

Calls on the Commission to further develop and promote the Your Europe website so that it offers a single gateway to all the information and help services citizens and businesses need to make use of their rights in the single market;

35.

Calls on Member States to develop points of single contact under the Services Directive into user-friendly and easily accessible e-Government centres where businesses can obtain all the necessary information in the relevant EU languages, deal with all formalities and complete the necessary steps by electronic means in order to provide services in the respective Member State;

36.

Acknowledges the important role of EURES in facilitating the free movement of workers within the Union and ensuring close cooperation between national employment services; calls on the Member States to increase public awareness of this useful service to enable more EU citizens to fully benefit from employment opportunities across the EU;

37.

Calls on the national Parliaments, regional and local authorities and social partners to take an active part in communicating the benefits of the Single Market;

38.

Calls on the Commission to use all powers under the Treaties to improve transposition, application and enforcement of the rules of the Single Market to the benefit of European citizens, consumers and businesses; calls on the Member States to step up their efforts in order to fully and correctly implement Single Market rules;

39.

Believes that the infringement procedure remains a key tool to ensure the functioning of the single market, but stresses that consideration should be given to additional instruments which are less time-consuming and cumbersome;

40.

Calls on the Commission to resist any political interference and immediately launch infringement procedures where pre-litigation problem-solving mechanisms fail;

41.

Notes that the recent Court of Justice case law opens new scenarios for the Commission to pursue ‘general and structural infringements’ of Single Market rules by Member States;

42.

Calls on the Commission to make full use of the changes introduced by Article 260 of the TFEU which are designed to simplify and speed up the imposition of financial penalties in the context of infringement proceedings;

43.

Believes that the Commission should take a more active role in the enforcement of Single Market rules, by carrying out more systematic and independent monitoring in order to speed up and expedite infringement proceedings;

44.

Regrets that too many infringement proceedings take a long time before they are closed or brought before the Court of Justice; asks the Commission to set a benchmark of 12 months for the maximum average time taken to process infringements, from opening the file to sending the application to the Court of Justice; deeply regrets that such procedures have no direct effect on EU citizens or residents who may have been victims of lack of EU law enforcement;

45.

Asks the Commission to provide better information, in a transparent manner, about ongoing infringement procedures;

46.

Calls on the Commission to propose a benchmark for Member States’ compliance with the rulings of the Court of Justice;

47.

Supports the Commission’s initiatives to further improve the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), with a view to ensuring quick and efficient access to simple and low-cost out-of-court dispute resolution for consumers and enterprises in national and cross-border disputes involving both online and offline purchases; welcomes the consultation launched by the Commission; insists on the necessity of better information for citizens on the existence of ADR;

48.

Calls on the Commission to focus also on the prevention of disputes, for example through stronger measures that prevent unfair commercial practices;

49.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to launch a public consultation on a European approach to collective redress, and opposes the introduction of collective redress mechanisms along the lines of the US model, which contains strong economic incentives to bring unmeritorious claims to court;

50.

Notes that any proposal on collective redress for infringements of competition law must respect Parliament’s view expressed in its resolution of 26 March 2009 on damages actions for breach of the EU antitrust rules; insists that Parliament must be involved in the adoption of any such act by means of the ordinary legislative procedure and calls on the Commission to consider the case for minimum standards in relation to the right to compensation for damage resulting from a breach of EU law more generally;

51.

Supports a focused and evidence-based approach to market monitoring and evaluation; invites the Commission to continue developing its market monitoring tools, such as that of the alert mechanism in the Services Directive, by improving methodology, indicators and data collection, whilst observing the principles of practicality and cost-effectiveness;

52.

Points out the need to evaluate the state of implementation of all Single Market legislation by Member States in a faster and clearer manner;

53.

Highlights the mutual evaluation provided for in the Services Directive as an innovative way of using peer pressure to improve the quality of transposition; supports where appropriate using mutual evaluation in other areas, e.g. in the area of free movement of goods;

54.

Encourages Member States to regularly review national rules and procedures which have an impact on free movement of services and goods in order to simplify and modernise national rules and remove overlaps; considers that the process of screening national law used for the implementation of the services directive could be an efficient tool in other areas to remove overlaps and unjustified national barriers to free movement;

55.

Urges the Commission to support the efforts of the public sector to adopt innovative approaches, exploiting new technologies and procedures and disseminating best practices in the public administration which will lower bureaucracy and embrace citizen-centred policies;

56.

Asks that each spring session of the European Council should be devoted to assessing the state of the Single Market, backed by a monitoring process;

57.

Calls on the Commission to publish a Green Paper on guidelines for the consultations of the EU institutions with representative associations and civil society ensuring that these consultations are broad, interactive, transparent and add value to the proposed policies;

58.

Urges Member States to create and make publicly available correlation tables on all Single Market legislation;

59.

Calls on the Member States to reduce the transposition deficit of Single Market Directives to 0,5 % for outstanding legislation and 0,5 % for incorrectly transposed legislation by the end of 2012;

60.

Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the EU by the end of 2011 and underlines the importance of its quick adoption;

61.

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

2.10.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 296/59

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as incorporated into the Treaties by Article 6 of the EU Treaty,

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to Article 12 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stipulates that ‘consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities’,

—

having regard to Article 14 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Protocol 26 thereto on services of general (economic) interest,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication to the European Council entitled ‘Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a Single Market Act – for a highly competitive social market economy’ (COM(2010)0608),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘A citizen’s agenda – delivering results for Europe’ (COM(2006)0211),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘A Single Market for 21st century Europe’ (COM(2007)0724) and the accompanying Commission staff working document entitled ‘The Single Market: review of achievements’ (SEC(2007)1521), Parliament’s resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market review (1) and the Commission staff working document entitled ‘The Single Market review: one year on’ (SEC(2008)3064),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Opportunities, access and solidarity: towards a new social vision for the 21st century’ (COM(2007)0726), the Commission Communication on ‘Services of general interest, including social services of general interest: a new European commitment’ (COM(2007)0725) and Parliament’s resolution of 27 September 2006 on the Commission White Paper on services of general interest (2),

—

having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 29 June 2009 on measures to improve the functioning of the single market (3) and the Commission Recommendation of 12 July 2004 on the transposition into national law of Directives affecting the internal market (4),

—

having regard to the Internal Market Scoreboard of July 2009 (SEC(2009)1007) and to Parliament’s resolutions of 9 March 2010 (5) and 23 September 2008 (6) on the Internal Market Scoreboard,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013 – Empowering consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively protecting them’ and Parliament’s resolution of 20 May 2008 on the EU consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 (7),

—

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 to the accompanying Commission staff working document entitled ‘Second Consumer Markets Scoreboard’ (SEC(2009)0076),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 2 July 2009 on the enforcement of the consumer acquis (COM(2009)0330) and to the Commission report of 2 July 2009 on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the ‘Regulation on consumer protection cooperation’) (COM(2009)0336),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Cross-border business-to-consumer e-commerce in the EU’ (COM(2009)0557),

—

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

—

having regard to Professor Mario Monti’s report to the Commission on revitalising the Single Market,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on delivering a Single Market to consumers and citizens (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2010 on the financial, economic and social crisis (10);

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Youth on the Move’ (COM(2010)0477),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 September 2010 on completing the internal market for e-commerce (11),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘EU Citizenship Report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights’ (COM(2010)0603),

—

having regard to the report of the European Economic and Social Committee, Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, on ‘Obstacles to the European Single Market 2008’ (12),

—

having regard to SOLVIT’s 2008 annual report on the development and performance of the SOLVIT network (SEC(2009)0142), the Commission staff working paper of 8 May 2008 on an action plan on an integrated approach for providing Single Market Assistance Services to citizens and business (SEC(2008)1882) and Parliament’s resolution of 9 March 2010 on SOLVIT (13),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products, which aims to create an overall framework of rules and principles for accreditation and market surveillance (14),

—

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 opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0072/2011),

A.

whereas a functioning Single Market is the key driver which will enable the European Union to reach its full potential in terms of competitiveness, smart, inclusive and sustainable growth, the creation of more and better jobs, efforts to create a level playing field for enterprises of all kinds, the establishment of equal rights for all European citizens and strengthening a highly competitive social market economy,

B.

whereas the Single Market Act concerns Europeans as active participants in the European economy,

C.

whereas the Single Market cannot be regarded in purely economic terms, but must be seen as being embedded in a wider legal framework conferring specific, fundamental rights on citizens, consumers, workers, entrepreneurs and businesses, particularly small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) of all kinds,

D.

whereas too many obstacles stand in the way of citizens wishing to study or work in or move to another Member State or shop cross-border and of SMEs wishing to establish themselves in another Member State or trade cross-border; whereas these obstacles stem, inter alia, from insufficiently harmonised national laws, low portability of social security rights and excessive red tape, which impedes the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the Union,

E.

whereas the completion of the Single Market requires a holistic vision to further strengthen its development, as the Monti report and the resolution on delivering a Single Market to consumers and citizens highlighted, involving the incorporation of all relevant policies into a single strategic market objective, encompassing not only competition policy, but also, inter alia, industrial, consumer, energy, transport, digital, environment, climate change, trade, regional, justice and citizenship policies, in order to reach a high level of integration;

F.

whereas the Single Market should offer European consumers more choices at lower prices, especially for those who live in less accessible areas, such as island, mountain and sparsely populated regions, and those who suffer from reduced mobility,

G.

whereas printed and online material published by the Commission is often either too abstract or too complex to truly engage citizens and reach a wide audience,

H.

whereas it is important that the Single Market Act should not consist of a series of isolated measures and that all the proposals must contribute to the achievement of a coherent objective,

1.

Welcomes the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a Single Market Act’, and specifically Chapter II, ‘Restoring confidence by putting Europeans at the heart of the Single Market’, which contains 19 initiatives geared to the needs of European citizens;

2.

Considers that the Communication's proposals are generally in line with Parliament’s expectations, but need to be further strengthened in order for citizens to be at the heart of the Single Market project;

3.

Deplores the fact that the Communication has been divided into three chapters focusing on Europeans, businesses and governance, rather than along subject-matter lines; points out that the competitiveness of the Single Market and its acceptance among citizens should not be regarded as contradictory, but as mutually reinforcing objectives; considers, however, that the three chapters of the Communication are equally important and interconnected, and should be dealt with by means of a consistent approach, taking into account proposals made and concerns expressed by stakeholders at EU level and in the Member States;

4.

Firmly believes that the Single Market Act needs to constitute a coherent and balanced package of measures, in keeping with the spirit of the Grech report (A7-0132/2010) and the Monti report, which lays the foundations for a Europe of Added Value for citizens and enterprises;

5.

Argues that the relaunching and deepening of the Single Market are essential in the context of EU policies to fight the effects of the financial and economic crisis, and as part of the EU 2020 strategy;

6.

Takes the view that Europeans have not yet fully exploited the potential of the Single Market in many areas, including the free movement of persons, goods and services, and that new incentives are needed in particular to ensure effective geographical labour mobility across Europe;

7.

Takes the view that the Single Market strategy should strengthen social welfare and workers' rights and ensure fair working conditions for all Europeans;

8.

Supports the Commission’s idea of initiating, through the Single Market Act, a global and pragmatic debate throughout Europe on the benefits and costs of the internal market, and asks the Commission to ensure the effective application of internal market rules which reduce the administrative burden on citizens;

9.

Shares the conviction that the full realisation of the European Single Market should form the basis for the completion of the process of political and economic integration;

10.

Emphasises in particular the Commission’s commitment, in this Communication, to promoting new approaches to sustainable development;

11.