10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/1

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled ‘An action plan for airport capacity, efficiency and safety in Europe’ (COM(2006)0819),

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled ‘Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports’ (1),

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled ‘The EU and its neighbouring regions: a renewed approach to transport cooperation’ (COM(2011)0415),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2011 on transport applications of Global Navigation Satellite Systems – short- and medium-term EU policy (2),

—

having regard to the Commission White Paper entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’ (COM(2011)0144),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0094/2012),

A.

whereas there is currently no universally accepted definition for the term ‘regional airport’; whereas airports whose principal catchment area is a capital city are not included in the purview of this report; whereas it is suggested that regional airports, i.e. ‘non-hub’ airports, should be subdivided into major and minor airports, on the basis of the types of links provided by such airports, passenger volume and links with major cities and major airports, and whereas the Commission is urged to set common criteria in order to facilitate a proper definition of ‘regional airport’ that takes into account all of the above mentioned elements; whereas, however, ‘regional air service’ should be defined as a flight departing from and/or landing at a regional airport; whereas it will be essential in the ongoing debate on regional airports to determine their various roles and in particular to distinguish between island airports and airports serving inaccessible or economically weak regions;

B.

whereas regional aviation, like other modes of transport, is a key enabler in citizens’ mobility; whereas improved connectivity and efficient inter-modal mobility can contribute considerably to better access to the regions, to business, tourism and the development of related services, and to the spread of economic prosperity;

C.

whereas the unequal material status of citizens, and the different levels of infrastructure development, result in disparities in the opportunity to use regional flight connections in the Member States;

D.

whereas the connectivity offered by aviation to citizens and businesses in EU regions, and in particular in inaccessible regions and islands, is extremely important and helps ensure the economic viability of such areas; whereas Europe’s airports provide a large network of 150 000 city pairs;

E.

whereas a considerable number of regional airports are confronted by an airline with a virtual monopoly which can exploit this position to exert pressure by making more and more demands on the airport concerned and on local and/or regional authorities, inter alia with regard to airport charges and aviation safety levies;

F.

whereas airport retail sales have decreased markedly due to the introduction of restrictive policies for hand-luggage by some airlines; whereas the impact of the ‘one bag’ rule applied by the companies, in particular the low-cost airlines, which operate mainly in such airports, as well as other cost-cutting measures, has made travelling more difficult, bringing about a dramatic decline in ground-based retail sales for some regional airports; whereas one third of retail profits in airports goes towards subsidising airlines by offsetting landing charges;

G.

whereas the Spanish Government has expressly prohibited airlines from applying the ‘one bag’ rule when departing from Spanish airports;

H.

acknowledges that major airports in some Member States are experiencing a capacity crunch;

I.

notes that the financial and sovereign debt crisis has substantially changed the conditions for airport financing in the EU, especially at ‘non-hub’ airports;

J.

whereas the construction of new regional airports should be based on a cost-benefit analysis;

K.

whereas investments from the public sector in the reforming of airports should display a certain relationship between the amount of money spent and the number of passengers using the infrastructure;

1.

Underlines the need for a public service obligation for air services of economic and public interest, especially those connecting remote regions, islands and the outermost regions, given their remoteness and physical and natural characteristics, in order to ensure their full accessibility and territorial integration; stresses that existing public service obligations should be maintained; believes that such services would not be economically viable without public money; stresses the importance of making the outermost regions more competitive and of promoting their integration with other regions so as to close the economic gap separating them from the rest of Europe;

2.

Believes that it is desirable to avoid a proliferation of regional airports, and notes that the development of regional airports should be targeted in order to avoid the creation of unused or not efficiently used airport infrastructures which would result in an economic burden for the responsible authorities; maintains, on the contrary, that existing links should be strengthened, especially in areas (islands, for example) suffering from geographical handicaps; welcomes, therefore, any initiative aimed at developing the role of public transport, including road transport, in promoting links; Stresses that public funding for regional airports should be compatible with Articles 106 and 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relating to state aid; believes that provision should be made for a system of penalties to be applied to airlines which move out of regional airports in receipt of funding before the appointed date;

3.

Asks the Commission to review decision 2012/21/EU on the application of Article 106(2), by means of which the threshold for which an airport can receive state aid without having to notify the Commission was decreased to 200 000 passengers per year, bearing in mind the Community Guidelines which state that an airport can become cost-efficient with a traffic of over 500 000 passengers per year;

4.

Takes the view that regional airports, on account of their environmental and economic impact, should be properly supported by national and regional authorities, be subject to local and regional consultation, and – on the basis of cost-benefit analyses – be considered eligible to apply for financing under EU funds, as well as other EU-funded financial engineering instruments within the new programming framework; recommends that the Commission take into consideration the opportunities offered by regional airports as part of the European central transport network;

5.

Calls for the criteria on obtaining subsidies and public funding to be strictly defined and transparent;

6.

Calls on the Commission to take a balanced approach in future revisions of aviation guidelines in order to provide for a socially and economically viable development of regional air services, taking into consideration the development of the infrastructure needed to ensure intermodality while also ensuring accessibility to those services for EU citizens and taking into account the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

7.

Calls on the Commission, in supporting the development of regional airports and the construction of new regional airports (especially in countries whose national airports are situated in remote areas), to pay particular regard to the balanced territorial development of regions corresponding to levels I and II of the Nomenclature of Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS) in order to ensure innovation and competitiveness in regions which are a long way from the capital city and do not enjoy good transport access, and to facilitate the development of real economic and transport hubs;

8.

Stresses that adequate development of regional airports contributes to parallel development of the tourist system, which is a vitally important area for many European regions;

9.

Notes that tourism is demonstrating its resilience to the economic crisis, and that special attention must be paid to any economic policy aspect or decision likely to support or advance tourism, such as air transport and airport infrastructure projects;

10.

Stresses that some regional airports are operational only during mass tourism seasons, which often poses an added problem of organisation, involves higher unit costs, etc.; calls on the Commission to take account of the specific nature and problems of these seasonal regional airports when adopting new legislation for the sector;

11.

Underlines that regional airports are becoming more and more important for charter airlines as well as for low-cost carriers; stresses that the main rationale today for charter airlines is as long-haul operators to holiday destinations, with an inferior seat pitch and in-flight service compared with scheduled legacy airlines, often from regional airports that cannot support a scheduled service and flying beyond the competitive reach of low-cost airlines with their short-haul aircraft; recalls that narrow-body aircraft are favoured on short-haul routes, especially where network carriers are feeding hubs from regional airports and by low-cost carriers (LCCs);

12.

Calls on the Commission to guarantee the correct application of European and national legislation on airlines’ social conditions and terms of employment, so that staff employed at a regional airport do not become victims of social dumping and so that fair competition and a level playing field can be ensured in the aviation sector; calls for airport staff to benefit from decent contractual terms, with particular reference to airports in which most of the traffic is accounted for by low-cost airlines;

13.

Expresses concern that certain practices of low-cost airlines, which often operate from regional airports, lead to poorer quality of service for passengers and a deterioration in working conditions; given the current aggressive business practice of some low-cost airlines operating from regional airports to take advantage of their dominant position, and given that commercial activities are a major source of income for regional airports, is concerned by ‘one-bag’ and other restrictions to the cabin baggage allowance imposed by certain airlines; takes the view that these practices represent a breach of competition law, and believes that these restrictions may constitute an abuse of a carrier’s position; calls, therefore, on the Member States to set common upper limits to be imposed on airlines with regard to such restrictions and considers that any checks relating to luggage weight restrictions and size should be made before arrival at the departure gate;

14.

Calls for airport retail purchases to be treated as ‘essential items’, as is currently the case for items such as coats; applauds Spain’s decision to outlaw practices mentioned in paragraph 13 within its territory (3), and calls on the Commission to look into introducing a similar measure for all air services originating from Europe;

15.

Considers that goods transport is a positive factor for regional airports which can further development and jobs, not least through the establishment of related ground services and of businesses linked to regional airports; calls on the Commission to draw up a strategy that will promote goods transport and facilitate cooperation between neighbouring regional airports;

16.

Urges the MemberStateauthorities to propose plans to develop existing regional airports and make them more efficient;

17.

Believes that regional airports should not be enhancing tools for public deficits and should generally be economically sustainable in the mid term;

18.

Urges the Commission and Member States to speed up the development of the Joint Undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR), the Clean Sky initiative and the enforcement of Single European Sky legislation as a matter of urgency; notes that, with the work of SESAR and the important role of the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS), regional airports will profit from projects such as remote towers, speed and congestion management and improved operational procedures;

19.

Acknowledges that capacity management is not the same at ‘slot coordinated’ airports as at ‘slot non-coordinated’ airports; is of the opinion that there is plenty of spare capacity to be utilised at many regional airports and that, by using that spare capacity, congestion and stacking at major airports can be reduced and the environmental impact limited; recognises that good connections between main airports and nearby regional airports can help to reduce congestion;

20.

Highlights the role of regional airports in acting as a mainspring for the development of innovation clusters by diminishing location costs for start-ups, especially in geographically remote regions;

21.

Calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities to take account of, in addition to economic and financial considerations, environmental, territorial, geological and meteorological factors, and of other rational criteria when deciding where to locate airports and whenever regional airport facilities need to be renovated or expanded; underlines, at the same time, the importance of using and modernising existing structures before building new ones;

22.

Notes that recent studies state that European regions are losing direct links to some of the most congested airports, and is disappointed that studies conducted by the European Commission deal only with major airports; suggests, therefore, that the scope of any future studies be extended to regional airports and, in the interim, encourages the Member States and the Commission to promote connections between regional airports and main airports in the Member States, helping to boost the economy in the areas around regional airports whiles also offering one solution to the problem of air-traffic congestion in Europe;

23.

Urges all parties and institutions involved in the revision of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (as amended by Regulation (EC) No 793/2004) to focus on delivering new capacity at airports rather than pricing regional air services out of the market; considers it essential for regional airports to have access to hubs, and takes the view that this must be considered during the revision of Regulation (EEC) No 95/93, especially in the context of the plans for secondary trading of slots and the envisaged gradual introduction of other market mechanisms, including primary trading, that could result in a severing of links between regional airports and major hubs;

24.

Calls on the Commission to take a rational approach to the administrative and legal regulation of slot management at regional airports, the lack of which could restrict the network; calls on the Commission, given that major hub airports are close to maximum capacity, to draw up a strategy for the allocation of regional airport slots in order to attract new airlines, and promote competition, decongestion of major airports and the development of regional airports;

25.

Regrets that regional airports situated away from urban centres are often not adequately connected to the transport network on the ground; calls for Member States to develop their intermodal policies and to invest in these strategically important intermodal connections, for example connections with the rail network, as the interlinking of regional airports with other parts of the transport network, including other airports, will lead to greater use of regional airports when hub airports are suffering capacity bottlenecks;

26.

Points out that the lack of decisive action to increase the accessibility of regional airports by means of appropriate communication with urban centres, including through transport infrastructure investments, is restricting the economic and social development of the regions;

27.

Notes the need for better integration between modes of transport; urges the Commission to come forward with a communication encouraging industry to develop multi-modal through-ticketing between the rail and air sector; points to the fact that schemes of this kind are already in operation in certain Member States and hence urges all parties to exchange best practice in this field;

28.

Notes the urgent need to guarantee airport capacity in the European Union so as not to lose competitiveness by comparison with other regions experiencing growth, and thus prevent traffic from shifting to neighbouring regions; takes the view that regional airports can help reduce congestion at Europe’s main airports and allow them to maintain a leading position;

29.

Believes that the network development plans of the rail and road sector should take the location of airports into account, with the aim of including airports in the ground transport networks being built; notes the need to develop regional airport networks based on integrated connections with the major airports in order to improve the mobility of people and to streamline goods transport;

30.

Points out that a well-developed network of regional airports will also improve passenger safety, by ensuring, among other things, that a network of emergency or alternative airports is available in the event of a deterioration in the weather or other circumstances;

31.

Considers it vital to incorporate freight transport specialisation as an essential element that will contribute to the planning of the airport map, and to optimise the use of available infrastructure; points out that appropriate use of this principle, together with the appropriate handling of slots to segment passenger and freight transport, should help to avoid saturation at main airports; highlights the important role played by regional airports in this strategy;

32.

Takes the view that the role played by regional airports is vital for territorial cohesion and social and economic development in the regions, especially in regions where other forms of transport are lacking; calls, therefore, for regional airports to be taken into account in the future trans-European transport network policy; Furthermore, strongly believes that major regional airports with consistent year-round traffic, which make a demonstrable contribution to economic development, revitalisation of industry and employment in their region, should be included in the planning deliberations for the TEN-T Network, especially those with high-volume connectivity with third countries and intra-European traffic, and which contribute to the multimodal character of transport in their region, and those regional airports which can serve to relieve bottlenecks;

33.

Emphasises that regional airports in trans-border regions which are located in close proximity to each other should demonstrate cooperation and coordination in the use of existing capacities as a precondition for EU co-financing by TEN-T, cohesion and regional funds;

34.

Believes that, as part of the TEN-T, regional airports could play a leading role in the creation of a wider European Common Aviation Area covering 1 billion people in the EU and neighbouring countries, in line with the Commission communication (COM(2011)0415);

35.

Regrets that the Commission has not paid attention to the request from Parliament and the Council in Article 10(4) of Decision 884/2004/EC for regional airports to be connected to the network, especially in view of the need for air transport services to Europe’s regions to be ensured alongside the development of rail services, as air transport can in certain circumstances reach further and serve thinner markets more efficiently in terms of time, cost and environmental impact; highlights, therefore, the great importance of connecting rail – especially high-speed and long-distance rail – services to airports;

36.

Believes that a broader inclusion of airports in the new TEN-T guidelines will facilitate access to private financing for airport infrastructure projects and send a positive signal to capital markets; calls on the Commission, during its review of the TEN-T, to recognise the vital link between regional air services and economic regeneration;

37.

Notes that the cost of implementing security measures at smaller regional airports is proportionally higher than at major airports, which benefit from economies of scale; believes, however, that any proposal concerning the financing of security measures must not distort competition between airports or groups of airports;

38.

Recalls that the directive on airport charges (4) only covers airports with more than 5 million passengers and/or the biggest airport in each EU Member State; believes that an assessment of the impact on small and medium-sized airports should form a core part of any review of the relevant directives;

39.

Urges the Council to adopt a position on aviation security charges, and believes that more stringent security measures should be paid out of general taxation by the MemberStateconcerned, as aviation security is a matter of national security; stresses that similar rules should apply for all other transport modes in order to ensure fair competition.

40.

Acknowledges the need for reliable LAG (liquids, aerosols and gels) screening equipment that ensures a high degree of probability of detection of a wide range of liquid explosives, and urges the Commission to consider the consequences for regional airports of adhering to future requirements for LAG screening;

41.

Draws attention to the impact of the new regulations for air cargo, with specific reference to the fact that many regional airports rely on cargo traffic; urges the Member States and the Commission to study the economic consequences of these regulations, with a view to ensuring that freight forwarders do not move their operations outside the EU;

42.

Suggests that companies must offer, to all residents of all EU states, a credit or debit card payment option which would be free of charge, and further recommends that such a card should have no monthly or administration charges associated with it, even if offered by a company separate to the airline, and that, where airlines have a large majority of their passengers paying an extra charge related to payment, this charge should be outlawed and considered an unavoidable charge, and therefore included as part of the headline price;

43.

Points out that, while in some aircraft the stowage can be limited, there are no common guidelines for hand or hold baggage size or weight on EU flights; suggests that the Commission encourage industry to set common upper limits for restrictions, as this would give passengers greater certainty when travelling; believes that, for such an arrangement to work in a global market, the ICAO must be involved in this process;

44.

Notes that some airlines charge fees for check-in baggage which often seem disproportionately high, and calls on the Commission, with regard to the practices set out in point 13 and to fair and transparent pricing policy, to investigate this practice;

45.

Suggests that the amount chargeable by airlines for excess and overweight baggage should be capped;

46.

Calls on the companies responsible for the management of regional airports to make the necessary structural alterations to accommodate disabled people, so as to enable them to access the various airport areas without assistance and to use all services without difficulty;

47.

Stresses that, thanks to the small size of their terminals, compactness and organisation, regional airports represent added value for passengers with reduced mobility, passengers travelling with their families, etc.; calls on the Commission, airports and other stakeholders to take the design and construction of terminals that are more accessible and welcoming for passengers as their example;

48.

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

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/8

—

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 29 September 2011 from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled ‘Protection of the European Union’s financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual Report 2010’ (COM(2011)0595) and its accompanying documents (SEC(2011)1107, SEC(2011)1108 and SEC(2011)1109) (1),

—

having regard to OLAF’s Eleventh Operational Report – Annual Report 2011 (2),

—

having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2010, together with the institutions’ replies (3),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Court of Auditors on the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (COM(2011)0376),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the protection of the financial interest of the European Union by criminal law and administrative investigations - An integrated policy to safeguards taxpayers’ money (COM(2011)0293),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2011 on the EU’s efforts to combat corruption (4), its Declaration of 18 May 2010 on the Union’s efforts in combating corruption (5), and the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee: Fighting corruption in the EU (COM(2011)0308),

—

having regard to Article 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 (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual Report 2009 (8),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0121/2012),

A.

whereas the EU and the Member States share responsibility for the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraud, and whereas close cooperation between the Commission and the MemberStatesis essential,

B.

whereas the Member States have the primary responsibility for implementing some 80 % of the European Union budget as well as for the collection of own resources, inter alia in the form of VAT and customs duties,

C.

whereas in 2010 the overall financial impact of irregularities detected by control systems amounts to EUR 2 193 million, as compared to EUR 1 757 million in 2009,

D.

whereas according to the European Court of Auditors (ECA) the payments underlying the accounts were affected by material error, with an estimated error rate of 3,7 % for the EU budget as a whole; whereas the control systems were found to be only partially effective in ensuring the regularity of payments, and whereas the main sources of errors relate to eligibility and public procurement errors,

E.

whereas in the majority of cases, the ECA considers that the Member States’ authorities had sufficient information available to have detected and corrected at least some of the errors before payments were made, and whereas the ECA considers there is still room for improving Member States’ correction mechanisms and audit activities,

1.

Stresses that the global financial crisis, and in particular the euro area crisis, which the EU is now facing, call for special measures to be put in place in order to ensure adequate protection of EU financial interests in terms of revenue, which are directly linked to the financial interests of the Member States; is of the opinion that a more rigorous implementation of fiscal policy has the potential of leading Europe out of the crisis, in particular by decreasing the size of the EU’s shadow economy, estimated to be at around one fifth of the official GDP (9);

2.

Emphasises the potential for e-government to increase transparency and combat fraud and corruption, thereby safeguarding public funds; underlines that Europe is lagging behind its industrial partners, inter alia due to a lack of interoperability of systems (10); stresses that, especially in a time of crisis, Europe must step up its efforts to achieve a new generation of e-government which would provide more transparency in public finances;

3.

Draws attention to the fact that electronic, non-cash transactions are documented and therefore make participating in the shadow economy more difficult, and that a strong correlation appears to exist between the proportion of electronic payments in a country and its shadow economy (11); encourages the Member States to lower their thresholds for compulsory non-cash payments;

4.

Stresses the need for reliable statistical data on the extent of fraud and corruption, and in particular on the extent of tax and customs duty evasion and misuse of EU funds by organised crime; deplores the fact that the Commission has not been in a position to provide such data, despite repeated calls from the Parliament;

5.

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, and regrets that the European 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 (TFEU) relates to fraud, not irregularities, and calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors; calls for corruption to be tackled at the same time as fraud;

6.

Notes that in 2010 the financial impact of irregularities in the area of expenditure rose and amounted to EUR 1,8 billion (or 1,27 % of allocations), as compared to EUR 1,4 billion (or 1,13 %) in 2009; the financial impact in the area of revenue is also higher: EUR 393 million (or 1,88 % of total collected traditional own resources, gross) as compared to EUR 357 million (or 1,84 %) in 2009.

7.

Deplores the fact that large amounts of EU funds are still wrongly spent and calls on the Commission to take decisive action in order to recover more erroneous payments, to hold Member States more accountable for the amount in irregularities that have yet to be recovered, to improve the prevention and detection of irregularities and cases of fraud, and immediately to suspend payments and apply effective sanctions in cases of misuse of EU funds;

8.

Notes that for 2010 the number of irregularities reported has increased for all sectors except pre-accession funds and traditional own resources and that the increase is related to the closure of the 2000-2006 implementing period of the cohesion funds and to the improvements made to the Irregularities Management System (IMS);

9.

Stresses that, although the Irregularities Management System (IMS) has been modernised and improved, and there has been an increase in the volume of reporting by the majority of Member States, which has led to an improvement in the quality and reliability of reports, there are still differences in the Member States’ approaches to reporting irregularities and, consequently, there are doubts about the adequacy of national reporting systems; calls on all the Member States to fully implement the IMS and to further improve their reporting compliance, and to improve the speed with which irregularities are reported;

10.

Is further concerned that some Member States are not yet using the electronic reporting system fully; calls on these Member States to remedy the situation as a matter of urgency;

11.

Reiterates its regret, given the serious doubts about the quality of the information provided by the Member States, and notes that some Member States continue to report a very low number of detected irregularities and cases of fraud, and calls on the Commission to inform the European Parliament whether the national control systems in those Member States are effective;

12.

Recalls that Union legislation requires the 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 moment a irregularity is identified and that when it is reported; calls on the Member States to act primarily as a protector of taxpayers’ money in their efforts to combat fraud;

13.

Stresses the need for reliable statistical data about the scale of fraud and corruption, particularly related to tax and customs evasion and the organised activities of criminals misusing EU funds; regrets that, despite repeated requests from the European Parliament, the Commission has been unable to provide such data;

14.

Is disappointed that the Commission is unable to assess the actual scale of irregularities and fraud and that consequently it is not possible to evaluate the overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States or to identify and discipline those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud, as called for by the European Parliament back in 2009;

15.

Points out that over the past few years new techniques have been developed for measuring corruption and fraud and urges the Commission, without any further delay, to initiate efforts to apply these new measurement tools and provide an assessment of the extent of corruption and fraud in the use of EU funds and in the embezzlement of EU revenues; this will permit an evaluation of the effectiveness of the protection of EU funds from misuse and the protection of EU revenues from embezzlement;

16.

Calls for the responsibility for the development of the measurement tools of fraud and corruption related to the EU funds to be taken by the Commission in close cooperation with the European Parliament, the European Court of Auditors and other EU auditing and control bodies;

17.

Notes that the so-called 50/50 rule (12) applicable in the agricultural sector is an effective incentive for Member States to speed up and complete recovery procedures; calls on the Commission to assess whether this claw-back mechanism could also be applied in other (cohesion and pre-accession) sectors, and also whether pursuant to this rule it would be appropriate to reduce by half the time limit for recovery actions, i.e. to two and four years respectively;

18.

Notes that the 2010 Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors (ECA report) states that payments indicated in financial statements for 2010 affected by a large amount of errors amounted to 3,7 % of all EU budgetary spending, i.e. approximately EUR 4,5 billion;

19.

Notes that the ECA report further states that, prior to approving payments, the authorities of the Member States had sufficient information to detect some of the errors, and remedy or prevent them;

20.

Recalls that proper collection of VAT and customs duties influences directly both the economies of the Member States and the EU budget; underlines that improving the systems for collecting revenue should be the utmost priority for all Member States, in particular those facing the biggest difficulties in the current economic climate;

21.

Stresses that the emphasis should move to more efficient revenue collection; stresses that tax fraud leads to exorbitant losses for the EU budget and the economies of the Member States, thus worsening the debt crisis; recalls that the cost of the existing shadow economy is borne by those citizens whose income is easily documented and traceable;

22.

Notes that data provided by the Member States on irregularities in the area of traditional own resources (TOR) varies greatly, and therefore believes that the classification of irregularities and cases of fraud in the own resources database OWNRES is not entirely reliable; calls on the Commission to investigate how this database might be improved to ensure the reliability and comparability of reported data;

23.

Calls on the Commission to continue to focus on the implementation of the Member States’ customs control strategies, particularly in the area of imports associated with high risk, and to improve activities concerning the detection of irregularities and cases of alleged fraud in the area of TOR;

24.

Is concerned that smuggling, particularly cigarette smuggling, remains a major problem for the EU and results in the loss of significant resources from national and EU budgets; welcomes the Action Plan drawn up by the Commission to combat the smuggling of cigarettes and alcohol along the EU’s Eastern border, as well as the renewal of customs cooperation with China and Russia at the end of 2010 and the Strategic Framework for Customs Cooperation endorsed with both countries;

25.

Welcomes the results of the Member States’ joint customs operation ‘Sirocco’ carried out in June 2010, which was coordinated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and during which around 40 million cigarettes, 1,2 tonnes of hand-rolled tobacco, 7 000 litres of alcohol and 8 million other counterfeit items were seized;

26.

Notes that a large proportion of revenue comes from value-added tax (VAT), and the Commission and Member States therefore need to monitor and effectively respond to both existing and new trends in fraud; welcomes the Commission’s Green Paper on the future of VAT and calls for concrete proposals to be made on VAT reform;

27.

Recalls that, according to a study carried out on behalf of the European Commission (13), the estimated average EU VAT gap (14) has been found to be at the level of 12 %; draws special attention to the fact that this VAT gap has been put at an alarming level of, respectively, 30 % and 22 %, in Greece and Italy – the countries which are going through the most difficult debt crisis and whose situation threatens economic stability across the EU-27;

28.

Stresses that, besides tax avoidance and losses due to insolvencies, the VAT gap is attributable also to fraud, and that VAT losses, translating into billions of EUR, are largely compensated for via austerity measures affecting those EU citizens whose income is easily traceable;

29.

Points to the fact that since its introduction, the VAT collection model has remained unchanged; stresses that it is outdated, given the many changes to the technological and economic environment that have taken place;

30.

Underlines that proceeds from customs duties are an important part of the EU’s traditional own resources (TOR) and a source of income for the Member States’ governments, who keep 25 % to cover the cost of collection; reiterates that efficient prevention of irregularities and fraud in this field protects the Union’s financial interests and has important consequences for the Internal Market, eliminating the unfair advantage of economic operators who avoid duties over those who comply with their obligations in this respect;

31.

Stresses that the correct operation of customs has a direct impact on the calculation of value-added tax;

32.

In this context recalls that in its Special Report No 13/2011 (15), the ECA found that the application of customs procedure 42 (16) alone accounted in 2009 for extrapolated losses of approximately EUR 2 200 million (17) in the seven Member States audited by the Court, representing 29 % of the VAT theoretically applicable on the taxable amount of all the imports made under customs procedure 42 in 2009 in those countries;

33.

Recalls that the ECA found serious deficiencies in the control of simplified customs procedures, which account for 70 % of all customs procedures; points out that they have led to unjustified losses to the Union budget and breaches in the EU’s trade policy; stresses that the deficiencies identified consisted, inter alia, in poor-quality or poorly-documented audits and little use of automated data processing techniques for carrying out checks during the processing of simplified procedures;

34.

Notes that in 2010 there was an increase in reports of irregularities and cases of suspected fraud, while the financial impact of these increased from EUR 13 million in 2009 to EUR 69 million in 2010;

35.

Regrets that the situation as regards overall funds recovered remains unsatisfactory: the Member States recovered EUR 175 million during the financial year 2010, which accounts for 42 % of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) debts from 2007 and thereafter, whereas the total amount remaining to be recovered at the end of the financial year 2010 was EUR 1,2 billion, while under the 50/50 rule Member States have only transferred EUR 300 million from their national budgets to the EU Budget; regrets that the Commission failed to take into account the European Parliament’s request and did not supply the European Parliament with information about the progress made in this area in the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests Report 2010; repeats its call for the Commission to take all the necessary steps to put into practice an effective system for the recovery of funds, and to keep the European Parliament informed;

36.

Regrets that in 2010 some Member States failed to meet the deadlines for reporting irregularities; agrees with the Commission that all Member States must improve the reports submitted; recalls that Finland, Austria and the Netherlands have committed themselves to complying with reporting requirements, and calls on the Commission to provide information in the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Fight against fraud - Annual Report about the progress made by these Member States in 2011;

37.

Is concerned that, in 2010, Italy and EU-12 Member States have qualified more than 90 % of the reported cases of irregularities as ‘suspected fraud‘; calls on the Member States to take all necessary measures, including close cooperation with European institutions, to address all causes leading to fraud relating to EU funds;

38.

Is concerned by the suspiciously low suspected fraud rates reported by France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom, especially considering their size and financial support received, as described by the Commission’s Report on the Protection of the Union’s financial interests; is of the opinion that this raises reasonable doubts as to whether reporting principles are being respected; urges the Commission to include detailed information on the applied reported methodology and the fraud detection capability in these Member States; once again calls on the Commission to monitor closely the effectiveness of supervisory and control systems in the Member States and to ensure that information about the level of irregularities in the Member States reflects the true situation; calls on the Commission to provide information in the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests Report about actions taken in this area in 2011;

39.

On the basis of data provided in the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests Annual Report 2010, around 70 % of all cases of reports about irregularities were related to cohesion policy, and in 2010 the area of cohesion policy had the highest expenditure recovery rate (over 60 %); stresses that according to the data provided it is impossible to objectively evaluate the actual number of irregularities and cases of fraud in this area because the high number of irregularities and (or) cases of fraud reported may be related to the introduction of the IMS in 2009;

40.

Welcomes the progress made in 2010 in relation to amounts recovered for the programming period 2000-2006, which accounted for 70 % or EUR 2,9 billion of funds paid in error, as compared to the 2009 rate of 50 %;

41.

Notes that in 2010, Denmark, France, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden and Slovenia did not report any cases of irregularities in this area, this raising doubts as to whether the IMS is being applied properly; is concerned by the low rate of recovery in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovenia (around and below 20 %); calls on the Commission to take action, investigate the reasons and inform the European Parliament of the progress made in next year’s Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests Report;

42.

Stresses that, as evidenced by data provided in the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests Report 2010, analysis of those categories of irregularity which are the most reported shows that irregularities are most frequently identified in the implementation phase of the project cycle and that the greatest financial impact occurs in the selection and procurement phases; stresses that a transparent, clear and flexible public procurement system, using the Electronic Public Procurement System more actively, and the laying down of general procurement principles at EU level would make it possible to ensure more efficient use of Member State and EU funds; expects the Commission effectively to implement public procurement system reform;

43.

Is concerned that the pre-accession funds show the lowest recovery rates for expenditure: in 2010 this rate barely reached 10 %, as compared to 27 %; notes with concern that the recovery rate for the period 2002-2006 remains low (around 30 %), particularly in Bulgaria, Turkey, Lithuania and Latvia, and calls on the Commission to take action to ensure that beneficiary countries explain the reasons for low recovery rates, improve their performance and update the missing information on completed recovery procedures;

44.

Notes that, as in 2009, the highest number of irregularities and cases of fraud are related to the use of SAPARD fund resources in Romania and Bulgaria; welcomes the fact that Bulgaria has made great progress in strengthening national control systems, demonstrated by the fact that in 2010 a large proportion of cases of irregularities and suspected fraud were detected not by external but by domestic or national controllers and inspectors; regrets that in Romania the majority of irregularities and cases of suspected fraud are still being detected following inspections by EU services or inspections undertaken at their request; calls on the Commission to cooperate closely with the Romanian authorities to improve the situation;

45.

Welcomes the Commission’s objective of supporting the new beneficiary countries (Turkey, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro) in their efforts to implement the IMS;

46.

Reiterates that it is necessary to continue to strengthen the independence, effectiveness and efficiency of OLAF;

47.

Calls on the Commission and the MemberStatesto ensure the effective and timely implementation of recommendations made once cases have been investigated by OLAF;

48.

Considers that Member States should be obliged to report, on an annual basis, on the follow up of cases sent to their judicial authorities by OLAF, including on penal and financial sanctions imposed in such cases;

49.

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;

50.

Underlines that the 2011 Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Fighting corruption in the EU’ estimates that EUR 120 billion per year is lost to corruption in the EU, inflicting financial damages, reducing public finances and undermining trust in democratic institutions; emphasises moreover that Parliament’s 2011 resolution on the EU’s efforts to combat corruption states that corruption leads to the misuse of public money in general and of EU funds provided by the tax payer and distorts the market, and calls – along with its above mentioned Declaration – on the Commission and the relevant Union bodies to ensure that EU funds are not subject to corruption;

51.

Welcomes the European Parliament’s decision to set up a special committee on organised crime, corruption and money laundering;

52.

Welcomes the fact that Malta ratified the Convention on the protection of the EU’s financial interests on 20 January 2011; regrets that the Convention has not yet been ratified by the Czech Republic and invites that Member State to remedy the situation as soon as possible; also invites Estonia to ratify the Protocol of 29 November 1996 on the interpretation, by way of preliminary rulings, by the Court of Justice of the European Communities of the Convention;

53.

Recalls that the Hercule II programme is the financial instrument managed by the Commission (OLAF) in the field of the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the prevention of related criminal activities, including cigarette smuggling; notes that the mid-term evaluation of the Hercule II programme confirmed its added value; is of the opinion that the successor to this instrument – the Hercule III programme – should continue to improve technical equipment in the Member States, finance access to databases essential for investigations by Member State authorities and OLAF, and combat cigarette smuggling and counterfeiting in line with the legally-binding agreements with tobacco manufacturers;

54.

Reiterates its call 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 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;

55.

Welcomes the launch in January 2011 of the Commission’s Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy entitled ‘Towards a more efficient European Procurement Market’; notes that the evaluation report on this consultation was adopted at the end of June 2011 and that in December 2011 the Commission adopted its proposals to reform the basic EU public procurement rules (Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC);

56.

Asks the Commission to inform Parliament which other indicators, sources or methods, apart from the information provided by whistleblowers or informants, it can use in order to determine in which areas of EU funding or EU revenues there are increased levels of fraud;

57.

Calls on the Commission to protect and promote investigative- and independent journalism which is a essential element in fighting crime, fraud and corruption with European funds;

58.

Calls on the Commission to assess whether the investigated cases of fraud resulting from whistleblowers or informants correspond to the areas where it is estimated that there is a possibility of a high level of fraud based on independent criteria or indicators; if not, to assess other methods of initiating investigations in areas where suspected fraud is concealed under the ‘laws of criminal silence’, which prevent information leaking through whistleblowers or informants;

59.

Given the situation that has been recurring for many years, i.e. the fact that Member States are failing to provide data in a timely manner or the data they provide is not accurate and does not stand up to comparison, thus making it impossible to evaluate objectively the true scale of fraud in the Member States, and given that the European Parliament, the Commission and OLAF are unable to perform their functions regarding assessment of the situation and the submission of further proposals, stresses that such a situation must not be tolerated and calls on the Commission to take full responsibility for recovering unduly paid funds from the Members States, and to gather the homogeneous comparable data required and establish the reporting principles throughout the Member States;

60.

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.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/17

—

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

—

having regard to Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular point (c) of paragraph 2 thereof,

—

having regard to Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and Articles 7 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the forthcoming accession of the Union to that Convention pursuant to Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1), in particular Articles 2 and 5(3) thereof, and to the proposal for a recast of that regulation (COM(2010)0748),

—

having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 March 1995 in Case C-68/93 Shevill [1995] ECR I-415,

—

having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 October 2011 in Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10 eDate Advertising GmbH  (2),

—

having regard to the opinion of Advocate General Mancini in Case 352/85 Bond van Adverteerders and Others v Netherlands [1988] ECR 2085, the judgment in Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiofonia Tileorasi (ERT-AE) [1991] ECR I-2925, the judgment and the opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven in Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd [1991] ECR I-4685 and the opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-168/91 Christos Konstantinidis [1993] ECR I-1191,

—

having regard to the Commission's original proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (COM(2003)0427),

—

having regard to its position of 6 July 2005 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (4) (‘the Rome II Regulation’), in particular Article 30(2) thereof (5),

—

having regard to the comparative study commissioned by the Commission on the situation in the 27 Member States as regards the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality (6),

—

having regard to the alleged phenomenon of ‘libel tourism’ (7),

—

having regard to the UK Defamation Bill (8),

—

having regard to the public hearing held on 28 January 2010 (9),

—

having regard to the working documents drawn up by the rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the large body of scholarly writings on this matter (10),

—

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

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0152/2012),

A.

whereas, following its ruling in Shevill, the Court of Justice has held in eDate Advertising that Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of personality rights by means of content placed online on an internet website, the person who considers that his or her rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his or her interests is based. That person may also, instead of an action for liability in respect of all the damage caused, bring his or her action before the courts of each MemberStatein the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible. Those courts have jurisdiction only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the MemberStateof the court seised;

B.

whereas the Rome II Regulation lacks a provision for the determination of the law applicable to violations of privacy and rights relating to personality;

C.

whereas consideration of an appropriate rule has been coloured by controversy about ‘libel tourism’, a type of forum shopping in which a claimant elects to bring an action for defamation in the jurisdiction which is considered most likely to produce a favourable result – generally that of England and Wales, which is ‘regarded as the most claimant-friendly in the world’; whereas, however, this is an issue that goes beyond the United Kingdom and is also of concern for other jurisdictions;

D.

whereas the high costs of litigating in that jurisdiction and the potentially high level of damages that may be awarded there allegedly have a chilling effect on freedom of expression; whereas where legal costs are high, publishers may be forced to settle even where they consider that they have a good defence;

E.

whereas the Defamation Bill presently before the UK Parliament promises to go a long way towards removing the alleged chilling effect on publishers, although it seems unlikely to resolve the difficult issue of high legal costs;

F.

whereas the internet has added the further complication of virtual universal accessibility, coupled with the permanence of postings and the emergence of blogs and anonymous postings;

G.

whereas press and media freedom are hallmarks of a democratic society;

H.

whereas legal remedies must be available when that freedom is abused, particularly to the detriment of peoples' private lives and reputation (11); whereas each Member State should ensure that such remedies exist and are effective in cases of infringements of such rights; whereas Member States should strive to ensure that prohibitively high legal costs do not result in any claimant being denied access to justice in practice; whereas the cost of legal proceedings can also be ruinous for the media;

I.

whereas it is for each State to determine the proper balance between the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR and the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the ECHR as it thinks fit;

J.

whereas, notwithstanding this, with the Union's accession to the ECHR, the Union may over time have to find a common yardstick in cross-border cases relating to the freedoms to supply goods and services as a result of the ‘dialectical development’ looked forward to by Advocate General Mancini in the Bond van Adverteerders case, having regard also to the judgments in Elliniki Radiofonia Tileorasi and Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd and Advocate General Jacobs’ opinion in Christos Konstantinidis; indeed, in the case Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland Ltd  (12), Advocate General Van Gerven put forward the proposition that ‘a national rule which in order to show that it is compatible with [Union] law has to rely on legal concepts, such as imperative requirements of public interest or public policy … falls 'within the scope' of [Union] law’ on the ground that, although the Member States have some discretion in defining the public interest or public policy concepts, the scope of those concepts in the case of measures falling within the scope of Union law is nevertheless subject to Union control and they have to be ‘justified and delimited in a uniform manner for the whole [Union] under [Union] law and therefore taking into account the general principles in regard to fundamental rights and freedoms’;

K.

whereas, nevertheless, it would not be appropriate to adopt rules of private international law for the determination of the applicable law which are skewed in one way or another to protect one right above another or designed to restrict the reach of the law of a particular MemberState, particularly given the existence of the public policy/ordre public clause in Article 26 of the Rome II Regulation; whereas it is therefore especially important to retain the public policy control in the Brussels I Regulation;

L.

whereas the criterion of the closest connection should be used for the right of reply, since such relief should be granted swiftly and is interim in nature; whereas the provision of the type set out in the Annex should also cater for party autonomy and the option of electing to apply the lex fori where the claimant elects to sue in the media's courts for damage sustained in more than one Member State;

M.

whereas it is further considered that, in order to promote the public goods of reducing litigation, promoting access to justice, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market and securing an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the right to a private life, the Commission should carry out extensive consultations with interested parties, including journalists, the media and specialist lawyers and judges, with a view to proposing the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by way of alternative dispute resolution (ADR); whereas this would be a much more progressive and 21st-century approach to the resolution of such disputes and facilitate a move towards a more modern mediation-friendly justice culture;

N.

whereas Member States could encourage and promote the use of a future ADR centre, also by allowing non-use of the centre to be taken into account in orders for costs;

O.

whereas the centre could ultimately be self-financing;

1.

Requests the Commission to submit, on the basis of point (c) of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal designed to add to the Rome II Regulation a provision to govern the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex hereto;

2.

Further requests the Commission to submit, on the basis of point (d) of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for the creation of a centre for the voluntary settlement of cross-border disputes arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation, by way of alternative dispute resolution;

3.

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

4.

Considers that the requested proposal does not have financial implications;

5.

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

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/21

—

having regard to the Barcelona Declaration of 28 November 1995, which established a partnership between the European Union and Southern Mediterranean countries, and the work programme adopted at that conference,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 27 October 2005 on the Barcelona Process revisited (1) and of 25 November 2009 on the Euro-Mediterranean economic and trade partnership ahead of the 8th Euromed Ministerial Conference on Trade (2),

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of the European Commission and the High Representative to the European Council, the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 8 March 2011 on ‘A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean’ (COM(2011)0200),

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of the European Commission and the High Representative to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 May 2011 on ‘A new response to a changing neighbourhood’ (COM(2011)0303),

—

having regard to the Communication from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 24 May 2011 on ‘A dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the southern Mediterranean countries’ (COM(2011)0292),

—

having regard to ‘the Euro-Mediterranean Trade Roadmap till 2010 and Beyond’ as adopted by the 8th Trade Ministerial meeting of the Union for the Mediterranean in 2009,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Conferences and sectoral ministerial conferences that have taken place since the launch of the Barcelona Process, and particularly the conclusions of the 9th Union for the Mediterranean Trade Ministerial Conference of 11 November 2010,

—

having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements between the Community and its Member States, of the one part, and Tunisia (3), Israel (4), Morocco (5), Jordan (6), Egypt (7), Lebanon (8) and Algeria (9), of the other part, and the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on Trade and Cooperation between the Community and the PLO (for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority) (10),

—

having regard to Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union (96/142/EC) (11),

—

having regard to the free-trade agreement, known as the Agadir Agreement, signed by Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco on 25 February 2004,

—

having regard to the Sustainability Impact Assessment of the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area (FTA) drawn up by Manchester University’s Institute for Development Policy and Management,

—

having regard to the Regional Strategy Document (2007-2013) and the Regional Indicative Programme for the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (2007-2013) and the objectives stated therein (12) as well as the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 29 July 2011 on the second part of the Annual Action Programme 2011 in favour of the Mediterranean region to be financed under budget line 19 08 01 01 of the General Budget of the European Union (13),

—

having regard to the work of the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership, in particular the ministerial meeting that took place in Brussels on 12 July 2011 and its 2010 annual report published on 8 August 2011,

—

having regard to the decision of 5 October 2011 of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s Board of Governors to deploy funds in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean countries,

—

having regard to the work of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Union for the Mediterranean,

—

having regard to the work of the Union for the Mediterranean,

—

having regard to the Council decision of 14 December 2011 to adopt Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement negotiating directives for Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia,

—

having regard to its resolutions of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (14), of 7 April 2011 on the Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy Southern Dimension (15), and of 14 December 2011 on the Review of the European Neighbourhood Policy (16),

—

having regard to all of the resolutions adopted by Parliament in the context of the Arab Spring, on the freedoms of religion, belief and conscience as fundamental and universal values that are essential for democratic and economic development;

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0104/2012),

A.

whereas the Arab Spring is the greatest political transformation in the European Neighbourhood since the fall of the Berlin Wall and has offered the EU the opportunity to match its commercial and foreign policy interests with its core values of human rights, democracy and a free society; whereas, in accordance with Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union, the EU must develop a special relationship with neighbouring countries, with the aim of establishing an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness, founded on the values of the Union and characterised by close and peaceful relations based on cooperation, which is the only key to permanent stability, security and the economic development and progress of Europe;

B.

whereas the EU has exclusive competence over trade and investment policy, which allows it to provide an effective response to the upheavals and to contribute to economic and social progress in Southern Mediterranean countries (SMCs);

C.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty defines international trade as one of the three arms of the EU’s External Action and requires coherence with its other policies: foreign affairs and international development; whereas trade has always been a strong pillar in the Neighbourhood Policy and this has been emphasised in the Commission’s communications on a ‘New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood’ and ‘A Partnership for Democracy and Shared Prosperity with the Southern Mediterranean’;

D.

whereas there is a perception amongst the civil societies of SMCs that the EU should be more proactive in aiding their political and economic transformations;

E.

whereas the economic and political reconstruction in the aftermath of the Arab Spring is not being overseen by regional institutions performing a similar role to that of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia;

F.

whereas no specific Euro-Mediterranean financial institution exists, while the experience gained by the EBRD during the transition of Central and Eastern Europe in previous years should allow it to play a positive role in SMCs; notes with regret, however, that several EU Member States have not yet ratified the amendments to the EBRD Agreement which will help the bank become fully operational in the Mediterranean region;

G.

whereas, thus far, the economies of SMCs have been run by undemocratic leaders to the benefit of the few, often overlooking the needs of the most vulnerable; whereas the fact that many dictators have now been deposed now leads to new opportunities to open up the economies of the region and create a true market economy;

H.

whereas the EU already has a Customs Union with Turkey and existing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with SMCs, with the exceptions of Syria, which did not sign the final negotiated package, and Libya, with which negotiations were suspended in February 2011 following the outbreak of civil war;

I.

whereas membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not a prerequisite for engaging in trade negotiations, as demonstrated by the trade provisions of the Association Agreements with Lebanon and Algeria, the interim agreement with the Palestinian Territories, the suspended negotiations with Libya, and the unratified agreement with Syria;

J.

whereas the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, the most ambitious economic project to result from the Barcelona Declaration, failed to materialise by the target date of 2010, due to the conflicts in the region and lack of intra-regional (South-South) engagement;

K.

whereas the 2008 economic crisis directly affected the main economic drivers of SMCs, and whereas the social and political turmoil experienced by Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Libya during the Arab Spring has further compounded the economic downturn in those countries; whereas not all SMCs have experienced the Arab Spring in the same manner, since the old regimes are still in power in some countries while others are undergoing a continuing period of social unrest that further weakens their economy;

L.

whereas the Arab Spring has uncovered the structural and systemic commercial and fiscal weaknesses of the region, in particular a susceptibility to spikes in commodity markets, and whereas any new trade strategy for the Mediterranean must tackle these shortcomings, foster food security and end the financial speculation on food commodities if it hopes to fulfil the aspirations of the citizens;

M.

whereas chronic unemployment, especially of young people, and lack of trade diversification remain a serious concern; whereas long-term structural unemployment and informal labour, including child labour, remain high in most SMCs and has undergone further deterioration in those countries which have experienced severe social unrest during the Arab Spring; whereas the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) estimates that the region needs to create around 25 million new jobs over the next decade to maintain the current level of employment;

N.

whereas adolescents (aged 10-19) represent 20 % of the population and unemployment rates for those aged between 15 and 24 are around 25-30 %, while the participation of women in the labour market remains very low; whereas unemployment is particularly high amongst university graduates, leading to a brain drain and a waste of human resources;

O.

whereas it is in the highest interests of the European Union to aim high regarding economic cooperation and to adopt a strategy that is mutually beneficial, responsible and flexible, based on support for democratic transition and the defence of human rights;

1.

Believes that the Arab Spring is an unparalleled historical event instigated by the peoples’ aspirations for freedom, democratic rights and an improvement of their living standards; expresses its profound sadness at the loss of life during the struggle to overthrow corrupt dictatorships;

2.

Is aware that, following these sacrifices, there is a huge expectation in SMC societies of far greater and fairer support from the EU for democratic reforms and genuine economic development to the benefit of all;

3.

Notes that the gains of the revolutions of the Arab Spring have not yet been fully consolidated and that the EU must act swiftly to implement its Trade for Change agenda, since, aside from the immediate economic benefits, trade is an effective means to consolidate democracy and promote stability, as it helps prevent corruption, facilitates a more equitable distribution of wealth and empowers the general population; encourages the transitional authorities to bring about a peaceful transition to genuine democracy; urges the national authorities to respect their peoples’ right to demonstrate peacefully, and to refrain from any violent repression;

4.

Welcomes, in this context, the launch of the EU-Tunisia Task Force, the first task force established in conjunction with a southern Mediterranean country with a view to ensuring better coordination of EU and international support for the country’s transition; welcomes the fact that Parliament was involved in the first meeting; asks the VP/HR and the Commission to continue to involve Parliament in this and future initiatives; welcomes the creation within Parliament of a monitoring group on the Southern Mediterranean to monitor the EU’s response to the crises in the Mediterranean countries;

5.

Welcomes the recent fair and transparent elections in Tunisia, which – accompanied by economic, legal and social reforms – provide a good example for other countries in the region; underlines the importance of free and fair elections in making it possible to ensure the unity of these countries through the establishment of democratic and pluralist institutions, thus laying the groundwork for increased stability and modernised socio-economic structures, which are themselves a necessary precondition for attracting international investment and generating sustainable growth; highlights the need for democratic changes to be accompanied by economic, legal and social reforms in order to open up and modernise the socio-economic structures of these countries;

6.

Considers the public external debt of the countries in North Africa and the Middle East to be odious debt, considering that the debt was built by the dictatorial regimes, mostly through the personal enrichment of the political and economic elite and the purchasing of arms, often used to oppress their own populations; therefore calls for the reconsideration of this debt, and notably that related to arms expenditure;

7.

Deplores the role of European companies in the exporting of arms and dual-use items to repressive regimes, and in complying with technological disruptions organised by the dictatorships; calls on the Commission to produce guidelines for EU companies to act in a manner consistent with the Union’s fundamental principles in such situations;

8.

Underlines that trade and investment policy is an exclusive EU competence and should provide innovative and concrete instruments for achieving the EU’s foreign policy goals of democracy, prosperity, stability and peace in the region;

9.

Recognises that the EU must enact a coordinated policy for SMCs, but cautions against a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to the Arab Spring, as although the SMCs have many similarities, they have experienced different forms of repressive government, vary in their levels of economic development, and face disparate social and demographic challenges;

10.

Stresses that one of the European Parliament’s main roles is to strengthen political dialogue, mutual understanding and confidence between Europe and third countries, including SMCs, where Parliament should focus on spreading and promoting democratic reforms, fully-fledged freedom and the rule of law; emphasises that these important tasks, based on direct relations, could also be a way to assess the fulfilment of the forthcoming criteria (in the light of events and the progress achieved) and make the necessary adjustments to Association Agreements, especially in the areas of trade, investment and finance;

11.

Is aware of the fact that in the last ten years the EU has fostered a deeper and more comprehensive approach to Free Trade Agreements with the rulers of most SMCs, notwithstanding the apparent lack of democratic legitimacy of its negotiating partners; emphasises the importance of the immediate concern of stabilising democratic processes in the building up of new social and political institutions, which may then act as legitimate and informed partners in negotiations for trade agreements;

12.

Points out that the EU is the biggest consumer market in the world, to which access should only be granted if partner countries are serious about engaging in the bilateral opening of markets, if the benefits of economic reforms are enjoyed by the whole population of the partner country, including the most vulnerable, and if the appropriate political, social and environmental commitments are given and fulfilled;

13.

Indicates that many SMCs have huge economic potential, with some inheriting large quantities of assets and natural resources that, if managed correctly, provide an opportunity for economic growth and development on both sides of the Mediterranean; considers that the measures and mechanisms needed to guarantee equivalent social, environmental and phytosanitary standards should therefore be put in place;

14.

Welcomes the tailor-made, bottom-up approach envisaged by the Commission, based on stronger conditionality and stronger differentiation in the context of the recent ENP revision, and the principle of ‘more for more’, ensuring better targeted assistance to each of the EU’s neighbour countries and guaranteeing that funding matches political ambition; believes that achievements in terms of democratic reforms and individual freedoms should be mirrored by a similar process in the economic and trade landscape, with accompanying freedoms to set up and conduct business, in order to dismantle the oligarchies which have traditionally dominated SMCs;

15.

Notes that the EU already has strong preferential trade agreements with many SMCs under the Association Agreements; nevertheless, stresses that none of these processes has been fully completed and is convinced that there is still great potential for deepening economic relations, particularly in the regulatory field, with the long-term goal of integration into the EU’s internal market;

16.

Welcomes, therefore, the Council’s decision to authorise the opening of DCFTA negotiations with Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia as soon as the necessary preparatory processes are completed; believes that the subsequent scoping exercises should draw on the experience of the preparatory phases conducted with the Eastern partners, whilst recognising the great political importance of avoiding unnecessary delays for those partners who are ready to commence negotiations; regards it as indispensable to involve and consult all social forces, especially NGOs and trade union, from the outset of any trade negotiations;

17.

Is concerned that the European External Action Service (EEAS) has not yet made public the details of the ‘more for more’ criteria that will determine, together with the commercial scoping exercise, whether a country is eligible and ready for a DCFTA; asks the EEAS, therefore, to establish these criteria so that the process is transparent and partner countries know in advance where adjustments need to be made; insists that respect for democratic institutions and fundamental rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, and protection of religious minorities, respect for international labour law, ILO conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and initiatives encouraging the abolition of capital punishment must be central to this process, and considers that it should be responsive to significant improvements or deteriorations in partner countries during the preparatory phase and the negotiations themselves; insists that the scoping exercise should determine an appropriate level of economic opening and an index of how all levels of society benefit from trade and foreign direct investment (FDI);

18.

Recalls that FTAs are not an end in themselves and that they should serve to benefit each country; maintains that the trade provisions should be supported by strengthened human rights clauses with improved monitoring and implementing provisions, and by an ambitious sustainable development chapter with a central role for civil society, including provisions on corporate social responsibility (CSR) which will strengthen the joint ownership of the process;

19.

Welcomes the focus on behind-the-border barriers to trade and alignment with the EU’s acquis, but notes that there is still scope for further negotiations on tariff reductions with certain countries; stresses that, for DCFTAs to be of true value to SMCs, the EU must be prepared to make additional efforts in sensitive areas such as agriculture and Mode IV services; notes, in this context, that the EU actually has a significant total trade surplus in agriculture with these countries;

20.

Asks the Commission to specifically support and promote Fair Trade and organic farming initiatives, in particular in support of smallholders, producers and cooperatives, as a means of integrating sustainable agricultural practices and rural development, while simultaneously developing the supply chain so as to assure European consumers of the products’ quality, traceability and social and environmental credentials;

21.

Underlines the importance of agriculture, which employs over a third of the active population in the Southern Mediterranean countries, as also of rural development, in the stabilisation process, given that they contribute, especially under conditions of increased volatility on the world markets, to the advancement of food security, more equitable income generation and distribution, job creation, and the integration of women and smallholders into the economy;

22.

Welcomes, therefore, the Commission’s intention to support rural development through the programme ‘European Neighbourhood Facility for Agriculture and Rural Development’, which would integrate investment support and develop administrative capacities by building on EU best practice in developing rural areas, so as to facilitate the modernisation of agricultural production in line with EU quality and food safety standards;

23.

Welcomes, also, the Commission’s commitment, as stated in its Joint Communication of 25 May 2011 (COM(2011)0303), to finance pilot programmes for agricultural, rural, and regional development, drawing on the EU’s extensive experience in these fields and making the best possible use of close cooperation with the FAO, the World Bank and, possibly, the EIB;

24.

Calls on the EU to support both the development of healthy agricultural production and rural development in the region, as part of the fight against poverty, which is a persistent evil in the countryside, and in order to strengthen the stabilisation process; stresses, to this end, the importance of institutional and infrastructural improvements (in such fields as irrigation, handling, storage, packaging, transport, marketing systems and access to services), in addition to technological improvements, and also the significance of education and training programmes, especially for women and in situations where producers are poorly organised and civil society is weak, given that these factors also slow down the development of an efficient agri-food system; emphasises the role of extension services in facilitating the diffusion of knowledge; stresses that global environmental and climate change concerns should determine support for the promotion of sustainable uses of natural resources and energy and compatible methods of production; stresses that the diversification of production, in order to increase resilience during market fluctuations and environmental crises, should be encouraged in the face of increasing global demand for food;

25.

Calls also, in order to prevent social and environmental dumping between the countries concerned or with the EU, for the measures proposed by the Commission to step up the introduction of innovative actions for the promotion of local know-how, training for the organisation of producers and the development of local and regional markets, as part of exchanges of best practice between countries and with the EU as previously practised in pre-accession procedures and relations with the EU neighbourhood countries;

26.

Draws attention to the potential contribution of greater integration between North African and sub-Saharan countries, and stresses the need to take steps on a global level so as to avoid the kind of unilateral action that is often taken in response to food crises and extreme weather phenomena;

27.

Stresses that FDI is particularly important for the economic development of the SMCs, since levels of investment are either insufficient or overly targeted on raw material extraction industries; asks the Commission to ensure that DCFTAs and investment efforts in the region are coordinated so as to promote economic diversification;

28.

Notes, however, that previous attempts to negotiate sectoral arrangements under the Association Agreements have not proved successful; asks the Commission to create incentives for the SMCs to negotiate on investment and on the other ‘Singapore issues’, such as services, within the context of DCFTAs; considers that the Commission should apply asymmetrical implementation, where appropriate, and be flexible regarding the sensitive sectors of the countries concerned;

29.

Highlights the importance of supplementing trade opening with more substantial technical support to partner countries and their businesses, so that they can maximise the opportunities provided; acknowledges that the EU already offers such assistance, but considers that these programmes should be more targeted on SMEs, e.g. through an expansion of Aid for Trade;

30.

Asks the Commission to use DCFTAs to align standards in the regulatory field, especially regarding technical standards and regulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS), transparency rules for public procurement, intellectual property protection rules, trade/customs facilitation and the elimination of non-tariff barriers (NTBs); points out that such cooperation is not satisfactorily addressed in the Association Agreements and that the level of EU involvement should be intensified;

31.

Welcomes, in this respect, the additional resources earmarked for technical cooperation, and insists that they should be made available as soon as possible to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation (DG DEVCO) and decentralised to EU delegations on the ground;

32.

Recognises that DCFTAs should be the main objective, but is aware that in the meantime the Commission is pursuing sectoral negotiations under the existing Association Agreements, including agreements on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products (ACAAs), agriculture and fisheries agreements, services and investment agreements, and dispute settlement arrangements; calls on the Commission also to consider updating the existing sectoral agreements with countries, where offers can be improved but a DCFTA is not immediately possible; asks the Commission to give fuller consideration to when and how these processes will be finally merged with the future DCFTAs, and to ensure that loss of membership of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) in 2014 will not negatively affect SMCs’ access to the EU market in any product line;

33.

Calls on the Commission also to prepare a strategy for those ‘more for more’ partners with whom no prior agreement exists or who are not the immediate targets of DCFTAs, especially those such as Libya or Lebanon that are not yet members of the WTO; emphasises that, while technical assistance to help those countries’ progress towards WTO membership should continue in earnest, this alone is not sufficient and should be complemented as appropriate by WTO-compatible agreements which will bring benefits in the shorter term;

34.

Is convinced that a successful commercial strategy for the region should strengthen the role of SMEs, which provide as much as 30 % of employment in some countries; recognises the importance of micro-enterprises, which represent 98,1 % of SMEs in Egypt, 97,8 % in Morocco and 89,1 % in Jordan, though only 9,2 % in Tunisia;

35.

Is concerned over the large number of unregistered SMEs operating on the black market as well as the fact that the share of informal employment (excluding agriculture) in certain SMCs is as high as 70 %; is convinced that, if the region is to engage in serious economic growth, the EU’s commercial strategy should provide incentives for unregistered businesses to legitimise their status; urges the Commission to support administrative capacity-building programmes, especially in business registration, employment and social affairs and paying special attention to building capacity in legal services, since this will ensure better preparation for undertaking the required reforms;

36.

Regrets the fact that SMEs and cooperatives have very limited access to investment, and insists on the need to provide proper access to financing through the reliable, accessible and user-friendly provision of microcredit and counter-guarantee schemes by the European Investment Bank (EIB); believes that such schemes will allow the beneficiaries to innovate and restructure in a manner enabling them to tap the potential of the EU’s internal market;

37.

Highlights the importance of fostering entrepreneurial activity by adopting the measures necessary for creating an environment that encourages society’s involvement in such activity; would in particular welcome a second phase of the Invest in Med programme, the specific mandate of which is to foster cooperation between SMEs and their representative organisations in the EU Member States and in the South Mediterranean countries;

38.

Acknowledges the role of the EIB, through the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP), in helping SMEs in the Southern Mediterranean; welcomes the decision to raise the ceiling for its operations in the region by EUR 1 billion, which will bring those operations up to EUR 6 billion over the coming three years; reaffirms that the EIB should specifically target its investment projects on SMEs and the development of infrastructure projects, especially those relating to energy, given the region’s potential and the support that the EU could provide for their development and utilisation; insists that the EIB needs to increase its administrative capacities in order to control its intermediary partner banks distributing ‘Global Loans’ under the criteria of the EU’s external action goals and thus render its operations fully accountable to the public;

39.

Welcomes the recent involvement of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) in the Mediterranean region, and the extra funds pledged by the EU and several individual Member States for the Bank’s activities; urges the European Council and the European Parliament to speedily ratify the amendments to the EBRD Agreement which will help the bank to be fully operational in the Mediterranean region; considers that the total funding available for EBRD investment in the region should be increased, and that SMEs should be major beneficiaries of these investments; encourages the SMCs to demonstrate their commitment by applying the principles of democracy, pluralism and market economics so that they may have access to investment in accordance with the bank’s Statute;

40.

Is convinced that the flexible movement of business people across borders is essential for a free trade area to function properly; is firmly of the opinion that the EU should seek more coherence between its immigration and trade policies;

41.

Notes that visa facilitation remains a problem for many SMC business representatives who need to visit the EU for meetings, training or other business reasons; in this light, welcomes the recent communication on ‘A Dialogue for migration, mobility and security with the Southern Mediterranean Countries’, in which the Commission envisages visa facilitation agreements to support the mobility, inter alia, of business people; considers that ‘integrity’ and ‘reliability’ procedures for visas should be made easier, and asks the Commission to negotiate such agreements in coordination with trade negotiations to ensure that their implementation is not too bureaucratic for SMEs;

42.

Regrets that the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area was not established by 2010, and hopes that all partners will use the momentum created by the Arab Spring to move forward with the necessary reforms for the creation of a functioning and fully-fledged free trade area, without creating distortions of competition for EU producers;

43.

Proposes that the impact of the move to a free trade policy be regularly assessed, in order to keep a continuous watching brief on the repercussions of that policy on the Mediterranean countries of southern Europe, with the ultimate goal of generating benefits for the public and for the economic and productive systems of the various countries concerned;

44.

Underlines that, while country-specific commercial strategies should be welcomed, these agreements should not be to the detriment of regional integration; regrets that South-South trade remains very limited and notes, in this regard, that in 2009 only 6 % of SMC imports originated in other SMCs, compared to 40 % from the EU; encourages the new democratically elected governments to be more open than their predecessors towards trading with neighbouring countries;

45.

Acknowledges the Agadir Group as the sole example of a concerted effort at South-South trade, and encourages the signatories to widen the scope and membership of their trade relationship; asks the Commission to continue its support for this group, as a cornerstone on which to build the future trade strategy of the EU;

46.

Furthermore, asks the Commission to include certain flexibilities in the DCFTAs which would eventually allow the individual agreements to merge with the Agadir Agreement in order to form a single Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area;

47.

Notes with satisfaction the imminent deployment of the Trade and Investment Facilitation Mechanism, which will serve as a database allowing economic operators to obtain updated information on trade and investment conditions in the region; insists that such a mechanism should be actively promoted to SMC businesses and evolve into a functional facilitator for intraregional business, thus not acting solely as an information tool;

48.

Welcomes the Regional Convention on pan-Euro-Mediterranean preferential rules of origin, which should include full respect for the EU-Israel technical arrangement on settlement products; asks the Commission to hasten the establishment of new rules of origin under the Pan-Euromed Convention by the end of 2013, at the latest, when SMCs will lose GSP preferences and the favourable rules of origin under that scheme;

49.

Encourages the Member States to play a more ambitious role in the EU’s strategy for the Southern Neighbourhood, by providing major programmes of fellowships for SMC students of both genders and from all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds, particularly in the fields of economics, business, IT, communications and trade; calls on the Commission and the Vice-President/High Representative to immediately propose the establishment of the Euromed Erasmus and Da Vinci programmes; observes that other players in the region, such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, have been more effective in providing this support to SMCs; believes that such exchanges can create lasting connections with future business partners in the SMCs;

50.

Recalls the role played by artists, cultural actors and bloggers in allowing some Arab civil societies to liberate themselves from dictatorship and open up the path to democracy; calls on the EU to ensure that its trade policy integrates the dimension of cultural cooperation, including joint initiatives in the fields of the arts, education, the media, the internet and other crucial sectors, with a view to promoting human rights and democracy;

51.

Calls for the imminent creation of EU Chambers of Commerce with partner countries, to serve as a conduit for the promotion of joint trade activities and mutual exchanges between economic partners, including seminars and business fairs; regrets that there are no bilateral EU Chambers of Commerce in the region other than the EU-Israel Chamber of Commerce;

52.

Is adamant that the Commission’s trade initiatives need to be supported by a stronger presence of EU trade officials on the ground; deplores the fact that the EU Delegation has only one trade official in Tunisia and has no presence whatsoever in Jordan, despite conducting scoping exercises for DCFTAs with those countries;

53.

Believes, furthermore, that it is essential for the EU to fully coordinate its trade, investment and financing support activities in the region, in order to ensure maximum positive impact; is concerned that the significant number of actors, both internally within the EU and in the partner countries themselves, as well as other external actors, could lead to crucial efforts being wasted or duplicated through a lack of coordination;

54.

Highlights the need for closer coordination between the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) financing instruments, such as the Neighbourhood Investment Facility, and the different EU and international and regional financial institutions in the region, including the EIB, the EBRD and the World Bank, in order to guarantee maximum effectiveness and coherence; asks the Commission to take the lead in coordinating such efforts;

55.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EIB, the EBRD, the Heads of State and Government and the Parliaments of the Member States and the SMCs, and to the Union for the Mediterranean.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/31

—

having regard to Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Directive 98/44/EC’), and in particular Article 4 thereof, which states that plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals shall not be patentable,

—

having regard to Article 2(2) and Recital 33 of Directive 98/44/EC, stating that a process for the production of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists entirely of natural phenomena such as crossing or selection,

—

having regard to the importance of the proper implementation of Article 11 of Directive 98/44/EC, ensuring a farmer’s privilege,

—

having regard to the Convention of 5 October 1973 on the Grant of European Patents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘European Patent Convention’) and Article 53(b) thereof,

—

having regard to the decision of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation of 16 June 1999 concerning the incorporation of Directive 98/44/EC into the Implementing Regulations to the European Patent Convention (2),

—

having regard to Decision G 2/06 of the European Patent Office (EPO) and Decision C-34/10 of the European Court of Justice, establishing that when interpreting prohibitions in patent law one has to take into account the technical teaching of the application as a whole and not only the wording of the claims,

—

having regard to Decisions G 2/07 (on broccoli) and G 1/08 (on tomatoes) of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, which in principle exclude a breeding process from patentability,

—

having regard to the patents granted by the EPO for the production of conventionally bred plants such as broccoli (EP 1 069 819), tomatoes (EP 1 211 926) and melons (EP 1 962 578),

—

having regard to the patents granted by the EPO for the production of conventionally bred animals, such as sex selection and breeding material used in conventional breeding (EP 1 263 521, EP 1 257 168), selection of dairy cows (EP 1 330 552) and livestock production (EP 1 506 316),

—

having regard to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, to which the European Union adhered pursuant to Council Decision 2004/869/EC (3),

—

having regard to the International Convention of 2 December 1961 for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, as revised at Geneva on 10 November 1972, 23 October 1978 and 19 March 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UPOV Convention’),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (4) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulation (EC) No 2100/94’),

—

having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas intellectual property rights are of importance for stimulating the development of new plant varieties and plant-related innovations, and are a necessary prerequisite for boosting growth and innovation and helping European business, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), to face the economic crisis and global competition;

B.

whereas, especially in the area of breeding, excessively broad patent protection can hamper innovation and progress and become detrimental to small and medium breeders by blocking access to animal and plant genetic resources;

C.

whereas the breeding of plants is an essential prerequisite for the security of the food supply and, to some extent, of the energy supply;

D.

whereas conventional breeding methods are of critical importance to modern plant and animal breeding;

E.

whereas it is a fundamental principle of the international system of plant variety rights based upon the UPOV Convention, and of the EU system based upon Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, that the holder of a plant variety cannot prevent others from using the protected plant to promote use of protected varieties for further breeding activities;

F.

whereas it is important that a similar privilege should exist within patent law throughout the European Union;

G.

whereas Article 4 of Directive 98/44/EC and Article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention establish that plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals shall not be patentable;

H.

whereas patents on products derived from conventional breeding or on genetic material necessary for conventional breeding can undermine the exclusion established in Article 4 of Directive 98/44/EC and Article 53(b) of the European Patent Convention;

I.

whereas, in the field of genetic engineering, patents can be granted but the prohibition of patents on plant and animal varieties has to be safeguarded;

J.

whereas, in the field of biotechnology, not only the wording of the claims, but the technical teaching of the invention as a whole should be taken into consideration when deciding on patentability, and this principle of whole content approach has been applied by the European Patent Office and the European Court of Justice in some of their recent decisions (5);

K.

whereas under Article 16(c) of Directive 98/44/EC the Commission is required to report annually ‘on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering’;

L.

whereas the Commission has not published any such reports since 2005;

M.

whereas, in its resolution of 26 October 2005 on patents for biotechnological inventions (6), Parliament called upon the Commission to address carefully in its next report the proper implementation of Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 98/44/EC;

N.

whereas such Commission reports would serve the purpose of keeping the public fully informed, and whereas the European Union has to play a leading role in encouraging public debate;

1.

Acknowledges the important role of the EPO in supporting innovation competitiveness and economic growth in Europe;

2.

Recognises that patents promote the dissemination of valuable technical information and are an important tool for the transfer of technology;

3.

Welcomes the decisions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO in the so-called ‘broccoli’ (G 2/07) and ‘tomato’ (G 1/08) cases, dealing with the correct interpretation of the term ‘essentially biological processes for the production of plants (or animals)’ used in Directive 98/44/EC and the European Patent Convention to exclude such processes from patentability;

4.

Calls on the EPO also to exclude from patenting products derived from conventional breeding and all conventional breeding methods, including SMART breeding (precision breeding) and breeding material used for conventional breeding;

5.

Calls on the Commission to address in its forthcoming report the ‘broccoli and tomato decisions’ of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO;

6.

Welcomes the recent decision of the European Patent Office in the WARF case and of the European Court of Justice in the Brüstle case, as they appropriately interpret Directive 98/44/EC and give important indications on the so-called whole content approach; calls on the European Commission to draw the appropriate consequences from these decisions also in other relevant policy areas in order to bring EU policy in line with these decisions;

7.

Calls on the Commission to address in its forthcoming report the potential implications of the patenting of breeding methods for plants and their impact on the breeding industry, agriculture, the food industry and food security;

8.

Calls on the Commission and the MemberStatesto ensure that the EU will continue to apply a comprehensive breeders’ exemption in its patent law for plant and animal breeding;

9.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the MemberStatesand the EPO.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/34

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2008 on an integrated maritime policy for the European Union (1),

—

having regard to its resolutions on piracy at sea, in particular its resolution of 23 October 2008 on piracy at sea (2) and its resolution of 26 November 2009 on a political solution to the problem of piracy off the Somali coast (3),

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 10 December 1982,

—

having regard to the 1988 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation,

—

having regard to UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in Somalia, in particular Resolution 2036 (2012) of 22 February 2012,

—

having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/749/CFSP of 19 September 2008 on the European Union military coordination action in support of UN Security Council Resolution 1816 (2008) (EU NAVCO),

—

having regard to Council Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP of 10 November 2008 on a European Union military operation to contribute to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast (EU NAVFOR ATALANTA), and to Council Decision 2010/766/CFSP amending Joint Action 2008/851/CFSP,

—

having regard to the Council Decision of 23 March 2012 to extend the mandate of EU NAVFOR ATALANTA until December 2014 and to extend the force’s area of operations,

—

having regard to Council Decision 2010/96/CFSP of 15 February 2010 and to Council Decision 2010/197/CFSP of 31 March 2010 on a European Union military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces (EUTM Somalia),

—

having regard to the Crisis Management Concept agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 December 2011 for the Regional Maritime Capacity Building (RMCB) mission, a civilian CSDP mission with military expertise which is under preparation,

—

having regard to the Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa to guide the EU’s engagement in the region, adopted by the Council on 14 November 2011,

—

having regard to the power-sharing deal signed in Djibouti on 9 June 2008 intended to initiate a broad-based national reconciliation and create a strong and inclusive political alliance capable of securing peace, reconciling the country and re-establishing a central state authority,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the London conference on Somaliaon 23 February 2012,

—

having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas maritime transport has been one of the key stepping stones to economic growth and prosperity in Europe throughout its history and whereas over 80 % of world trade is carried by sea; whereas piracy represents a threat to international security and regional stability and whereas, therefore, the EU has a genuine interest in contributing to international maritime security and fighting piracy and its root causes as a priority EU action;

B.

whereas piracy is to be considered an international crime; whereas piracy and armed robbery at sea require a coordinated response under the overarching legal framework provided by UNCLOS; whereas Article 100 of the Convention provides that all states have a duty to co-operate in the repression of piracy;

C.

whereas piracy on the high seas remains a problem even though the number of successful attacks decreased significantly last year, mainly due to the activities of ATALANTA and the use of military and private Vessel Protection Detachments; whereas piracy continues to spread rapidly in the Indian Ocean, particularly off the coasts of Somalia and the Horn of Africa, but also in some other areas, including south-east Asia and west Africa, and is a growing threat both to human life and the safety of seafarers and other persons, as well as to regional development and stability, the marine environment, world trade, all forms of maritime transport and shipping, including fishing vessels, and to the delivery of humanitarian aid;

D.

whereas the Council decided to extend the EU’s counter-piracy operation (EU NAVFOR ATALANTA) by a further two years until December 2014 to contribute to the protection of vessels of the World Food Programme (WFP) delivering food aid to displaced persons in Somalia, the protection of African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) shipping, the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast and the protection of vulnerable shipping off the Somali coast on a case-by-case basis; whereas EU NAVFOR ATALANTA also contributes to the monitoring of fishing activities off the coast of Somalia;

E.

whereas every year 10 000 European ships sail through dangerous maritime areas and whereas, therefore, piracy not only has an impact on human life and safety but also constitutes an economic problem as it threatens international commercial maritime routes and has a significant negative impact on international trade;

F.

whereas the number of attempted attacks on vessels is increasing: in 2011 it was reported that 28 hijackings were committed, 470 seafarers were kidnapped and 15 were murdered, and currently more than seven ships are being held for ransom and around 191 seafarers are being held hostage in Somalia, often under terrible and inhuman conditions and for increasing periods;

G.

whereas pirates are constantly adapting their tactics and methods and have expanded their operational radius by using larger hijacked ships as so-called ‘motherships’;

H.

whereas ongoing political instability in Somaliais one of the causes of piracy and contributes to the problem, and whereas piracy continues to be seen by some Somalis as a profitable and viable source of income;

I.

whereas the fight against piracy cannot be won by military means alone, but depends mainly on success in promoting peace, development and state-building in Somalia;

J.

whereas the security and military situation in Somalia remains dangerous and unpredictable; whereas the African Union mission AMISOM has been able to push back the Islamist militia Al Shabaab and has only recently deployed 100 soldiers in Baidoa; whereas Kenya has recently intervened militarily in south-central Somalia but was unable to decisively defeat Al Shabaab; whereas Ethiopian National Defence Forces have intervened in the Hiraan region and the Bay region in February 2012; whereas human rights abuses, torture, arbitrary detentions, summary executions and unlawful reprisal attacks against civilians committed by Ethiopian forces and militias loyal to the TFG have been made public by Human Rights Watch; whereas neighbouring Eritrea has been accused by the UN Sanctions Monitoring Group of providing weapons, training and financial support to Al Shabaab, thus violating the UN arms embargo;

K.

whereas EMSA has at its disposal instruments and data which can help the EU NAVFOR ATALANTA operation improve the safety of ships and seafarers in the area;

L.

whereas the problem of piracy also has negative effects on the whole region, where fishing operations are regulated by a number of bilateral and multilateral fishing agreements and those operations have become a dangerous undertaking, not only for EU vessels fishing, for example, in the waters of Seychelles on the basis of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Seychelles, but also for local fishermen to whom the EU grants sectoral support and thus assumes a social responsibility;

M.

whereas the EU is the world’s biggest development aid donor to Somalia, having committed EUR 215.4 million so far through the European Development Fund (EDF) for the period 2008-2013; whereas the main focus of this funding is to lift people out of poverty into self-sustaining economic growth and provide a lasting solution for stability in the country by addressing the root causes of piracy by financing projects to improve governance and the rule of law, education and economic growth and to support non-focal sectors (health, environment, water and sanitation); whereas an additional EUR 175 million for the period 2011-2013 has been granted under the EDF to allow the EU to strengthen its commitment and support new activities in the abovementioned fields; whereas none of these targets can be achieved without effective governance institutions in Somalia;

N.

whereas the Horn of Africa and especially Somalia was affected by a severe famine caused by a drought which resulted in a serious humanitarian crisis affecting more than 12 million people in the region and more than 7,5 million in Somalia; whereas the famine not only caused the death of many people, especially children, but also led to a large-scale flow of refugees to neighbouring Kenya and Ethiopia; whereas the European Commission increased its humanitarian aid assistance from EUR 9 million in 2009 to EUR 46 million in 2008, but has since decreased its aid to only EUR 35 million in 2010 and EUR 30 million in 2011; whereas the Commission revised its humanitarian aid allocation to EUR 77 million only after the devastating drought in the summer of 2011;

O.

whereas an effective approach to countering maritime piracy must include a broader, comprehensive strategy to lift Somalia and the whole region of the Horn of Africa out of poverty and state failure, as at least part of Somalia benefits economically from acts of piracy and the ransom funds received;

P.

whereas while the EU’s efforts to fight piracy have managed to protect shipments of the World Food Programme (WFP) and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), those missions need a sustained commitment to ensure adequate force levels, and whereas they risk being undermined in future through a lack of naval power;

Q.

whereas many Member States are currently developing their own rules regarding the deployment of armed guards on board merchant ships;

1.

Reiterates its grave concern over the ongoing and increasing threat posed by piracy and armed robbery at sea against international vessels delivering aid to Somalia and international and EU fishing, merchant and passenger vessels in the Indian Ocean, particularly in the seas off Somalia and the Horn of Africa, to the safety of seafarers and other persons and to regional stability;

2.

Calls on the High Representative and the Member States to urgently consider ways of liberating the 191 seafarers currently being held hostage so as to end their extended and appalling imprisonment at the hands of their captors and allow these seafarers to return to their homes, and, at the same time, secure the release of the seven hijacked vessels;

3.

Welcomes the contribution made by EU NAVFOR’s Operation ATALANTA to maritime security off the coast of Somalia by protecting World Food Programme chartered vessels delivering aid to Somalia and other vulnerable vessels, to the deterrence, prevention and repression of acts of piracy and armed robbery off the Somali coast and to ensuring the effectiveness of the EU’s response to maritime piracy;

4.

Welcomes the Council Decision of 23 March 2012 to extend the mandate of EU NAVFOR ATALANTA until December 2014 and to extend the force’s area of operations;

5.

Deplores the fact that the number of vessels which the Member States have supplied to EU NAVFOR ATALANTA fell from eight to only two/three at the beginning of 2012, and calls, therefore, on the Member States to provide more naval assets to enable the ATALANTA operation to succeed;

6.

Calls for enhanced coordination under the SHADE mechanism among the EU, NATO, the three main counter-piracy naval missions in the region (EU NAVFOR, CTF-150/151 and TF-508 within NATO’s operation Ocean Shield) and the various international naval forces in order to avoid unnecessary duplication, since both organisations, the EU and NATO, operate in the same area on the basis of their respective decision-making autonomy yet have the same interests and largely comprise the same European nations;

7.

Strongly urges the High Representative to call for increased coordination and cooperation among all international actors in Somalia and the wider Horn of Africa, namely the EU, NATO, the US, the UN and relevant countries, as means of achieving a real and purposeful comprehensive approach to the fight against piracy and, most important, addressing its root causes and consequences at all levels;

8.

Underlines, at the same time, the need to enhance strategic coordination among EU NAVFOR ATALANTA, EUTM Somalia and other CSDP actions (e.g. the RMCB once it is deployed) in the wider Horn of Africa region; welcomes, in this regard, the Council decision of 23 March 2012 to activate an EU Operations Centre in support of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions in the Horn of Africa; calls, in this regard, for a review of the existing command arrangements of EU NAVFOR ATALANTA and EUTM Somalia;

9.

Welcomes the London conference on Somaliaon 23 February 2012, which showed the international community’s determination to eradicate piracy, and calls for the development of greater judicial capacity to prosecute and detain those responsible for piracy;

10.

Stresses that further piracy with impunity is an obstacle to deterrence; deplores the fact that despite EU transfer agreements with third countries (Kenya, Seychelles, Mauritius), bilateral repatriation agreements for convicted pirates between Seychelles and the Somali regions of Puntland and Somaliland, and the various international legal frameworks, many pirates and other criminals are still not arrested or, when arrested, are often released due to a lack of solid legal evidence or a lack of political will to prosecute them; notes, too, that some EU Member States have inadequate criminal-law safeguards against piracy on the high seas;

11.

In this regard calls for immediate and effective measures to prosecute and punish those suspected of acts of piracy and urges third counties and the EU Member States that have not yet done so to transpose into their national law all the provisions laid down by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, in order to tackle the impunity of pirates, and calls on the Council and the Commission to continue examining opportunities for trial in the countries of the region and to work on the creation of specialised anti-piracy courts in Somalia and in other states in the region as a sustainable judicial solution for prosecuting pirates in Somalia;

12.

Notes the recommendations by the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council to facilitate the apprehension and prosecution of suspected pirates; stresses, at the same time, the need to secure fair and efficient trials through existing local courts, as well as humane and secure imprisonment in regional facilities;

13.

Urges the Member States, in cooperation with Europol and INTERPOL, to investigate and trace money flows and confiscate the money which is paid as ransom to pirates, as there are indications that this money might be being transferred to bank accounts worldwide, including banks in Europe, as well as to identify and dismantle the organised criminal networks that reap the profits of such acts; calls on the Council to facilitate further cooperation between EU NAVFOR on the one hand and Europol and Interpol on the other;

14.

Encourages EU NAVFOR, NATO and Coalition Maritime Forces (CMF) to effectively address the increased use of pirated merchant ships as ‘motherships’, a development which constitutes a significant increase in the pirates’ operational capability and which enables them to launch attacks with more strength, determination and flexibility across the whole of the Indian Ocean;

15.

Stresses that EMSA should continue cooperation with EU NAVFOR ATALANTA, where appropriate, by providing the operation, following flag-state consent, with detailed LRIT data and satellite images of EU-flagged vessels transiting through the area; to that end, encourages the Member States to authorise the Agency to provide this data and information to the EU NAVFOR operation;

16.

Considers that, given the proliferation of piracy, seafarers exposed to threats linked to piracy should be trained in order to reinforce their self-protection; stresses the need for shipping companies to adhere to and fully apply the ‘Best Management Practices for protection against Somalia Based Piracy’ (BMP-4), which provide sufficient information to all parties involved on ways to help ships avoid, deter or delay piracy attacks off the coast of Somalia; reiterates its call on all vessels operating in the area to register with the relevant maritime security coordination bodies and follow EU NAVFOR ATALANTA recommendations; calls on the Member States to ensure that all their vessels are registered;

17.

Urges the Council and the Commission, in collaboration with the UN and the African Union and following repeated requests by Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) for international assistance to protect humanitarian aid vessels and counter piracy off its coast, to continue to cooperate and support Somalia’s TFG in the fight against piracy, bring the perpetrators to justice and help Somalia and the region strengthen its capacities;

18.

Welcomes the decision by the Foreign Affairs Council on 12 December 2011 to launch the Regional Maritime Capacity Building (RMCB) ‘EUCAP Nestor’ mission, which will aim to strengthen maritime and judicial capabilities and the training of a coastal police force and judges in eight countries in the Horn of Africa and the western Indian Ocean; calls on the Council and the EEAS to make every effort to ensure that the RMCB is deployed to this region next summer;

19.

Acknowledges that training is only one part of maritime capacity building and calls, therefore, on the Member States to provide material assistance to the mission and region, and specifically Maritime Patrol Vessels;

20.

Strongly supports the Djibouti process for peace and reconciliation; calls for a comprehensive approach to the situation in Somalia, linking security with development, the rule of law and respect for human rights and international humanitarian law;

21.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision to propose a further EUR 100 million in EU financial support under the African Peace Facility to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), and calls on the Member States and the international community to help in promoting peace, economic development and the building of a stable democratic regime in Somalia that will facilitate security and fight piracy in the long term; welcomes the appointment of an EU special representative for the Horn of Africa;

22.

Is concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa and calls on the international community, and the EU in particular, to increase its provision of humanitarian assistance to people in need so as to meet the growing humanitarian needs and prevent any further worsening of the situation;

23.

Reiterates that any anti-piracy strategy should take into account the fact that piracy serves illegal economic interests and that any incentives for the Somali population to wean themselves off piracy need to be targeting youth employment and aimed at providing the local population with alternative livelihoods through which they can properly sustain themselves;

24.

Welcomes the EU Marsic project, part of the Critical Maritime Routes Programme under the Instrument for Stability, the objective of which is to enhance maritime security and safety in the western Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden through information sharing and capacity building, as it highlights regional cooperation among the countries of the region; expects that project to be extended beyond 2013;

25.

Encourages anti-piracy initiatives among the Eastern and Southern Africa and Indian Ocean region countries, such as the new anti-piracy project MASE (Maritime and Security programme), which received a start-up grant of EUR 2 million from the EU; welcomes the intended complementarity of Commission-funded projects and the CSDP mission on RMCB;

26.

Reiterates that piracy off the coast of Somalia is an extension of the absence of law and order in that country and therefore the international community should provide the necessary technical and financial support to assist the TFG in developing capacity to exercise control over its territorial waters and, in accordance with international law, its exclusive economic zone;

27.

Welcomes the work of the UN Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, which is an unprecedented forum for enhancing the level and quality of international cooperation in this field both between states and with all the major international organisations concerned;

28.

Welcomes the close cooperation with the IMO in the field of maritime capacity building as well as the work towards the conclusion of an EU-IMO Strategic Partnership to counter piracy in the wider Horn of Africa region;

29.

Underlines the fact that the use of private armed guards is a measure that cannot substitute for the necessary comprehensive solution to the multifaceted threat from piracy; takes into account the fact that some Member States have introduced relevant legislation; in this context calls on the Member States to perform the necessary security measures on board when possible, and on the Commission and the Council to work towards shaping an EU approach to the use of certified armed personnel on board in order to ensure proper implementation of the IMO guidelines in this regard;

30.

Notes that, on the high seas, according to international law, in all cases, including actions taken in the fight against piracy, the national jurisdiction of the flag state applies on the ships concerned, as well as to the military staff deployed on board; notes, moreover, that no arrest or detention of a ship may be ordered, even as a measure of investigation, by any authorities other than those of the flag state;

31.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the MemberStates, the Secretaries-General of the African Union, the UN and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the President of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia and the Pan-African Parliament.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/40

—

having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

recalling the great moral significance of the Garden of the Righteous in Jerusalem, initiated by the late Moshe Bejski, paying tribute to those who helped the Jews during the Holocaust;

B.

recalling the institutions that have honoured people who saved lives during all genocides and mass murders (such as the Armenian, Bosnian, Cambodian and Rwandan ones) and the other crimes against humanity perpetrated in the 20th and 21st centuries;

C.

recalling all those who preserved human dignity during Nazism and Communist totalitarianism;

D.

whereas the remembrance of good is essential to the process of European integration because it teaches younger generations that everyone can always choose to help other human beings and defend human dignity, and that public institutions have a duty to highlight the example set by people who managed to protect those persecuted out of hate;

1.

Supports the call made by leading citizens to establish a European Day of Remembrance for the Righteous to commemorate, on 6 March, those who challenged crimes against humanity and totalitarianism with individual responsibility;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (1), to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Commission, the Council and the parliaments of the Member States.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/41

—

having regard to the request by Corneliu Vadim Tudor of 14 April 2011, announced in plenary on 9 May 2011, for the defence of his immunity in connection with the proceedings opened against him by the Public Prosecutor attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania,

—

having given Corneliu Vadim Tudor on two occasions the opportunity to be heard in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and to Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

—

having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010 and 6 September 2011 (1),

—

having regard to Article 72 of the Constitution of Romania,

—

having regard to the letter from the Ambassador of Romania to the European Union of 7 October 2011,

—

having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0151/2012),

A.

whereas Corneliu Vadim Tudor, a Member of the European Parliament, has requested the defence of his parliamentary immunity in connection with proceedings before the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania;

B.

whereas Mr Tudor’s request relates to criminal proceedings in which he is accused of having threatened a bailiff and some police officers, committing acts of violence against them, insulting them and generally attempting to obstruct the execution of a legal decision in the context of the eviction of the Romania Mare party from its premises in Bucharest on 4 January 2011;

C.

whereas in those criminal proceedings Corneliu Vadim Tudor is charged with contempt of court, and behaviour contrary to good morals, and breach of the peace;

D.

whereas, according to Article 8 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties, and whereas, according to Article 9 of that Protocol, Members shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their Parliament;

E.

whereas in his letter Mr Tudor makes reference to both Articles 8 and 9 of the Protocol (ex Articles 9 and 10); whereas Article 9 is not relevant in view of Article 72 of the Romanian Constitution and his request must therefore be construed as being based solely on Article 8;

F.

whereas by letter of 8 June 2011 the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs wrote to the Romanian authorities asking for further, more detailed particulars of the proceedings brought against Mr Tudor;

G.

whereas by letter of 7 October 2011 the Romanian authorities stated: ‘given that Mr Tudor has not been detained, arrested or searched, the need does not exist to seek the agreement of the European Parliament. Since the facts of the case are nor connected with his votes or with his political opinions expressed in the exercise of his office and he has not been detained, arrested or searched, it has not been considered necessary to request the waiver of Mr Tudor’s immunity’;

H.

whereas the eviction of the Romania Mare party and the surrounding circumstances do indeed constitute, respectively, civil and criminal matters which do not have a direct, obvious connection with Mr Tudor’s performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament;

I.

whereas Mr Tudor did not avail himself of the opportunity to explain to the competent committee his request for the defence of his immunity, in particular in the light of the letter from the Romanian authorities;

1.

Decides not to defend the immunity and privileges of Corneliu Vadim Tudor;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its competent committee immediately to the competent authority of Romaniaand to Corneliu Vadim Tudor.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/42

—

having regard to the letter from its President of 9 October 2009,

—

having regard Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on the power of legislative delegation (2),

—

having regard to Rules 211 and 212 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0072/2012),

1.

Decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as shown below;

2.

Points out that the amendments will enter into force on the first day of the next part-session;

3.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/50

—

having regard to the letter of 27 April 2012 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,

—

having regard to Rule 211 of its Rules of Procedure,

1.

Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 117(3):

‘Since the chair of a committee is empowered by Rule 193(1) to convene a meeting of that committee, it is up to him, in the interest of the proper organisation of proceedings, to determine the draft agenda of the meeting he has convened. This prerogative is without prejudice to his obligation under Rule 117(3) to place a written question, at the request of its author, on the draft agenda for the next meeting of the committee. However, the chair has the discretionary power to propose, in the light of political priorities, the agenda and procedural arrangements for the meeting (e.g. a procedure without debate, possibly with the adoption of a decision on action to be taken, or, where appropriate, a recommendation to carry over the item to a subsequent meeting).’

2.

Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/51

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0041),

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0030/2012),

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 25 April 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0140/2012),

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.

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

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/52

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0715),

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0396/2011),

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 25 April 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0085/2012),

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.

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

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/53

—

having regard to the draft Council regulation (10222/5/2011),

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0076/2012),

—

having regard to Rule 81(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0087/2012),

1.

Consents to the draft Council regulation;

2.

Reminds the Council that, should the requirement for unanimity under Article 352 TFEU and the pending domestic parliamentary procedures in the United Kingdom lead to any change in the draft text, the consent of the European Parliament will have to be requested anew;

3.

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

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/54

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0402),

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0190/2011),

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 26 October 2011 (1),

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts (2),

—

having regard to the letter of 25 November 2011 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy in accordance with Rule 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 28 March 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rules 87 and 55of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0149/2012),

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.

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

10.9.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 261/55

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0245),

—

having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 192(1) and 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0107/2011),

—

having regard to Article 294(3) of the TFEU,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 July 2011 (1),

—

after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts (2),

—

having regard to the letter of 25 November 2011 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in accordance with Rule 87(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 29 February 2012 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rules 87 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0015/2012),

A.

whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,

1.

Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out, taking into account the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

2.

Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.

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