11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/1

—

having regard to the Commission working document entitled ‘Single Market through the lens of the people: a snapshot of citizens’ and businesses’ 20 main concerns’ (SEC(2011)1003),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence - “Working together to create new growth” ’ (COM(2011)0206),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled “Towards a Single Market Act - For a highly competitive social market economy: 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another” (COM(2010)0608),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to the Commission’s 27th annual report on monitoring the application of European Union law (2009) (COM(2010)0538) and the accompanying Commission staff working document entitled ‘Situation in the different sectors’ (SEC(2010)1143),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘A Europe of Results – Applying Community Law’ (COM(2007)0502),

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0310/2012),

A.

whereas the document ‘The Single Market through the lens of the people: a snapshot of citizens’ and businesses’ 20 main concerns’ confirms that there is a gap between the expectations and the reality of the single market;

B.

whereas there are still too many obstacles preventing Europeans from taking full advantage of the existence of the single market, thus hindering the development of a sense of belonging to the same community; whereas there is an urgent need to resolve these difficulties in order to allow Europeans to benefit fully from their right to freedom of movement and the advantages resulting from membership of the European Union;

C.

whereas, in the context of the economic, financial and social crisis currently affecting Europe, it is essential to abolish obstacles and relaunch the single market, and thus contribute to innovation, growth, the promotion of competitiveness, job creation and increased market confidence,whereas deepening the single market will benefit all European citizens, thereby contributing to the territorial, economic and social cohesion of the Union;

D.

whereas the single market constitutes a key element in realising the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and in achieving the objectives of intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth,whereas the new paradigm for political thought on relaunching the single market should focus on the citizens, on consumers and, in particular, on SMEs;

E.

whereas European citizens have found banks imposing a range of impediments and complex and discriminatory demands when they want to open a bank account, with the result that 30 million European citizens have no bank account and mobility is thus impeded; whereas according to Eurobarometer data 29 % of consumers surveyed find it difficult to compare the different offers with respect to current accounts and are thus unable to choose the account most appropriate to their requirements;

F.

whereas some 30 % of European citizens are unaware that they have the right to crossborder healthcare and to be reimbursed for it; whereas only one in three European citizens knows that they a European health insurance card is needed when travelling abroad and that this card is indispensable for short-term stays, such as holidays, business trips or periods studying in another country;

G.

whereas the free movement of goods is a cornerstone of the EU, and the Union has introduced a uniform type-approval system and harmonised registration certificates for motor vehicles; whereas, therefore, buying a car in or transferring a car to another Member State has become much easier; whereas European citizens who move to other Member States and intend to take their car with them are faced with onerous and complex procedures, requiring documentation that does not exist in their own Member State and payment of additional taxes; whereas European citizens intending to purchase a car in another Member State experience similar difficulties, whereas Parliament receives numerous complaints from citizens faced with cumbersome formalities, very often relating to the re-registration of their vehicles in another Member State and the associated additional costs; whereas at the same time the Union and the Member States need to ensure that the re-registration of stolen vehicles with falsified registration certificates does not occur;

H.

whereas the EU rules on passengers’ rights provide a minimum level of protection for citizens and thus facilitate mobility and social integration; whereas they help create a level playing field for transport operators within as well as across modes; whereas the EU legal framework protecting passengers’ rights needs to guarantee a minimum standard of consumer protection that is able to withstand evolving commercial practices such as add-on charges, as well as covering cases of bankruptcy or insolvency of airlines; whereas the Union needs to react to new multimodal mobility patterns;

I.

whereas the elimination of regulatory and physical barriers to the creation of a European Single Railway area, particularly in the case of freight, would help boost growth within the Single Market;

J.

whereas 62 % of European consumers would like to change energy supplier and switch to a cheaper tariff, but their freedom of choice is limited by the lack of clear and comparable information and the obstacles to ending their existing energy supply contracts; whereas such a change would represent a saving of EUR 100 per customer, or EUR 13 billion across Europe;

K.

whereas the deepening of the Single Market in the mobile telecommunications field, particularly regarding roaming, would be greatly welcomed by European citizens;

L.

whereas 26 % of European consumers surveyed have experienced problems with internet services provision; whereas the process of switching from one internet service provider to another is complicated and expensive, and consumers frequently experience poor quality of service and uneven enforcement of national rules;

M.

whereas lack of information on consumer rights, incorrect application of legislation and difficulty in resolving disputes over crossborder purchases have led to consumer distrust of on-line purchases, preventing the EU from having a genuine digital market at the service of citizens and businesses;.whereas figures from the European Consumer Centres (ECCs) show that online purchases are responsible for the majority (59 %) of complaints made by consumers;

N.

whereas businesses continue to face problems accessing public procurement contracts in other Member States, both as contractors and as subcontractors, due in particular to differing national practices in public procurement and to the complex administrative requirements existing in some Member States, as well as to language barriers;

O.

whereas improving the access of SMEs to funding is of major importance in the current economic climate, both for the survival and development of the enterprises themselves and for strengthening entrepreneurship and development in Europe generally,

P.

whereas special attention must be paid to people with disabilities so that they can make the most of the single market, taking action to ensure that new electronic content is also fully available to disabled people, in accordance with the international Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (6) and with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which set out accessibility obligations (7);

1.

Welcomes the Commission’s presentation of the working document entitled ‘The Single Market through the lens of the people: a snapshot of citizens’ and businesses’ 20 main concerns’, which followed the EP resolution of 20 May 2010 on a single market at the service of consumers and citizens;

2.

Congratulates the Commission on this significant initiative in response to the difficulties and concerns faced by citizens and businesses in exercising the rights conferred on them by the EU; considers, however, that the working document could have gone into more depth;

3.

Is convinced that the completion of the internal market is necessary for the economic and social wellbeing of the citizens of the EU; calls on the Commission to present concrete actions and feasible proposals to resolve the issues identified as the 20 main concerns of the citizens;

4.

Believes that, in this time of severe financial crisis, the EU needs to step up its efforts to eliminate barriers to the smooth functioning of the single market, in particular in sectors which can act as motors for sustainable growth, such as crossborder business and entrepreneurial activities, service provision, mobility, access to finance and financial literacy;

5.

Recognises that increased mobility of qualified labour can contribute to making Europe more competitive; believes that to this end it is necessary to adopt a modern framework for the recognition of professional qualifications, by making use of the Internal Market Information System (IMI) alert mechanism;

6.

Welcomes the introduction of a European Professional Card supported by the Internal Market Information System, in the context of which the criteria for such a card are now being evaluated with the aim of facilitating administrative procedures and voluntary crossborder mobility within the EU; believes, moreover, that the IMI will be able to achieve faster cooperation between Member State of origin and host state, thus helping address the persisting mismatches in the EU labour market;

7.

Stresses that the mobility of workers in different Member States must be a voluntary act and must always go hand in hand with full respect for labour rights;

8.

Expresses its concern over the fraudulent employment agencies which engage in the exploitation of labour throughout the EU, thus undermining the proper functioning of the free movement of workers, and calls on the Commission and Council to draw up an action plan to address this issue, for example by closer cooperation between national labour inspectorates.

9.

Stresses the urgent need to improve citizens’ awareness with regard to taxation in the EU and to reduce tax barriers for crossborder workers and employers, in order to facilitate mobility and promote crossborder business initiatives while fighting opportunities for tax evasion and tax fraud;

10.

Emphasises, accordingly, the need for a socially justifiable fiscal policy, playing a redistributive role and geared towards growth, which will be capable of dealing with the major issues of fiscal competition, effective monitoring, taxation of offshore companies and the eradication of the tax havens currently flourishing inside the EU;

11.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen programmes that contribute to improving the entrepreneurship, internationalisation and competitiveness of European SMEs, which are the backbone of the European economy;

12.

Calls on the Commission to encourage SMEs to recruit young people and to strengthen mobility programmes that encourage the young to enhance their skills, thereby becoming more employable and able to enter the labour market;

13.

Welcomes further legislative initiatives aimed at creating a fully integrated Single Market in order to increase competition and efficiency and provide greater choice for European consumers.

14.

Stresses the role of the internet in business efficiency and the rapidly increasing role of e-commerce in creating new markets, growth and opportunities for businesses; stresses the need for to ensure fully operational ADR and ODR systems, reinforcing the confidence of consumers and businesses in the digital market; calls for the simplification of licensing systems, the creation of an efficient framework for copyright, and action to prevent product and brand piracy;

15.

Recalls that Article 194 TFEU lays down that Union policy on energy shall be driven by a spirit of solidarity between Member States; stresses that the completion of the internal market in energy should take account of the structural socioeconomic differences of the European regions and should not impose burdens on Member States;

16.

Notes that with the adoption in 2011 of legislation on passengers’ rights in the case of bus and coach transport in, the Union now has a comprehensive and integrated set of rules on basic passengers’ rights covering all modes of transport;

17.

Considers that the main goal of the EU banking sector should be to provide capital to the real economy, this being one of the preconditions for the development of a knowledge-driven single market that fosters growth, competition and jobs;

18.

Welcomes the reform of public procurement proposed by the Commission, and considers that establishing common principles at EU level, together with flexible, clear and simple rules on public procurement, would enable companies, and above all SMEs, to better exploit the opportunities offered by crossborder public procurement; emphasises that it is essential to establish an EU-wide public e-procurement system, which would ensure greater transparency and competitiveness and allow public money to be used more efficiently;

19.

Regrets the fact that the legislative proposal aimed at ensuring the full accessibility of public sector websites by 2015 has been deferred; welcomes the roadmap for digital inclusion, and calls for the implementation of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) for e-government portals;

20.

Draws attention to the importance of developing European standards, which are absolutely necessary both for the realisation of the Single Market and for increasing the EU’s international competitiveness; calls on the Commission to ensure easier access to European standards for SMEs and micro-enterprises;

21.

Points out that differences in the regulation of e-signatures in the Member States remain a major obstacle to the proper functioning of the EU Single Market, particularly the provision of services; considers it essential to establish a single system for the recognition of e-signatures throughout the EU;

22.

Emphasises the importance for e-invoicing of ensuring legal certainty, a transparent technical environment and open and compatible solutions grounded in legal requirements, commercial operations and common technical standards, in order to facilitate the widespread adoption of this practice;

23.

Stresses that all EU citizens who do not already hold a bank account in the Member State where they have lodged a request for one should have access to basic banking services; considers, in this regard, that basic banking services facilitate access for low-income consumers to basic payment instruments for the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of cash in the single market, notably with respect to crossborder commuting; calls, therefore, on the Commission to make a legislative proposal to ensure consumer-friendly procedures for opening bank accounts across the Union;

24.

Is concerned that EU citizens who inherit, retire or transfer capital abroad are frequently faced with double taxation; calls for increased efforts to alleviate this situation; regrets that the Commission has only proposed a recommendation in the area of inheritance taxation;

25.

Reiterates its call on the Commission to assess the different rules on pension funds and the need to improve portability of pensions, in particular occupational pensions, when workers change employer and move from one Member State to another; calls, as a matter of urgency, for a revision of the Pension Funds Directive;

26.

Stresses the need for the EU institutions and the Member States to step up efforts to ensure a single market that is fairer, more operational, more competitive and more effective;

27.

Stresses the need to develop a holistic approach to the single market, centred on finding practical and useful solutions for citizens, consumers and SMEs so that they can fully benefit from its advantages, while at the same time not giving rise to over-regulation;

28.

Reaffirms the need to strengthen cooperation and interaction between Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Member States, so that citizens feel more included in the main projects and day-to-day activities of the EU and so that EU action, where deemed necessary, is targeted and useful; stresses that the dialogue with civil society is essential to restore confidence in the single market;

29.

Recognises, that for the smooth functioning of the internal market it is also important to protect social rights, and recalls the recommendation made by Professor Monti in his report to the Commission that ‘the social dimension of the internal market should receive greater attention by delivering on the commitment to real “social impact assessments” based on the development of more sophisticated methodologies and upgraded statistical information’.

30.

Urges the Member States to modernise public administration, simplifying the regulatory framework, and to encourage the use of electronic facilities such as e-government;

31.

Encourages the Member States to exchange best practice, so that European legislation is applied uniformly;

32.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision to refine its management database for handling cases related to the application of EU law (8);

33.

Calls on the Commission to develop the ‘Your Europe’ portal in order to turn it into a genuine digital ‘one-stop shop’ providing citizens and businesses with information about the single market; calls on the Member States to supply the national data currently lacking in the ‘Your Europe’ portal as soon as possible, to provide more links from their national government portals related to the various sections of the website, and to develop references to ‘Your Europe’ from relevant local and national administration portals so as to facilitate access for citizens;

34.

Stresses the usefulness of the ‘Your Europe Advice’ facility, which allows citizens free access to personalised information; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take action with a view to significantly raising citizens’ awareness of the Europe Direct telephone facility;

35.

Welcomes the positive role played by SOLVIT, ‘Your Europe Advice’, the Enterprise Europe Network, the European Consumer Centres, the Europe Direct Contact Centre and the European Employment Service in providing information and assistance to citizens, consumers and entrepreneurs in the internal market; calls on the Commission to find ways to improve coordination between these services and avoid duplication of efforts and resources;

36.

Calls on the Commission to make every effort to deliver a single, live online point of contact for citizens and consumers, via its offices in each Member State; believes these points of contact should operate in close cooperation with the European Parliament's information offices in order to make a comprehensive ‘one-stop shop’ available to every citizen; takes the view that creating such a point of contact in each Member State would truly help make the internal market more accessible and provide a more efficient, user-friendly service which would not only give information but also communicate to people, in an easily understandable way, the concrete opportunities offered by the internal market; believes this would help prevent confusion on the part of the average citizen, the consumer and business;

37.

Calls on the Commission to analyse the involvement of local and regional authorities in the strategy for expanding the Single Market Information System;12. calls on the Member States to improve their civil services’ understanding of their obligations regarding use of the IMI, and to ensure that their employees receive appropriate training;

38.

Stresses that three shortcomings lie behind the concerns of citizens with regard to the operation of the single market, i.e. lack of information, gaps in application, and a legislative vacuum; believes that simultaneous action must be taken to eliminate these three shortcomings if the operation of the Single Market is to be optimised;

39.

Stresses the importance of SMEs to the European economy, and calls on the Commission, together with the Member States, to improve the ‘SME test’ so as to ensure that it is applied consistently and coherently across all relevant policy areas and is incorporated into the overall assessment of proposals, so as to reduce the basic obstacles, bureaucracy and administrative overheads that impede the development of SMEs in terms of contributing to a more favourable business environment that will promote entrepreneurship, innovation, investment, growth and job creation; calls on the Commission to undertake a review of all directives and regulations which impact negatively on SMEs, and to submit a report with recommendations by June 2013;

40.

Recalls the decision of Parliament calling on all its committees to apply the principles of the ‘SME test’ to legislative reports when they have been voted on by the relevant committee and are being submitted to plenary for approval, and emphasises the need for rapid implementation of this decision;

41.

Considers that close adherence to the ‘Think Small First’ principle would ensure that future legislation does not introduce further difficulties and frustrations for citizens and businesses in the Single Market;

42.

Emphasises that the Commission should step up its efforts to focus on the impact of regulations and directives on industry, SMEs and micro-enterprises with Better Regulation targets; stresses, in particular, the need for the burden reduction programme to continue beyond 2012 with a more ambitious and expanded scope, and for the introduction of regulatory burden offsetting;

43.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen its commitment to assessing whether there is real added value of action at EU level before work begins on a draft proposal;

44.

Welcomes the Commission’s announcement of a programme to eliminate cost burdens for SMEs by means of a presumption that micro-enterprises will be exempted from burdensome rules unless a case for their inclusion is explicitly made;

45.

Emphasises that there is a lack of information about the single market, which often means that citizens and enterprises do not know or do not understand their rights and obligations, and do not know how to obtain the required answers or assistance; emphasises the need to design information that takes account of the specific characteristics of vulnerable consumer groups;

46.

Emphasises that it is equally important that citizens can make known their concerns in relation to the internal market and can forward their suggestions in such a way that their voice will be more effectively heard by both the Commission and Parliament;

47.

Calls on the Commission to make use of all available technological resources in order to launch a dialogue with the citizens on the single market, by organising interactive information campaigns, prioritising the 20 main concerns, informing citizens and enterprises concerning the benefits of the Single Market, practical and concrete solutions to their day-to-day problems, and their rights, and encouraging them to participate in the creation of a competitive, fair and balanced market, while also paying special attention to strengthening the Points of Single Contact (PSCs);

48.

Welcomes the activity of the PSCs, which have the role of simplifying access to information on conducting business in the Member States, centralising in a single national point of contact all necessary formalities and administrative requirements for establishing or expanding a business across borders;

49.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make every effort to devise useful communication strategies and information mechanisms relating to citizens’ enjoyment of their social rights and benefits across the EU;

50.

Stresses the importance of involving local and regional authorities and organisations, jointly with civil society, in information campaigns, paying particular attention to information campaigns in schools and universities in order to involve the next generation and prepare it for a more active European citizenship;

51.

Is convinced that consumer confidence in a well-functioning financial services market promotes financial stability, growth, efficiency and innovation in the long term; emphasises, therefore, the need to ensure that consumers have better access to information and independent advice in this sector, and that conflicts of interest are avoided;

52.

Emphasises the fact that significant variations exist between energy bills, depending on the supplier, with regard to the quantity and quality of information provided to European energy consumers; stresses that it is essential to provide consumers with timely and adequate information on consumption and pricing, so that they can choose the energy supplier they wish;

53.

Encourages the establishment of a common methodology and a common, comprehensive and easy-to-use format for energy bills, with a minimum level of information that suppliers should include when billing, so that consumers can understand the content of their energy bills everywhere in the EU and thus use energy more economically and efficiently;

54.

Urges the Member States to provide NRAs with the powers and resources needed to exercise their duties, e.g. monitoring and proper customer complaint handling; asks the Commission and ACER to propose recommendations on how the NRAs' supervisory powers could be improved; calls on the Commission to promote improvements to the coordination and exchange of best practice and information among NRAs and the competent national and European authorities;

55.

Calls on the Commission, together with the Member States, to develop a digital single market that is worthy of the name and competitive and will serve European consumers and businesses, in particular SMEs;recalls that the existence of a genuine European digital single market will be of socio-economic benefit to European consumers in general, in particular the inhabitants of isolated and less accessible regions and those with any kind of disability, as well as to enterprises in the EU, in particular SMEs, which will thus be able to access new markets;

56.

Stresses that, in order for a genuine European digital single market to be created, consumer confidence and security need to be increased, by guaranteeing the protection of consumers’ personal data and the security of digital signatures, improving dispute resolution mechanisms, and enhancing confidence and security regarding the means of payment used;

57.

Recalls the need to fill the remaining gaps in the field of contract law, as well as to adopt effective instruments for clearing the obstacles that result from disparities in the rules applicable to contracts, which create barriers to trade, additional transaction costs and legal uncertainty for enterprises, thereby also causing consumers to mistrust the single market;

58.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take appropriate measures to ensure that all citizens are fully informed of their rights under the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) and of the existing financial obligations as regards using health services and care in different Member States; stresses that this information must be easily accessible and understandable (including electronic availability), and must be accessible to citizens with disabilities;

59.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that all citizens entitled to the EHIC are issued with the card on request, and that any misapplication of the rules is corrected without delay; calls on Member States to provide information on any additional insurance or other action that may be necessary for citizens to be entitled to the same health care abroad as they enjoy at home;

60.

Urges the Member States to simplify and accelerate the administrative procedures for reimbursement of treatment received abroad, and to ensure that their social insurance and health insurance systems provide sufficient protection for mobile citizens;

61.

Highlights the lack of information for officials and other employees of regional and local government on the opportunities existing for European and international mobility; stresses that the European and international mobility of these officials and employees will help create more modern and efficient administrations in the Member States, a factor which is crucial to the implementation of the EU acquis, as well as enabling the exchange of best practice;

62.

Emphasises that the success of EU law is always dependent on its application and its transposition within a reasonable time into Member States’ national legislation; considers regular, careful and effective controls to be essential in this area, and calls on the Commission to intervene in the event of deficiencies in transposition and to continue to cooperate closely with Parliament in this regard;

63.

Recognises that although the number of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission has decreased, there were still about 2100 such proceedings under way at the end of 2010;

64.

Notes the large number of petitions received by Parliament’s Committee on Petitions relating to the problems citizens face within the internal market, particularly as regards the incorrect transposition or implementation of EU law; calls on the Commission to incorporate in its report the findings and results of the petitions submitted to that committee; stresses that the petitions procedure needs to be better utilised in order to improve the EU’s legislative processes, particularly as regards legislative remedies to barriers to crossborder trade and enforcement of consumer rights;

65.

Calls on the Member States to prioritise the correct and timely transposition of legislation relating to the Single Market and to reduce levels of non-compliance;invites them to implement a ‘Single Market test’ within the framework of their national legislation, taking into account the impact of its standards on citizens and enterprises in the context of the internal market;

66.

Underlines that the procedures for reclaiming VAT across borders need to be made less bureaucratic and cumbersome for businesses; stresses that there should also be increased access to crossborder venture capital financing;calls on the Commission and the Member States, since legislative and implementation gaps in the single market legislation have been identified, to reinforce their efforts to effectively implement the relevant legislation, especially on issues related to social protection;

67.

Calls on the Commission to include reference to the affected area of activity and its impact on the single market when initiating infringement proceedings for incorrect transposition of, or failure to transpose, EU legislation;

68.

Urges the Commission, with regard to infringement proceedings, to make full use of the changes introduced by Article 260 TFEU;

69.

Supports the Commission’s efforts to simplify the cross-border transferability of cars, and calls on the Member States to fully implement the principles of EU law on the registration of cars in other Member States; recalls in this regard that cars (right-hand drive vehicles included) that are compliant with the relevant EU type-approval should be eligible for registration in Member States, and calls on the Commission to increase the security of harmonised registration certificates in order to minimise the risk of re-registration of stolen vehicles with falsified registration certificates;

70.

Calls on the Commission to apply zero tolerance to any discriminatory rules and practices by Member States in the field of employment which run counter to EU law, and to initiate appropriate proceedings without delay in the event of non-compliance; also calls on the Commission not to tolerate any other forms of discriminatory or unjustifiable practices, controls or requirements hampering European workers and employers in the exercise of their rights under EU law;

71.

Recalls that freedom of movement is a fundamental right which workers must be able to exercise without discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment; believes that, in order to ensure this freedom, workers should be properly informed, adequate redress mechanisms should be put in place, and all Member States should strictly implement the relevant EU rules;

72.

Calls on the Commission to carefully monitor both the transposition and the effective application of Directive 2000/78/EC in the Member States, and to intervene in the event that any deficiencies are observed; calls on the Member States and the Council to give priority to the urgent adoption of the proposal for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation;

73.

Emphasises the need to improve working conditions and ensure adequate protection, without any form of discrimination, for workers posted in the EU; calls for action to improve the implementation and application of the Posting of Workers Directive, in close cooperation with the social partners;welcomes the conclusions of the Single Market Forum in this regard;

74.

Recalls that the EU legislation in force protects the rights of consumers and provides a solid foundation for a competitive European energy market, but that it has not yet been transposed properly into national legislation in several Member States;

75.

Urging all Member States to fully implement the third energy package and other related EU legislation, respecting the agreed deadlines; asks the Commission to undertake vigorous monitoring of the transposition of these rules;

76.

Calls on the Commission to continue to promote best practice with regard to the transposition of legislation relating to the single market;

77.

Stresses that the coherent and harmonised implementation and enforcement of passenger protection throughout the Union is of key importance for travelling citizens, including people with reduced mobility, as well as for ensuring a level playing field for transport operators;Recognises that people with disabilities very often encounter obstacles and barriers when travelling that exclude them from many of the opportunities of the single market, and calls on the Commission to pay greater attention to this aspect in relation to passengers’ rights;

78.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that passenger rights legislation is implemented correctly, that European citizens are aware of the rights of passengers in the EU, and, especially, that those rights are respected;

79.

Stresses the need to address the problems experienced by citizens and businesses; notes that despite the minimal evidence included in the Working Paper, many of the problem areas identified have been the subject of recent impact assessments and proposals by the Commission; strongly believes that where action is proposed the Commission must produce robust and conclusive evidence in favour of the policy option chosen in the draft legislation; calls on Parliament to give full consideration to the accuracy and persuasiveness of the impact assessments produced by the Commission when considering draft proposals, in order that adopted legislation meets the needs of citizens and businesses alike;

80.

Considers it important to exchange information and promote cooperation between national systems, and, in this context, welcomes the recently achieved interconnection of business registers (9); continues to urge crossborder cooperation on administration and improved networking through central platforms; welcomes the Commission’s initiatives to this effect, e.g. for developing a system for the electronic transmission of social security information between national social security systems;

81.

Emphasises that the crossborder enforcement and recognition of decisions and the legal effects of documents are central to mobility in the internal market; looks forward to the prompt application of the regulation on succession rights in all EU Member States; calls on the Commission to continue its work in relation to the recognition of the legal effects of civil status records, on the basis of the Green Paper of 2010 (10) and the consultations of 2011 – and regards the legislative proposals planned for 2013 with interest;

82.

Notes the objective of improved legislation, and believes that the Commission, Parliament and the Council should redouble their efforts to improve the strategy for smart regulation;

83.

Endorses the commitment shown to addressing the issue of regulatory burdens; in this regard, recalls the previous commitment of Parliament to require the Commission to identify equivalent cost offsets when proposing new legislation; further recalls Parliament’s request that the programme for administrative burden reduction be extended and expanded, and therefore looks forward to proposals for reducing administrative burdens and regulatory impediments, since these would address many of the main concerns of citizens and businesses regarding the Single Market;

84.

Stresses that, despite the simplification of legislation and the reduction in the administrative burden as regards the utilisation of internal market freedoms by businesses, it is generally necessary to secure the safety and health provisions that protect consumers and employees;

85.

Invites the Commission to submit all new European regulations to an ‘e-commerce test’;

86.

Calls on the Commission to monitor the 20 main concerns of citizens and businesses in relation to the Single Market’ after two years, and to update them;also calls on it to draw up a table for each of the concerns highlighted, indicating which actors are responsible for solutions to each of the root causes identified;

87.

Calls on the Commission, in future reports, to highlight corresponding actions for which it is clearly responsible, such as taking timely and appropriate action in the event of incorrect transposition of EU legislation by Member States, ensuring adequate implementation of EU law, and reviewing inadequate legislation;

88.

Calls on the Commission to present the document ‘The new Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence - “Working together to create new growth” ’ in the second half of 2012;

89.

Encourages the Commission and the Member States to focus their information campaigns during the European Year of Citizens 2013 on the areas of those concerns that relate to rights based on EU citizenship, since these, on the basis of the selection methodology of the report, truly reflect what matters most to EU citizens in their everyday lives in the internal market;

90.

Calls on the Commission to find ways of amalgamating the EU Citizenship Report with the report entitled ‘The Single Market through the lens of the people’ in future, so as to avoid duplication and confusion and guard against the risk of decoupling problems from solutions;

91.

Calls on the Commission, together with the Member States, regional and local authorities and civil society representatives, to launch regular European information campaigns in national, regional and local media, as well as interactive campaigns, strengthening the dialogue with citizens on the benefits of the single market, citizens’ rights and responsibilities, and where to obtain information or assistance to resolve problems; calls on the Commission to monitor and control the effectiveness and success of these information campaigns;

92.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that existing tools such as SOLVIT, the Internal Market Scoreboard, Internal Market Information System, ‘Your Europe Advice’ and ‘Your Europe’ are effectively interconnected so as to make it possible to monitor the proper and timely transposition of EU directives;

93.

Emphasises the need to support the EURES system and its effective interconnectedness with national work placement systems, as one of the means of combating unemployment in the EU, as also to address the phenomenon of inability to fill vacancies due to lack of candidates with relevant qualifications;

94.

Urges the Commission to undertake an evaluation of the areas in which Community regulation simultaneously achieves both the objective of simplified and direct application by Member States and the objectives of the Single Market;

95.

Calls on the Commission to promote urgent measures aimed at overcoming the imbalances in energy infrastructure existing in the Union which represent an obstacle to the completion of the internal energy market and the achievement of the Europe 2020 goals;

96.

Calls on the Member States to use ICT tools to improve transparency and accountability, reduce administrative burdens, improve administrative processes, reduce CO2 emissions, save public resources and contribute to a more participatory democracy, while at the same time strengthening the level of trust and confidence;

97.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States, while complying with Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Article 153 TFEU, to undertake studies to ensure the continuity of social security protection for mobile citizens in the EU and equal treatment with nationals, also taking into consideration an optional, voluntary and transferable social security system at European level, complementary to the general system, in order to set up closer cooperation on social policy; previous ideas relating to a ‘28th regime’ of social security systems should be updated and incorporated into the studies;

98.

Urges the Member States to take whatever action is necessary to simplify the complex national administrative procedures and ensure that workers, employers and other parties involved in a cross-border employment situation have access to all required information on rights and obligations related to their employment, such as social security, including unemployment protection, health care and taxation rules; considers that this information needs to be available, as far as possible in electronic form, before, during and after the mobility experience;

99.

Urges the Commission to establish a central coordination point at EU level aimed at recording the concerns of mobile workers, employers and other interested parties, in order to devise solutions between Member States and prevent problems arising from mobile employment relationships, including the posting of workers;

100.

Calls on the Member States to treat non-EU family members of EU nationals as bona fide clients throughout the administrative procedures they have to undergo;

101.

Calls on the Member States to establish a ‘one-stop shop’ for all mobile people in the EU, enabling them to handle their work- and home-related administrative matters and be informed of their rights and obligations at a single location in the host country, including the possibility of carrying out and managing administrative procedures on-line, in order to improve the effective exercise of rights by citizens moving within the EU;

102.

Calls on the Commission to ensure access to a basic payment account at a reasonable price for all European Union citizens, in order to increase mobility;

103.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposals for facilitating access to crossborder health care; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure the swift and effective implementation of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in crossborder health care, taking due account of the principles of universality, access to quality care, equity and solidarity; calls on the Commission and the Member States, in addition, to continue working towards the target of widespread deployment of telemedicine and e-health services by 2020; supports, furthermore, the pilot projects aimed at ensuring EU citizens secure online access to their patient data and interoperability of patient records, thus providing patients with continuity of care;

104.

Calls on the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal on the roadworthiness testing of motor vehicles, with a view to reducing the administrative burden for citizens and industry while guaranteeing the dynamic development of testing methods and test content and at the same time ensuring the highest possible level of road safety;

105.

Calls for the mutual recognition of technical controls between Member States, on a basis of common definitions and comparable test standards when a vehicle is transferred from one Member State to another;proposes the establishment of a European database to centralise the technical data of all vehicles, in order to enable Europe-wide comparability and facilitate crossborder vehicle registration;calls on the Member States to minimise the financial cost to the public of registering vehicles in another Member State, by avoiding unnecessary costs through a common approach;

106.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the more rigorous enforcement of interoperability between national transport and mobility services, products and systems, such as those subject to EU rules relating to road toll systems or the ERTMS, alongside European-level integrated information, pricing and ticketing in the fields of public and intermodal mobility;

107.

Urges the Commission to facilitate access to microfinance facilities for the setting-up and development of small businesses, particularly those that intend to pursue crossborder operations;

108.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to facilitate investment opportunities for innovative start-ups by removing the obstacles that hinder the emergence of an EU- wide venture capital market;

109.

Calls on the Member States to make use of existing structures and the creation of ‘one-stop shops’ in order to simplify and facilitate access to information enabling SMEs to apply for European, national and local funds, bearing in mind that 'one-stop shops' have greater added value when they are created at the expense of existing administration and thus do not place additional burdens on the taxpayer; stresses the importance of 'one-stop shops' as fundamental starting-points to attract and enable private investments in the field of research and energy, and calls on the Commission to reinforce the measures for further simplification and transparency of the European, national and local financing frameworks; urges the Member States to facilitate SMEs' access to funds by simplifying the rules on data submission, and to promote online data repositories for certificates and other supporting documents;

110.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to secure agreements enabling SMEs to operate throughout the EU and to commercialise their ideas, by granting them better access to markets and reducing red tape;

111.

Calls on the Commission to draw up a legislative proposal offering passengers better protection in the event of airline insolvency, for example through mandatory insurance for airlines or the establishment of a guarantee fund;

112.

Draws attention to the fact that it is still difficult for passengers to book and buy multimodal tickets within the EU, and calls on the Commission, the Member States and transport companies to take action for the creation of an integrated multimodal ticketing system;

113.

Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal on passengers’ rights where more than one mode of transport is used, so as to enable the legislation to keep pace with evolving multimodal mobility patterns.

114.

Calls on the Commission to reformulate the Internal Market Information System (IMI), widening the scope and improving the operability of administrative cooperation, and to rethink the SOLVIT programme so as to give it a new framework and adequate resources, particularly human resources, in order to ensure that all centres have enough experienced and sufficient staff to enable them to deal with the queries submitted to them in a fully satisfactory manner;

115.

Repeats its call on Member States to improve early language learning, to put in place a system of recognition of formal and informal education, including lifelong learning, and of competences acquired in another Member State, and to ensure better coordination with labour market needs, in order to create a future labour force with comparable qualifications that is beneficial to a common European labour market and enhances productivity levels; emphasises, moreover, the need to continue with efforts towards equivalence of national certification systems through the European Qualifications Framework;

116.

Takes the view that educational institutions should indicate, in a supplement to the diplomas awarded by them, how their national diplomas can be compared and evaluated vis-à-vis diplomas awarded in other Member States, particularly in neighbouring countries;

117.

Highlights the success of the automatic recognition procedure contained in Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, and calls for an assessment to be made of the possibility of extending it to more professions;

118.

Calls on the Member States to perform the necessary actions for accessing the Structural and Cohesion Funds and to utilise the amounts obtained for programmes related to vocational training, in order to ensure further support for SMEs;

119.

Points to the positive results obtained in certain Member States where energy-saving requirements placed on energy companies have led to numerous advantageous results, including the more widespread use of smart electricity meters for the benefit of consumers;

120.

Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of a European exchange programme for officials and other employees of regional and local authorities;

121.

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

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/16

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on international trade policy in the context of climate change imperatives (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers (6),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612),

—

having regard to the Commission’s report on ‘Trade and Investment Barriers’ published on 21 February 2012 (COM(2012)0070),

—

having regard to the Mutual Recognition Agreement between the EU and Japan concluded in 2001,

—

having regard to the Agreement on Cooperation on Anti-competitive Activities between the EU and Japan concluded in 2003,

—

having regard to the Agreement on Co-operation and Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters between the European Community and Japan concluded in 2008,

—

having regard to the report by Copenhagen Economics entitled ‘Assessment of barriers to trade and investment between the EU and Japan’, published on 30 November 2009,

—

having regard to the results of the Commission’s public consultation on EU-Japan trade relations published on 21 February 2011,

—

having regard to the European Council’s conclusions of 24-25 March 2011,

—

having regard to the joint statement adopted at the 20th EU-Japan Summit, held in Brussels on 28 May 2011,

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on EU-Japan trade relations (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 February 2009 on Community action in relation to whaling (8),

—

having regard to the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on the European Union – Protocol on protection and welfare of animals,

—

having regard to the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Japan on cooperation in science and technology signed on 2 July 2012,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2012 on EU trade negotiations with Japan (9),

—

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

A.

whereas the EU and Japan represent together more than a third of world GDP and more than 20 % of world trade;

B.

whereas in 2011 the total amount of bilateral trade in goods between the EU and Japan was worth only EUR 116,4 billion, in contrast to EUR 444,7 billion for EU-USA, EUR 428,3 billion for EU-China and EUR 306,6 billion for EU-Russia;

C.

Whereas in 2011 the Japanese trade surplus with the European Union was worth EUR 18,5 billion, of which automotive products alone accounted for 30 %;

D.

whereas Japan is ranked 16th among nations ‘Trading Across Borders’ in the World Bank’s ‘Ease of Doing Business’ 2012 rankings, ahead of 18 EU Member States;

E.

whereas Parliament, the Council and the Commission have noted that Japan’s capacity to remove non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and obstacles to market access in public procurement is a precondition for launching negotiations on the EU-Japan free trade agreement (FTA);

F.

whereas the Copenhagen Economics study of November 2009 estimated a potential increase of 71 % for EU exports to Japan, and an increase of 61 % for Japanese exports to the EU, if tariffs and non-tariff barriers were reduced to the fullest possible extent;

G.

whereas the European Union and Japan agreed at the joint summit on 28 May 2011 to launch a scoping exercise to investigate the feasibility and shared ambition towards launching negotiations for a free trade agreement; whereas the scoping exercise has been concluded;

H.

whereas the Commission, the Council and Parliament support the maintenance of the global moratorium on commercial whaling and a ban on international commercial trade in whale products, seek to end so-called scientific whaling and support the designation of substantial regions of ocean and seas as sanctuaries in which all whaling is indefinitely prohibited;

I.

whereas there is a parallel political scoping exercise for a political framework agreement which has also been concluded successfully;

1.

Believes that the importance of Japan as a political ally, with a similar approach to the EU when facing the new challenges of a globalised world, should be taken into consideration;

2.

Believes that it is crucial for the EU to comprehensively deepen its economic and trade relationships with major global economies such as Japan in order to maximise the jobs and growth potential under the EU 2020 strategy; considers this to be particularly urgent in the light of the ongoing economic crisis, high unemployment rates and poor growth projections in the EU;

3.

Is concerned, in this regard, that the EU’s bilateral trading volume with Japan is dramatically lower than with other partners such as the USA, China and Russia; concludes that the huge potential of the EU-Japanese commercial relationship has not yet been realised to the benefit of EU businesses, workers and consumers, mainly due to the impact of Japanese non-tariff barriers on market access opportunities for European businesses;

4.

Notes that Japan is pursuing its interest in other major free trade agreements such as the potential Japan-China-South Korea FTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, as well as negotiating several other bilateral agreements; believes that the EU should draw on its experience with the EU-South Korea FTA to achieve comparable market access penetration in negotiations with Japan;

5.

Notes the conclusion of the EU-Japan scoping exercise to the mutual satisfaction of the Commission and the Japanese Government;

6.

Welcomes the emphasis on the removal of NTBs and obstacles to market access in public procurement within the scoping exercise negotiations, as demanded by Parliament;

7.

Cautions that, while the roadmaps represent a partial step forward, some lack precision and leave room for interpretation (e.g. the railway procurement provisions); considers, therefore, that greater ambition must be demonstrated by Japan from the outset of future negotiations; emphasises that the implementation on these commitments is crucial and, therefore, calls for concrete results as soon as possible, ideally in advance of the dates established;

8.

Calls on the Japanese Government to reconfirm at the onset of formal negotiations of an EU-Japan FTA its commitments made in the scoping exercise, especially with regards to removing non-tariff barriers to trade (NTBs);

9.

Requests that, accordingly, as a condition for adopting negotiating directives for an FTA with Japan, the Council insists on a binding review clause activated within one year of the launch of negotiations to assess whether Japan has delivered clear results in eliminating NTBs, in particular those affecting the EU’s automotive sector, as well as the obstacles to public procurement for railways and urban transport agreed on in the scoping exercise;

10.

Calls on the Council to authorise the Commission to start negotiations for a free trade agreement with Japan on the basis of the outcome of the scoping exercise and clear targets;

11.

Calls on the Commission to dedicate one of the initial negotiation rounds of the EU-Japan FTA to removing NTBs and, therefore, to ensure that an independent impact assessment can be conducted as part of the review clause one year after the start of the negotiations to objectively assess the progress made on this key concern for Parliament;

12.

Underlines that such a free trade agreement must be comprehensive, ambitious and fully binding in all its commercial provisions; stresses that an FTA must lead to genuine market openness, and trade facilitation on the ground, rather than just a hypothetical, legal openness; calls on the Commission to formally and periodically update Parliament and the Council on the state of play of the negotiations and on the progress made on dismantling NTBs; considers that if, during the negotiations, Japan does not demonstrate sufficient ambition in meeting the EU’s priority demands, the Commission should suspend negotiations after consultations with Parliament and the Council;

13.

Notes that the removal of non-tariff barriers is significantly more difficult to monitor and implement than the elimination of import tariffs; urges the Commission to fully take into account Parliament’s recommendations as outlined in its resolution of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers and to draw conclusions from the NTB commitments in the EU-South Korea FTA to develop best practise implementation and monitoring mechanisms;

14.

Stresses that, for an FTA to be truly advantageous to the EU’s economy, the Council should establish a clear timetable and include the following aspects in the Commission’s negotiating directives:

15.

Reiterates its belief that, if these conditions are met, an EU-Japan FTA has the potential to lead to a win-win situation, beneficial for both economies, and that a deeper degree of integration through an economic integration agreement would multiply the gains considerably to both economies;

16.

Notes that serious divergences remain between the EU and Japan on issues related to the management of fisheries and whaling, notably Japan’s whaling under the guise of scientific whaling, and calls for broader discussions on the matter of the abolition of whale hunting and of trade in whale products;

17.

Demands that, if negotiations are successful, the Commission undertake a second impact assessment to evaluate the expected advantages and disadvantages of the agreement for EU jobs and growth, including an analysis of the impact on sensitive sectors such as automotives and electronics, and the benefits for the EU’s offensive interests;

18.

Recalls that Parliament will be asked to give its consent to the potential EU-Japan FTA as stipulated by the Treaty of Lisbon;

19.

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

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/21

—

having regard to Articles 9 and 35 of the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: ‘The European Consensus’ (1),

—

having regard to Title V of the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 21(2) thereof, establishing the principles and objectives of the EU in international relations, and to Article 208(2), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity from 1992 and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,

—

having regard to Article 12 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement (the Cotonou Agreement),

—

having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper entitled ‘EU 2011 Report on Policy Coherence for Development’ (SEC(2011)1627),

—

having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper entitled "The EU – a global partner for development speeding up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals" (SEC(2008)0434),

—

having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document entitled ‘Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010-2013’ (SEC(2010)0421),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Policy Coherence for Development - Establishing the policy framework for a whole–of–the-Union approach’ (COM(2009)0458),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2010 on the EU Policy Coherence for Development and the ‘Official Development Assistance plus’ concept (2),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development, 14 May 2012 (doc. 09317/2012),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change, 14 May 2012 (doc. 09369/2012),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on the EU’s approach to trade, growth and development in the next decade, 16 March 2012 (doc. 07412/2012),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility, 3 May 2012 (doc. 09417/2012),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on Policy Coherence for Development, 18 November 2009 (doc. 16079/2009),

—

having regard to the DAC-OECD Peer Review of the European Union of 2012,

—

having regard to the EU Accountability Report 2012 on Review of progress of the EU and its Member States Financing for Development of 9 July 2012,

—

having regard to the Evert Vermeer Foundation Study entitled ‘The EU Raw Materials Policy and Mining in Rwanda – Policy Coherence for Development in practice’ of February 2012,

—

having regard to Declaration A(2010)21584 of 28 September 2010 of the 21st session of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0302/2012),

A.

whereas Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty, as defined in the European Consensus on Development, as the primary objective of EU development policy, and whereas the Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements and which are likely to affect developing countries;

B.

whereas the European Union's commitment to ensure policy coherence for development (PCD), in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council in 2005,was recently reaffirmed in its conclusions on PCD;

C.

whereas there are clear inconsistencies in the EU's trade, agriculture, fisheries, climate, intellectual property rights, migration, finance, arms and raw materials policies which affect development goals; whereas PCD can contribute to poverty reduction by finding fundamental synergies among EU Policies;

D.

whereas the new development policy framework presented in the Agenda for Change aims for policy coherence not only within the Union but also with regards to the Union and its Member States by advocating joint-programming and emphasising the role of the EU as coordinator, convener and policy maker;

E.

whereas a post-2015 international framework for development cooperation has the potential to play a catalytic role in addressing important development and other global challenges and could help to fulfil individuals' rights and needs;

F.

whereas, despite the improvements, as in case of the EU, direct or indirect subsidies for agricultural products continue to have a negative effect on food security and the development of a viable agricultural sector in developing countries;

G.

whereas the EU is committed to reaching the UN target of 0,7 % of gross national income (GNI) in official development assistance (ODA) by 2015;

H.

whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a judgement in November 2008 whereby the European Investment Bank (EIB) operations in developing countries must prioritise development over any economic or political objective;

I.

whereas a large number of studies have shown that there are between USD 850 billion and USD 1 trillion per year of illicit financial flows out of developing countries, which severely hinders the fiscal revenue of developing countries and consequently their self-development capacities;

J.

whereas the Agenda for Change (COM(2011)0637), in its aim to increase the impact of EU development assistance, reiterates that the objectives of development, democracy, human rights, good governance and security are intertwined;

K.

whereas public procurement accounts for 19 % of world GDP, or almost 40 times the amount provided by the EU and the Member States in ODA; whereas, as such, it has huge potential to be a tool of implementing sustainable government policies both in the EU and in its ODA recipient countries;

L.

whereas malnutrition kills an estimated 2,6 million children each year and, if unchecked, will put almost half a billion children at risk of permanent damage in the next 15 years; whereas about one-third of the pre-school age children in the world currently suffer from underweight (too little weight for their age) or stunting (too short for their age); whereas malnutrition costs countries 2-4 % of their GDP, and costs an individual an estimated 11 % of his or her lifetime earnings, while, at the same time, tested, cost-effective interventions in nutrition exist and would represent a sound investment;

M.

whereas, by 2030, the demand for energy and water is expected to rise by 40 % and the demand for food by 50 %, and whereas population growth, together with a rising middle class in emerging and developing nations, will put huge pressure on natural resources – especially water, energy and land – and on the environment;

N.

whereas the concepts of human development and human security share four fundamental perspectives: they are people-centred, they are multi-dimensional, they have broad views on human fulfilment in the long-term and they address chronic poverty (3);

O.

whereas the external dimension of the two new DG Home Affairs funds, and the Migration and Asylum component of the new Global Public Goods and Challenges Thematic Programme of the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI), cover, as anticipated in the declared priorities, similar thematic areas although from different perspectives;

P.

whereas clinical trials that are no longer accepted by Western European ethics committees are approved by the local ethics committees in countries such as India, China, Argentina and Russia; whereas, in particular, the ethical principles which are of utmost importance for developing countries, as reflected in the Declaration of Helsinki, are ignored by companies and regulatory authorities (4);

Q.

whereas culture is, in all its dimensions, a fundamental component of sustainable development because it is, through tangible and intangible heritage, creative industries and various forms of artistic expressions, a powerful contributor to economic development, social stability and environmental protection;

R.

whereas studies show that if women are educated and can earn and control income, a number of good results follow: maternal and infant mortality declines, women and child health and nutrition improve, agricultural productivity rises, climate change can be mitigated, population growth slows, economies expand and cycles of poverty are broken (5);

S.

whereas information and communication technologies (ICT) have the potential to help mitigating climate change not only by reducing their own share of greenhouse gas emissions but also by using them to reduce emissions in other sectors and to address systemic change and rebound effects, e.g. by dematerialisation and online delivery, transport and travel substitution, monitoring and management applications, greater energy efficiency in production and use, and product stewardship and recycling;

T.

whereas the 2007 DAC Peer Review of European Communities noted that 'good understanding of the appropriateness of budget support in the local context is important';

U.

whereas education can play a pivotal role not only in environmental sustainability, health and economic growth, and in the achievement of the MDGs in general, but also in peace-building; whereas, perhaps more than any other sector, education can provide the highly visible early peace dividends on which the survival of peace agreements may depend if education systems are inclusive and geared towards fostering attitudes conducive to mutual understanding, tolerance and respect, thereby making societies less susceptible to violent conflict;

1.

Welcomes the EU's efforts towards PCD; underlines that PCD is not only a legal obligation, but that designing accountable, transparent, human-rights-based, and inclusive policies is a chance for the EU to establish equal and sustainable partnerships with developing countries that go beyond development cooperation; stresses as well that PCD-aligned policies give governments and societies of developing countries the chance, and the responsibility, to generate successes on their own;

2.

Believes that PCD must be based on the recognition of the right of a country or a region to define by democratic means its own policies, priorities and strategies to protect its populations' livelihoods in line with the UN International covenant on Economic, social and Cultural rights;

3.

Welcomes the eight areas of action for the years 2011-2014 chosen by the Commission in its proposal for a new policy on corporate social responsibility (CSR); underlines the importance of binding CSR obligations and of encouraging employers to apply social standards which are more ambitious than current statutory provisions, including the possibility to develop and obtain a designation such as a social label; calls on the Commission to support the Member States in carefully monitoring the implementation, and ensuring the legal enforcement, of these obligations, and insists that the upcoming initiative on CSR reflects the obligations towards PCD and moves towards binding CSR standards;

4.

Stresses that PCD is not merely a technical issue, but primarily a political responsibility, and that Parliament, as co-legislator and as a democratically elected institution, has a key responsibility for translating the commitments into concrete policies;

5.

Insists that the European Consensus on Development, including its definition of PCD, remains the doctrinal framework for the EU’s development policy, and that any attempt to revise or replace it in the context of the ‘Agenda for Change’ should involve the institutions that permitted its creation;

6.

Recalls that any new political orientation in the context of the 11th EDF emanating from the Agenda for Change must be compatible with the spirit and the letter of the Cotonou Agreement;

7.

Stresses that transparency in all areas is instrumental in achieving PCD as it can not only prevent unintended incoherence but is also effective where there are clashes of interest;

8.

Calls for the introduction of structured annual meetings between representatives of national parliaments of EU Member States and the European Parliament to ensure consistency in the spending of development aid;

9.

Points to the importance of knowledge building and expertise with regard to the complex issue of PCD; asks, therefore, the Commission to ensure that provisions are made to focus some DG Research programmes on issues relevant to PCD; recommends as well the elaboration and promotion of a strategy on development research in order to engage with DG Research and other research DGs, as well as other relevant bodies external to the Commission, e.g. the OECD and the World Bank;

10.

Insists that the questions regarding the economic, environmental and social impacts of policies inside and outside of the EU laid down in the Impact Assessments Guidelines from 2009 are answered in the Commission's impact assessments as well as in the impact assessments to be made by Parliament; asks the Commission also to complete the impact assessments in advance of the corresponding policy proposal in order to ensure that civil society organisations (CSOs) and other relevant stakeholders can participate in the process, thereby also creating an added value in terms of capacity;

11.

Underlines that the Impact Assessment Board of the Commission and the similar institution to be set up by Parliament need adequate expertise in development policies in order to live up to their responsibility to verify the quality of impacts assessments in terms of PCD;

12.

Suggests that a reference to PCD be included in reviews and ex-post evaluations of EU policies if adequate; takes the view that any evaluation exercise of programmes carried out under the European Development Fund (EDF) or the DCI should include an assessment of its consequences for PCD;

13.

Welcomes the inclusion of specific PCD commitments in the Danish Presidency's work programme and asks the next Presidencies to follow up on that example;

14.

Welcomes the Commission's third biennial report on PCD 2011, but agrees with the Council on the need to include an independent assessment of progress, including qualitative and quantitative consequences and costs of policy incoherence in future reports; suggests that future reports should also include a comprehensive overview of PCD-related results of the country-level dialogues, in order to make the voices of citizens of developing countries heard;

15.

Calls on the Member States and their national parliaments to promote PCD through a specific working programme with binding timetables, in order to improve the European PCD work programme;

16.

Agrees with the Commission that in the preparation of the next rolling PCD Work Programme, a wider discussion with the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Member States and all relevant stakeholders, for example NGOs and CSOs, is needed; agrees that fewer indicators, together with more precise and better monitoring, can lead to a more operational framework and easier monitoring;

17.

Asks the High Representative and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to confirm their important roles in making PCD a reality;

18.

Suggests making PCD a clear priority for the EEAS and the Delegations by further strengthening the EU's policy dialogue with CSOs, local parliaments and other stakeholders, by asking them to gather evidence on lack of either inconsistency or coherence, by improving the PCD references in programming documents and making them operational, and by developing a training programme, together with DG DEVCO, for all new EEAS staff to ensure that they are able to understand and apply PCD; points out that adequate resources to fulfil this task must be allocated to the Delegations and the headquarters;

19.

Underlines that EU delegations have a central role in designing and managing budget support, and that their resources should be ensured correspondingly;

20.

Recalls the paramount importance of Article 12 of the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement and the obligation for the Commission to regularly inform the Secretariat of the ACP Group of planned proposals which might affect the interests of the ACP States; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament when such procedures are undertaken;

21.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal to deepen the cooperation with the European Parliament and national parliaments on PCD by engaging in more exchanges with them on the subject and by accompanying them in acquiring specific analytical capacity to contribute to promoting PCD in the EU; proposes that these exchanges between national parliaments, the European Parliament and the Commission should come in the form of structured annual meetings which include clear objectives along with task-monitoring activities with the goal of strengthening PCD in the EU;

22.

Considers that public procurement should be effectively used to achieve the overall EU objectives of sustainable development and, therefore, that the future public procurement directives should enable sustainability criteria to be integrated throughout the procurement process;

23.

Welcomes that the Commission, in its Communication on "Trade, Growth and Development: Tailoring Trade and Investment Policy for Those Countries Most in Need", commits itself to support small producers and promote fair, organic and ethical trade initiatives, but regrets the lack of commitment to mainstream fair trade principles across EU policies;

24.

Deplores the publication of two separate reports on trade in general and on trade and development by the Commission which was counterproductive from the viewpoint of PCD;

25.

Regrets that GDP per capita is made the sole eligibility criterion for the GSP scheme, as this could run counter to the EU's development objectives; recalls its resolution of 8 June 2011 on "GDP and beyond – Measuring progress in a changing world" (6), which makes reference to the Human Development Index;

26.

Recalls the inconsistencies produced in the context of European Partnership Agreements, namely: a) that some countries are urged to sign an agreement before its exact terms are mutually agreed, b) that the Commission proposes to delete 18 countries from Annex I to the Market Access Regulation, and c) that human rights issues are not sufficiently addressed during negotiations;

27.

Takes the view that the OECD guidelines for multi-national enterprises should become binding standards in EU investment treaties for business and industry, ensuring that investment treaties include clauses on transparency and on the fight against illicit capital flows, along with full reporting on environmental and social issues by companies; points out that investment agreements should improve the rights and duties of governments to regulate economic activities in sensitive policy areas such as the environment and foster decent work in the broader public interest and in the longer-term interest of future generations;

28.

Deplores that the share of EU Aid for Trade (AfT) to LDCs declined to 16 % in 2010 (EUR 1,7 billion, as against EUR 8,7 billion to non-LDCs) from 22 % in 2009 (7); calls on the Commission to inform Parliament about the annual and/or multi-annual share of the EDF funds spent as AfT;

29.

Proposes that the Commission creates new momentum for sustainable public procurement at the international level, and that the resulting framework of the revision of the public procurement directives should give contracting authorities the policy space to make informed pro-development procurement choices;

30.

Calls on the Commission actively to promote, within the WTO, the suggestion of some donors to narrow the scope of the Aid for Trade Initiative in order to make it more monitorable, efficient and focused on key elements of the trade and development nexus, in order to make it more effective and to secure donors' financing;

31.

Draws attention to the publication of a revised IPR Strategy vis-à-vis third countries which should, from a development point of view, ensure adequate access to medicines and provide effective incentives for pharmaceutical research by making use of the TRIPs Agreement’s flexibilities in appropriate cases, such as health emergencies, and by making the Strategy compatible with the parallel agenda for "affordable access to medicine"; stresses as well that the link to the food security agenda is very important in this context, e.g. to ensure the protection of plant varieties and acknowledge the importance of diverse agricultural systems and traditional seed supply systems;

32.

Proposes the implementation of preferential trade rules that enhance green agricultural technology transfers in the WTO and in bilateral trade agreements with developing countries;

33.

Welcomes the creation in 2010,within the sustainable development team in Directorate-General for Trade, of a focal point for coordinating fair trade-related activities, which are an important example of how EU trade and development policy can be made more coherent and mutually supportive;

34.

Points out that fair trade between the EU and developing countries entails paying a fair price for the resources and agricultural products of the developing countries, i.e. a price which reflects the internal and external costs, while guaranteeing ILO's core labour standards for working conditions as well as international standards on environmental protection;

35.

Reiterates its call to address in an effective way the problem of conflict minerals and other resources related to conflict in developing countries that have resulted in the death and displacement of millions of people;

36.

Believes that developing countries should protect their economy and proceed to selective market openings, as was the case in Europe;

37.

Asks the Commission to further integrate internationally agreed labour and environmental standards into instruments like the EPAs and FTAs;

38.

Welcomes the fact that the relevance of smallholder farming for combating hunger is recognised by the EU and that adaptation measures are priorities in the food security agenda; underlines that support for women smallholder farmers is especially relevant;

39.

Reiterates that development concerns should be built into the entire process of decision making on the EU's agricultural policy, and calls for the establishment of flanking measures similar to the sugar-protocol accompanying measures (SPAM), if necessary;

40.

Repeats its call for regular and independent assessments and evaluations of the EU's agricultural and trade policies, paying special attention to impacts on local and smallholder producers, and building on evidence submitted by governments, farmers' organisations, civil society organisations and other stakeholders in developing countries which are EU trading partners;

41.

Urges the EU to strengthen EU-ACP supply chains and to support the strengthening of supply chains within the ACP countries themselves as both markets have developed in mutual dependence; suggests fostering the use of modern market management instruments in developing countries, such as transparency provisions, capacity building, technical regulations, or support with regard to contract negotiation, e.g. in the context of the Joint EU-Africa Strategy;

42.

Proposes to set up transnational twinning partnerships between Natura 2000 areas and similar agricultural ecological management areas in developing countries with the aim of: a) exchanging know-how on management of such areas by local authorities, local leaders and local farming communities to ensure that future management is sustainable, both ecologically and economically, and practicable, b) building capacity through twinning of the economic viability of business chains in these areas to contribute to sustainable food security in these areas, and c) implementing research to assist in the protection of agricultural diversity and biodiversity to assure the long-term survival of valuable and threatened species and habitat; proposes as well the establishment of a transnational twinning centre for learning and development of know-how between Natura 2000 areas and similar areas in third countries;

43.

Points out that timely information on changes in standards applied to agricultural products, or the application of alternative equivalent standards to imports by the EU, is essential to efforts in developing countries to facilitate long-term planning and ensure competitiveness on the basis of quality;

44.

Calls on the Commission to develop an integrated approach to nutrition, set up a dedicated trust fund to address the problem of malnutrition in developing countries, and mobilise the necessary resources to deliver the basic interventions that could prevent the vast majority of malnutrition, especially in the critical 1 000-day window between conception and age 2, which include encouraging optimum feeding and caring practices such as breastfeeding to avoid contaminated water, proper introduction of varied foods for infants, fortification of basic staples and vitamin supplementation; believes that such a trust fund would enable the leveraging and pooling of resources from Commission and Member States, and possibly other donors, and would enable better visibility of EU action in saving lives;

45.

Deplores the fact that only approximately EUR 418 million, or around 3,4 % of the total Commission development aid budget of EUR 12 billion per year, is currently allocated to direct nutrition intervention; believes that efforts to tackle malnutrition must be multi-disciplinary, engage multiple stakeholders and be in line with the national priorities of affected countries;

46.

Considers that the size of the EU market for fish, and the geographical range of activities by EU-flagged and EU-owned vessels, impose a high level of responsibility on the Union for ensuring that these activities are based upon the same standards in terms of ecological and social sustainability and transparency inside and outside Union waters; notes that such coherence requires coordination both within the Commission itself and between the Commission and the governments of the individual Member States;

47.

Reiterates that, in order to improve PCD, the negotiation of fisheries partnership agreements (FPAs) must be based on the contracting country's priorities for the suitable development of its fishing sector; stresses that FPA payments should be compatible with development objectives and that the impacts of FPAs should be closely monitored by the EU;

48.

Takes the view that PCD should be reinforced by: a) making DG-MARE and DG-Development jointly responsible for FPAs, b) applying relevant principles outlined in the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, EU commitments towards Policy Coherence for Development, and the EU-ACP Cotonou Agreement, c) incorporating human rights, anti-corruption and accountability obligations in all FPAs, and d) ensuring that FPAs are consistent with or contribute to the poverty reduction and human development objectives identified in the EU's Country and Regional Strategy Papers;

49.

Stresses that any access to fisheries resources in third countries' waters must respect not only Article 62 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) regarding surplus stocks but also Articles 69 and 70 on the rights of land-locked and geographically disadvantaged states within the region, taking into account the nutritional and socioeconomic needs of local populations;

50.

Proposes that, in line with the 2006 UN General Assembly resolution on Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs), the Commission should be given an unequivocal negotiating mandate for all RFMOs for promoting marine conservation and sustainable fisheries;

51.

Considers that any system of attributing fishing opportunities to countries within RFMOs must include the legitimate rights and aspirations of developing states to develop their own fisheries; insists that the EU oppose the introduction of Transferable Fishing Concessions schemes in RFMOs, since they would jeopardise the both the livelihood and the well-being of dependent communities in developing countries;

52.

Maintains that the Union’s development policy should be carried out within the framework of the obligation agreed in the United Nations and other organisations and competent international bodies, and that the contribution of fishing to development should be made within the framework of the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action and should contribute towards the main aim of Union development policy, which is to reduce and ultimately eradicate poverty in developing countries;

53.

Believes that the Union should contribute to development in the sphere of fisheries by supporting the principle of surplus fishing stocks and other rules laid down in UNCLOS as well as the application of the FAO Guidelines for responsible fisheries and the FAO Compliance Agreement on the conservation and management of fisheries resources at global level;

54.

Emphasises that the objectives of fisheries policy must be implemented on a basis of transparency and coherence with other Union objectives, and that their impact on development must be planned, measured and assessed, and regularly and systematically subjected to democratic control;

55.

Wishes to make it clear that fisheries cooperation agreements and the fisheries-related aspects of development cooperation agreements and EU trade agreements should contribute towards making fishing a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable activity for the EU and its partners;

56.

Regrets the fact that a substantial proportion of the objectives of the FPAs have not been achieved; regrets in particular the poor results attained in the fields of scientific and technological cooperation and support for the sustainable development of the fishing industry (and allied industries) in developing countries; believes these aspects can be improved through coherent policies and governance of international fishery activity;

57.

Stresses that the EU must ensure that the current reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is mainstreamed with its commitment towards developing countries to support the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals as well as the basic human right to food as recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

58.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that its external action in general, and the FPAs in particular, promote good governance and transparency and create the conditions for developing third countries to base their fisheries policies on the same guidelines and sustainability standards as the Common Fisheries Policy, including: the adoption of decisions based on scientific reports and impact studies and the drafting of multiannual plans allowing exploitation proportionate to the maximum sustainable yield of stocks; special support for small-scale fishing and aquaculture activities and the communities which depend on them; promotion of selective fishing and adaptation of fleet capacity to resources and more responsible fishing practices; the gradual reduction and ultimate elimination of discards; efforts to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; improvements to safety and welfare conditions at work; protection of biodiversity and the environment and measures to combat climate change; product quality and better marketing; and promotion of research and innovation in order to increase the sustainability of activities in the sphere of fisheries, aquaculture and associated industries;

59.

Stresses that the agreements and the industries which develop around them are contributing to the development of third countries and their future ability to exploit their own resources;

60.

Maintains firmly that, in their relations with third countries and their actions within international organisations, the Union and its Member States must contribute to building the capacities of societies and governments of developing countries to draw up, implement and monitor sustainable fisheries policies which increase their food security and contribute to their development;

61.

Advocates the joint formulation of models with objectives, actions and indicators with the aim of monitoring the use of the funds more effectively in a spirit of partnership; stresses that this monitoring must include the adoption of corrective procedures, to be agreed on with the third country, whenever a deviation of one of the parties from the objectives is observed;

62.

Welcomes the example of transparency that the EU has set in a global context by publishing the conditions of its FPAs; urges the Commission to continue its openness by ensuring that the evaluations of these agreements are also publically available, respecting the principles of the Aarhus convention, for the purpose of enabling local parliaments, civil society and other stakeholders to effectively scrutinise the implementation and impact of the agreements;

63.

Draws attention to the importance of the existence of transparent and up-to-date scientific data on fish stocks, on all fisheries agreements including those of the EU, and on total fishing effort in each country’s waters; considers that scientific assessment should precede the signature of agreements or at least that the agreements should contribute to the examination of data;

64.

Draws attention to the problem of illegal, unregistered and undeclared (IUU) fishing; recalls that many vessels do not duly report their catches and are not inspected, that the data supplied by vessels are not checked and that the species caught are not clearly identified; considers that the EU can and must make a more effective contribution towards overcoming these problems; urges the Commission, in all its international relations, to support the principle of flag state responsibility, which underpins international law and is fundamental to an efficient implementation of the IUU regulation;

65.

Advocates better linkage of FPAs to existing development policy instruments, particularly the EDF, and to conditions relating to access to EU markets for developing countries.

66.

Emphasises that fisheries cooperation is able directly to benefit the 150 million people on our planet who rely on fishing and fishery-related activities for their livelihood.

67.

Reiterates that more attention needs to be focused on maximising the synergies between EU climate change policies and the EU development objectives, especially in terms of tools and instruments used and the collateral development and/or climate change adaptation benefits;

68.

Stresses that an investment in education for sustainable development, including combating climate change, is an area where development aid can achieve multiple objectives at once, especially when women are targeted;

69.

Believes that the challenges posed by climate change must be addressed through structural reforms, and calls for a systematic climate change risk assessment of all aspects of EU's policy planning and decision making, including trade, agriculture, food security, etc., and demands that the result of this assessment be used to formulate clear and coherent country and regional strategy papers, as well as development programmes and projects;

70.

Calls for specific attention to be devoted to the special needs of smallholder agriculture and livestock farmers facing the consequences of climate change in any policy and agreements entailing possible reduction of, or constraints in the access to, resources for food production, such as land, water, mobility, among others;

71.

Repeats its call on the Commission and the Member States to collect country-specific and gender-disaggregated data when planning, implementing and evaluating climate change policies, programmes and projects, in order effectively to assess and address the differing effects of climate change on each gender and to produce a guide on adapting to climate change, outlining policies that can protect women and empower them to cope with the effects of climate change;

72.

Welcomes the proposals made in the European Report on Development 2011/2012 on an integrated and ecosystems-based management of water, energy and land, with those three resources being crucial for development; asks the Commission to follow-up on the proposals made in the report; points especially to the existence of significant EU and global governance gaps, and stresses the necessity of a change towards more sustainability in consumption and production patterns within the Union itself;

73.

Suggests that the EU should work in developing countries to promote investment, innovative approaches and high standards of corporate practice in the inclusive and sustainable use of water, energy and land; suggests as well that the emphasis on sustainable energy and agriculture in the 'Agenda for Change' should be complemented with interventions in the area of water;

74.

Calls on the Commission to report on the social sustainability of biofuels by the end of 2012 and to consult with affected communities and local NGOs beforehand; points out that this is an opportunity to propose an adequate methodology and cover the full impacts that European biofuels targets are having on food security, land rights and other development issues; recalls that the monitoring and reporting by the Commission foreseen in the proposed directive provides an opportunity, if appropriate, to propose corrective actions, based on lessons learned;

75.

Underlines the importance of guaranteeing that imported bioenergy is produced on the basis of acceptable working environments and employment standards and respecting local communities;

76.

Encourages the further development of second and third generation bioenergy from biomass by-products, wastes and residues;

77.

Asks the Commission to reconsider the 10 % target for biofuels from renewable sources by 2020 set forth in the Renewable Energies Directive, unless strict sustainability criteria are applied;

78.

Urges the Members States to allocate a significant share of the auctioning revenues from the European Emissions Trading System (ETS) to climate change-related activities in developing countries from 2013 onwards;

79.

Urges the Commission to propose an adequate and PCD-aligned methodology to calculate the effects of indirect land use change, reminding the Commission that such a methodology was due by the end of 2010;

80.

Stresses that the review of the EU’s arms exports due in 2012 must be based on comprehensive information in order to comply with the development objectives; points out that the publication of the Council’s Thirteenth Annual Report on control of exports of military technology and equipment raised questions about the reliability and usability of the data provided;

81.

Draws attention to the EU's pledges for democracy and human rights and for conditions such as those enshrined in the "more for more" approach concerning the EU's immediate Neighbourhood policy; stresses that their relevance can only be assured when no other policy area, and when no interaction with partner countries, counteract initiatives undertaken to strengthen human rights, human security and democracy in partner countries;

82.

Recalls the fact that arms exports are an inter-governmental issue and that PCD should be taken into account in this context; concludes that deciding whether to approve arms exports to developing countries in relation to the "sustainable development" criterion, i.e. criterion 8 of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, can be difficult, given that other policy considerations can override its application; recommends that Member States provide a full statement of the methodology used in relation to this criterion;

83.

Acknowledges the interdependence of development, democracy, human rights, good governance and security, which any discussion on PCD has to take into account;

84.

Takes the view that the concepts of human security and development should be considered as essential in the security-development nexus, as they are centred on the individual;

85.

Points out that coordination among peace-building, humanitarian aid and development activities in post-conflict situations should be improved in accordance with the "Linking Relief, Rehabilitation and Development" (LRRD) strategic framework in order to comply with the principles of PCD and human security, the latter still being undervalued; reminds the Commission that the Council had invited it to prepare an EU Action Plan on situations of conflict and fragility in 2009, and that the EU endorsed the New Deal for engagement in fragile states that was adopted at the Busan High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness;

86.

Emphasises that with the Council Working Group on Conventional Arms Exports being the main committee responsible for the EU's Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, it is imperative that development objectives are taken into account in this forum; calls on the Council to make the European Code of Conduct on Arms Exports legally binding;

87.

Stresses that 'brain drain' can cause serious problems in developing countries, especially in the health sector; acknowledges that 'brain drain' affecting developing countries is the result of a combination of structural causes and 'push and pull' factors; therefore asks the Commission to monitor the effects of the Blue Card system on developing countries and take corrective action if necessary; asks as well the Commission to promote the application of the "WHO Code of practice" regarding the international recruitment of health personnel to both the public and the private sectors;

88.

Underlines that it has to be guaranteed that mobility partnerships are consistent with the international human rights legal framework; asks the EU to prevent conditionality in development aid relating to migration reduction, in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations by the EU and its Member States;

89.

Insists that the external dimension strand in the Asylum and Migration Fund is fully coherent with the external aid instruments and EU development objectives; proposes that safeguards be put in place to prevent Member States from using this strand of funding merely to curb migration from developing countries;

90.

Supports a migrant-centred and human rights based approach to EU migration policy with the view to enable the Member States and partner countries to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all migrants and to enable migrants to claim their rights throughout the migration journey; emphasises that human rights-based and migrant-centred approaches will help to analyse, in a proper way, the root causes of forced migration – notably conflicts, climate change, unemployment and poverty – and ensure that the EU offers adequate responses to these, in line with PCD;

91.

Points out that it is expedient to involve diasporas and diaspora returnees as development agents, the latter being especially relevant in the context of the European financial crisis;

92.

Emphasises the need to further explain the parameters of complementarity and to put in place a coherent and integrated institutional dialogue to plan and manage external and internal funds addressing migration-related issues from a PCD and human rights perspective;

93.

Calls on the Commission and the ACP countries, in the ongoing revision of the ACP-EU Agreement, to include in Article 13 the principles of circular migration and its facilitation by granting circular visas; stresses that the article in question emphasises respect for human rights and equitable treatment of nationals of ACP countries, but that the scope of these principles is seriously compromised by bilateral readmission agreements with transit countries which, taken together, amount to an externalisation by Europe of the management of migration, and which do not guarantee respect for the rights of migrants and may result in 'cascade' readmissions that jeopardise their safety and their lives;

94.

Reaffirms the importance of co-financing NGOs as a principle that motivates grant beneficiaries to contribute to higher accountability and development effectiveness and that improves cooperation of all stakeholders, as recommended by the Istanbul principles (8);

95.

Solicits attention to emphasise the overall framework of good governance and respect for human rights and its catalytic role for development in partner countries in all policy dialogues, irrespective of the five core issues identified for PCD assessment purposes;

96.

Proposes that the concept of 'aid effectiveness' be complemented with the concept of 'development effectiveness' as the latter is more suitable to measure PCD and more convenient for deepening the dialogue with BRICS countries in the field of development policy;

97.

Draws attention to the cross-cutting nature of good governance programmes in developing countries, and encourages further efforts in this regard by the Commission; draws attention as well to the need, in the current period of multiple crises, for better global governance as it has an instrumental role to play in achieving global development; regrets that the Outcome Document of the UN Rio+20 conference lacks the commitment on resource conservation, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and economic sustainability that the EU had called for; urges, nevertheless, the EU to remain closely involved in defining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and in making them operational by 2015;

98.

Supports the Commission's proposal to create a comprehensive overview of the costs of policies that are not aligned with PCD, and of the benefits, or win-win situations, created by PCD-aligned policies that can be used both for further awareness-raising and training and as a basis for discussion with the European citizens and other affected stakeholders in order to overcome misconceptions which are still prevalent as regards the costs and benefits of PCD; such an analysis would be especially helpful in the fields of migration – where the EU should stress the linkages between migration and development policies, and provide constant information to its people on the benefits of these linkages – and sustainable energy;

99.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to develop a long-term, cross-sectoral EU strategy for development education, awareness-raising and active global citizenship;

100.

Calls on the Member States to develop – or strengthen – national development education strategies and programmes on education in sustainable development, and to make PCD part of their respective curricula;

101.

Points out that the ongoing initiative on Markets for Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) can make a valuable contribution to the fulfilment of the overarching objectives of the Union's development cooperation by including strict position limits and a strict limitation on exemptions from MiFID, and by strengthening the powers for regulators to intervene in specific products or activities;

102.

Reiterates that, in the interest of transparency and accountability, the EEAS and DEVCO should monitor how the division of responsibilities agreed between the Commission and the EEAS works in practice, and improve it in ways that avoid overlaps and ensure synergies;

103.

Refers to the fact that the EEAS has put forward the concept of "EU actorness" in order to increase the visibility of EU actions; takes the view that this makes PCD even more important, as every negative impact will be associated even more closely with the EU; urges the Commission to make sure that this concept does not contradict other objectives of development policy as formulated by the EU, especially the objectives of ownership and policy space for developing countries;

104.

Suggests that, in line with the Cotonou Agreement and the reference document on 'Engaging Non-State Actors in New Aid Modalities' (9), the EU delegations should undertake a comprehensive mapping of NGOs, CSOs and local authorities relevant for their work in the respective country, especially of local and community-based organizations;

105.

Reiterates that the creation of a Standing Rapporteur for PCD from the ACP countries in the context of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly would facilitate the coordination with, and work of, the EP's Standing Rapporteur on PCD and the relevant department of the Commission and Council, and would help to eliminate obstacles to PCD within developing countries themselves;

106.

Recalls that, in its June 2011 Communication on the Multi-Annual Financial Framework, the Commission had proposed extending the powers of scrutiny of the EDF to Parliament; regrets that this proposal does not feature in the legislative proposal for the 11th EDF;

107.

Underlines that a post-2015 international framework for development cooperation, in order to provide a more comprehensive approach to poverty eradication and sustainable development, should go beyond a traditional interpretation of development cooperation, leveraging policy coherence for development as an important mechanism and promoting rights-based approaches; points out that such a framework should go beyond the current concept of public action and aid and should involve all countries (developed, developing, emerging) and all actors (traditional and new donors, developing and developed country governments, and local authorities, the private sector, NGOs, social partners, etc.) in a coherent and inclusive process;

108.

Welcomes the fact that the social clause in Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) applies both within and beyond the EU’s borders;

109.

Stresses the need to ensure that the social provisions enshrined in EU trade agreements are implemented and properly monitored; considers it necessary to ensure that mechanisms for revision and enforcement are available;

110.

Calls on the Commission to include provisions on social standards and on the objectives of full and productive employment, taking into account gender equality and youth, decent work, respect for workers’ rights, including for migrant workers, and gender equality in all EU trade agreement;

111.

Stresses the need to support and spread collective bargaining as a tool for reducing labour market inequalities, ensuring decent work and wages, preventing social dumping and undeclared work, and ensuring fair competition;

112.

Underlines the necessity to respect the conditions of work contracts, stressing that the work performed by young people and women should not represent any type of exploitation, whether in the form of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery;

113.

Underlines the importance of CSR obligations, and of encouraging employers to apply social standards which are more ambitious than current statutory provisions, including the possibility to develop and obtain a designation such as a social label; calls on the Commission to support the Member States in carefully monitoring the implementation, and ensuring the legal enforcement, of these obligations;

114.

Stresses the importance of establishing PCD focal points also in developing countries to improve information exchanges, inter alia on issues beyond EU competences, such as the socially-inclusive use of resource rents or taxation and remittances, and the impact of the so-called ‘brain drain’ on countries of origin; calls on the Commission to mainstream social policy in the work of the EEAS; believes it is essential also for middle-income countries to commit an increasing proportion of their revenue to social purposes, notably by developing taxation systems and social protection;

115.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to pay greater attention to the participation and integration of migrants, particularly women and children, in receiving countries, and on the portability of social rights;

116.

Calls on the Commission to engage in social dialogue with non-EU labour organisations and trade unions about the implementation of social standards in their respective countries, and to ensure more adequate technical assistance for the implementation of social and fiscal policy;

117.

Asks the Commission to consider scaling up its support for culture-related programmes or cooperation projects with partners from developing countries due to their cross-cutting nature regarding the EU's development objectives;

118.

Highlights that planning for the provision of basic services, such as primary education, needs to focus more forcefully on those specific characteristics of particularly marginalised groups that make the provision of such services more difficult and that limit the ability of the groups to take advantage of what is available;

119.

Underlines the urgent need to change the humanitarian mindset and recognise the vital role of education, especially of education during conflict-related emergencies and in the aftermath of conflicts; regrets that education is still one of the most underfunded areas of humanitarian aid;

120.

Asks the Commission to consider the cross-cutting nature of ICTs in development policies, especially the positive influence they can have on the education system, and stresses that intellectual property rights, technology transfer and local capacity-building require particular attention in that context;

121.

Points out that true banking transactions using mobile phone technology (m-banking) should be distinguished from basic money transfers using such technology (m-payments), and stresses that the need to regulate international money transactions (e.g. to prevent money laundering or terrorism financing) must be reconciled with the need to promote affordable access to money for the poor through the use of mobile phones; suggests that collecting existing best practices would be a useful way to share knowledge and address those challenges;

122.

Regrets that budget support arrangements are still characterised by a lack of citizen and parliamentarian oversight of agreements and their implementation and monitoring;

123.

Reiterates that while budget support should be in line with efforts to promote democratic governance, strengthen developing countries' own economic resources, combat corruption and strengthen the accountability of public spending, it should in the first instance focus on poverty reduction;

124.

Reiterates that the EU's efforts to secure access to raw materials from developing countries must not undermine local development and poverty eradication but instead support developing countries in translating their mineral wealth into real development; stresses that the EU should support good governance, value-addition processes and the financial transparency of governments and commercial undertakings so that local mining sectors can act as catalysts for development;

125.

Stresses that financial transparency is essential for supporting revenue mobilisation and combating tax evasion; insists that the current reform of the EU Accounting and Transparency Directives should include a requirement for listed and large private extractive and timber companies to disclose payments made governments on a project-by-project basis, with reporting thresholds that reflect the size of the payments from the perspective of poor communities;

126.

Takes the view that, while there is a limit to what donor aid can achieve in terms of strengthening domestic accountability, some forms of aid can make a difference, from 'doing no harm' to actually strengthening existing domestic accountability systems, e.g. by involving local CSOs and parliaments of developing countries in the context of sector-wide approaches (SWAp);

127.

Regrets that global health funding and interventions are skewed toward high-visibility events, such as the Asian tsunami, as well as toward a few high-profile infectious diseases (such as HIV/AIDS), obscuring the fact that non-communicable diseases account for 63 % of all deaths worldwide and injuries account for 17 % of the global burden of morbidity, and that women and children die because of the failure to deliver basic care during pregnancy, childbirth and infancy;

128.

Stresses that it can, in line with its responsibility to protect the rights of clinical trials subjects in developing countries and to protect the health of EU citizens, use its right to initiate investigations; proposes that the actions of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) on certain issues – e.g. its actions to clarify the practical application of ethical standards to clinical trials – be monitored, making sure that EMEA is taking measures to harmonise the application of ethical standards by the responsible authorities;

129.

Asks the Commission to support local civil society groups, particularly women's groups and those that have an agenda focussed on gender issues, through accessible funding and through capacity-building in order for them to be able to fulfil their role as effective development actors and custodians of peace and good government, especially in fragile and conflict situations;

130.

Welcomes the EU plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in Development, and encourages the monitoring and implementation of gender mainstreaming in EU funded projects at country level; calls on the EU High Representative to take all measures needed to provide adequate and effective training to EU delegation staff members regarding a gender-sensitive approach to peace keeping, conflict-prevention and peace-building;

131.

Welcomes the Commission’s active work, both at the policy level and through its different funding instruments and budget support mechanisms, aimed at stepping up its commitment to foster women’s empowerment, particularly by seeking to integrate the priorities and needs of women in all key PCD areas;

132.

Emphasises the need to maintain reliable statistical data and to record the causes of maternal deaths in accordance with the WHO’s ICD Maternal Mortality coding, which can guide countries and help them improve the attribution and estimation of the causes of maternal mortality;

133.

Reaffirms its declaration A(2010)21584 of the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly;

134.

Calls for PCD to favour a participative approach that promotes the empowerment and self-determination of local people and, above all, of women;

135.

Reaffirms the importance of taking account of the situation of women, not simply as a vulnerable section of the population, but also as active facilitators of development policies; notes, in this context, that women are responsible for 80 % of farming in Africa, even if it is still rare for them to have the possibility of owning the land they cultivate; calls, therefore, not only for agricultural and fisheries policies to be integrated into PCD because of their impact on development, but also for them to be assessed in terms of their differential impact on women and men respectively;

136.

Stresses the importance of taking account of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable social groups, notably women and girls, and of paying particular attention to them in order to avoid any further increase in inequality; point out that, as experience has shown, ‘neutral’ measures entrench the existing power structure and that it is essential to take positive, informed, systematic action in the form of measures that improve the situation of women, so as to ensure that such measures benefit the most disadvantaged;

137.

Stresses that the policy of promoting equality between men and women should not only be the subject of a specific budget heading in the context of development policies, but should also be regarded as a cross-cutting issue, since every policy that has an impact on society affects women and men differently, given the persistence of gendered roles in society and the fact that PCD offers a practical means of preventing negative externalities from adversely affecting equality between men and women;

138.

Stresses the need for PCD to incorporate a global approach which extends beyond the family and microsocial level and takes gender relations into account; takes the firm view that this cross-cutting approach to gender issues needs to be incorporated in every development project and every analysis of a society; insist that this approach must apply not only to all sectors but in all political, economic, social, environmental, cultural and other fields; points out that such an approach, which systematically takes account of the situation and role of women and gender relations in a society, is more comprehensive, humanistic and democratic than an approach which sets women apart, in particular as it avoids marginalising women in ‘women’s projects’ or projects which add to women’s workloads or responsibilities without increasing their power or control over the benefits generated by the projects in question;

139.

Affirms that, while the success of development policies and, consequently, of PCD cannot be measured solely by general indicators that have already demonstrated their limitations, such as trends in GDP per inhabitant, other indicators, such as those relating to equality between men and women, should be able to provide a fuller picture of the overall effect of development policies; points out that data, broken down by gender, must therefore be collected on the spot in order to evaluate and enhance the impact of PCD;

140.

Stresses the role of women in leveraging development policies by participating in the formulation and implementation of such policies, thereby ensuring that political and economic negotiations take women’s interests into account and creating a virtuous circle in which women are the driving force behind development policies which, in turn, set up the structures whereby women can be empowered; highlights the importance of supporting civil society organisations and groups which take on the task of promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment;

141.

Notes that women play an essential part in development, since, in their role as mothers and carers for children and other dependent members of the family, they assume responsibility for the family’s general well-being; points out, by way of example, that women play a crucial role in the field of nutrition and food security, particularly in the context of subsistence farming;

142.

Stresses that the situation of women is, in many cases, deteriorating more than that of men, both in relative and absolute terms; notes with concern that there has been an increase in poverty over the last twenty years or so, which has primarily affected women;

143.

Stresses that, although the important role played by women in development policies and development cooperation is very widely recognised, the statistics and quantitative data which specifically relate to women are still inadequate and fail to meet the objective of reporting the situation of women in developing countries, particularly in fields such as health, education, prevention and meeting basic needs; stresses, therefore, that care must be taken to ensure that in all PCD objectives, analyses, documents and assessments the quantitative data is broken down by gender, and that gender-specific indicators are included, in order to take account of women’s real living conditions;

144.

States that every child, regardless of sex, has the right to life, survival and development, and reaffirms that girl children as well have equal status under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; calls on EU delegations in developing countries to work with the governments of those countries to ensure that girl children enjoy their rights without discrimination, inter alia by requiring the immediate registration of all children after birth, granting girls and boys equal entitlement to education and schooling, combating stereotypes and ending the unethical and discriminatory practices of prenatal sex selection, abortion of female foetuses, female infanticide, early forced marriage, female genital mutilation and especially child prostitution and sex tourism; reaffirms its resolution of 5 July 2012 on the forced abortion scandal in China (10)

145.

Stresses the need to ensure respect for the right of girl children to express an opinion and to be heard on matters affecting their health and human dignity, emphasising that the best interests of the child must be the first concern; highlights the need of all children, and of girl children in particular, to be brought up in a family environment of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, non-discrimination, gender equality and solidarity; calls for the strict implementation of the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child and of the Beijing Declaration on Women;

146.

Recalls that the EU and the Member States must take into account the rights and duties of the parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for the child, when dealing with the rights of the child in the context of development assistance; calls on the competent institutions to pay special attention to the relationships between parents and children, for example through programmes containing concrete measures specifically tailored to national requirements, seeking to provide maximum and optimum assistance for parents or guardians in the fulfilment of their parental duties in order to prevent family breakdown, child mistreatment or placement in social care as a result of serious poverty, or to ensure that such a measure is envisaged only as a very last resort;

147.

Asserts that, when implementing the specific clauses on the prohibition on coercion or compulsion in sexual and reproductive health matters agreed on at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, as well as the legally binding international human rights instruments, the EU acquis communautaire and the Union policy competencies in these matters, Union assistance should not be provided to any authority, organisation or programme which promotes, supports or participates in the management of any action which involves such human rights abuses as coercive abortion, forced sterilisation of women and men, determining foetal sex resulting in prenatal sex selection or infanticide, especially where such actions set their priorities in response to psychological, social, economic or legal pressure; calls on the Commission to present a report on the implementation of the Union’s external assistance covering this programme;

148.

Expresses great concern about the fact that gender-based violence, especially sexual violence, exploitation and feminicide, is widespread in many parts of the world, in particular in developing countries; stresses that upholding women’s rights, including their sexual and reproductive rights, and safeguarding the respect of their human dignity is essential in order to prevent and combat gender-based violence, provide protection and appropriate counselling to victims, and to ensure that perpetrators are punished; calls on the Commission to make the fight against impunity for the perpetrators of such violence one of the priorities for its development assistance policy;

149.

Points out that women are frequently discriminated against in terms of recognition of their struggles for peace, and that extreme suffering is inflicted on women as such in countries at war; maintains that action of this kind, including the rape of girls by soldiers, forced prostitution, forced impregnation of women, sexual slavery, rape and sexual harassment, and consensual abduction (by means of seduction), are crimes which must not be ignored; asserts that the EU must treat these as fundamental problems to be taken into account;

150.

Points out that particular attention should be paid to gender education of both sexes, starting from an early school stage, so as to gradually change societal attitudes and stereotypes towards parity of men and women;

151.

States that the assistance measures must take into account the specific features of crises or emergencies, and of countries or situations where there is a serious lack of fundamental freedoms, where human security is most at risk or where human rights organisations and defenders operate under the most difficult conditions; stresses that particular attention should be paid to situations in which women are being exposed to physical or psychological violence;

152.

Stresses the importance of promoting women’s human rights and of mainstreaming gender equality in the civil, political, social, economic and cultural spheres, as well as in national legislation;

153.

Underlines the importance of strengthening women’s role in promoting human rights and democratic reform, in supporting conflict prevention and in consolidating political participation and representation;

154.

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

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/40

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2011 on EU relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC),

—

having regard to the visit by its Delegation for relations with the Arab Peninsula to the United Arab Emirates from 29 April to 3 May 2012,

—

having regard to Article 30 of the Constitution of the United Arab Emirates,

—

having regard to the Arab Charter on Human Rights, to which the United Arab Emirates is a party,

—

having regard to its annual human rights reports,

—

having regard to the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy,

—

having regard to the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders of 2004, as updated in 2008,

—

having regard to the Co-Chairs’ statement at the 22nd EU-GCC Joint Council and Ministerial Meeting in Luxembourg of 25 June 2012,

—

having regard to the statement by the Vice-President / High Representative (VP/HR) following the EU-GCC Joint Council and Ministerial Meeting of 20 April 2011 and her remarks following the 22nd EU-GCC Joint Council and Ministerial Meeting of 25 June 2012,

—

having regard to the Cooperation Agreement of 25 February 1989 between the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council,

—

having regard to the Joint Action Programme (2010-2013) for the implementation of the EU-GCC Cooperation Agreement of 1989,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

—

having regard to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),

—

having regard to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (Palermo Protocol) and the UN Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and on the Rights of the Child (CRC),

—

having regard to the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children, of 12 April 2012,

—

having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the government of the United Arab Emirates has accelerated its crackdown on human rights defenders and civil society activists in 2012, bringing the number of political detainees to 64;

B.

whereas most of them are in incommunicado detention, there are allegations of torture, and they are being denied legal assistance;

C.

whereas the detainees include the vice-president of the Student Association of the United Arab Emirates, Mansoor al-Ahmadi, one sitting judge, Mohamed al-Abdouly, two former judges, Khamis al-Zyoudiand and Ahmed al-Za’abi, and two prominent human rights lawyers, Mohamed al-Mansoori – a former president of the Jurists’ Association – and Mohamed al-Roken;

D.

whereas employees of the Emirian lawyer who is offering the detainees legal assistance have allegedly been subjected to a systematic campaign of harassment and intimidation, including the deportation of three non-Emirian employees on grounds of national security; whereas lawyers who have travelled to the United Arab Emirates to offer legal assistance to the detainees have also been harassed;

E.

whereas human rights defenders and democracy activists have been subjected to harassment, travel bans, restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, arbitrary detention, revocation of nationality, deportation, and illegal imprisonment;

F.

whereas the authorities of the United Arab Emirates have insisted that their crackdown is a response to a foreign-inspired Islamist plot that aims to overthrow the government; whereas the detainees all have ties to al-Islah, a peaceful Islamist group that has operated in the United Arab Emirates since 1974; whereas the evidence indicates that national security is the pretext for a crackdown on peaceful activism designed to stifle calls for constitutional reform and reform on human rights issues such as statelessness;

G.

whereas a prominent human rights defender and blogger, Ahmed Mansoor, was attacked twice in recent weeks and has suffered constant intimidation and threats; whereas he spent seven months in jail in 2011 before his conviction in November for insulting the country’s senior officials; whereas the authorities have retained his passport and arbitrarily barred him from travelling;

H.

whereas, together with other activists, Mansoor was accused of insulting political figures in the country after arranging for and signing a petition calling for greater political participation via an elected parliament with full legislative and regulatory powers;

I.

whereas on 15 July 2012, in his statement, the public prosecutor, announced that the detained group of political opponents would be investigated for plotting ‘crimes against state security’, ‘opposing the UAE constitution and ruling system’, and having ties to ‘foreign organisations and agendas’;

J.

whereas while freedom of speech and press freedom are constitutionally protected in the United Arab Emirates, its penal code allows the authorities to prosecute people for speech which is critical of the government; whereas at least one online discussion forum has been closed down, and access from the United Arab Emirates to several political websites has been blocked;

K.

whereas prominent internationally renowned non-governmental organisations promoting democracy in the region were closed in 2012 by the authorities of the United Arab Emirates, notably the Dubai office of the National Democratic Institute and the Abu Dhabi office of the German pro-democracy think tank Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung;

L.

whereas, according to the report of the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, trafficking in persons for labour exploitation continues to be widespread in the United Arab Emirates and victims of such trafficking remain unidentified;

M.

whereas the government made little progress in implementing the CEDAW Committee recommendation in early 2010;

N.

whereas death sentences continue to be imposed in the United Arab Emirates;

1.

Expresses great concern about assaults, repression and intimidation against human rights defenders, political activists and civil society actors within the United Arab Emirates who peacefully exercise their basic rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and assembly; calls on the authorities of the United Arab Emirates to halt the ongoing crackdowns immediately;

2.

Calls for the unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience and activists including human rights defenders and calls on the authorities of the United Arab Emirates to ensure that detainees deemed to have broken the law be brought before a judge, be charged with a crime and be provided with the legal assistance of their choosing;

3.

Calls on the authorities of the United Arab Emirates to conduct thorough and impartial investigations into the assault and public threats made against Ahmed Mansoor and all the other cases of harassment and assault;

4.

Calls for the respect of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, both online and offline, freedom of assembly, women’s rights and gender equality, the fight against discrimination, and the right to a fair trial;

5.

Welcomes the accession of the United Arab Emirates on 19 July 2012 to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and urges the UAE authorities to affirm its commitment to its assumed treaty obligations by conducting thorough, impartial and independent investigations into the allegations of torture as well as allegations that individuals have been forcibly disappeared;

6.

Calls on the United Arab Emirates to affirm its intent to ‘uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights’ in line with its bid for membership of the UN Human Rights Council for 2013 to 2015 by ratifying the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and their optional protocols and by issuing a standing invitation to visit to all UN special procedure mandate holders;

7.

Condemns the application of the death penalty under any circumstance;

8.

Welcomes the adoption of the new EU human rights package and urges the European institutions, including the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, to take concrete actions, together with the 27 Member States, to ensure a clear and principled EU policy vis-à-vis the United Arab Emirates that addresses the ongoing serious human rights violations, through démarches, public statements and initiatives at the Human Rights Council;

9.

Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union and the European institutions to place human rights at the centre of its relations with all third countries, including strategic partners, with special emphasis on the next EU-GCC Ministerial Meeting;

10.

Believes that it is crucial to continue the efforts to increase the cooperation between the EU and the Gulf region and to promote mutual understanding and trust; considers that regular inter-parliamentary meetings between Parliament and its partners in the region are an important forum to develop a constructive and frank dialogue on issues of common concern;

11.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Government and Parliament of the United Arab Emirates, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Commission, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the parliaments and governments of the Member States, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the governments of the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/43

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the situation of women in Afghanistan and Pakistan (1),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on human rights and democracy in Pakistan, in particular those of 20 January 2011 (2) and 20 May 2010 (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 April 2012 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World and the European Union’s policy on the matter, including implications for the EU’s strategic human rights policy (4),

—

having regard to the statement of 10 October 2012 by the spokesperson of the High Representative on the shooting of a young human rights defender in Pakistan,

—

having regard to the statement of 10 October 2012 by the Executive Director of UN Women condemning the attack on Malala Yousafzai,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on intolerance, discrimination and violence on the basis of religion or belief, adopted on 21 February 2011,

—

having regard to the EU-Pakistan five-year engagement plan of March 2012, containing priorities such as good governance, cooperation in the field of women’s empowerment and dialogue on human rights,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on Pakistan of 25 June 2012, reiterating the EU’s expectations regarding the promotion of and respect for human rights,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘A special place for children in EU external action’ (COM(2008)0055),

—

having regard to Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR),

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of 18 December 1979 and the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women of 20 December 1993,

—

having regard to UN Security Council resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) on women, peace and security, and to UN Security Council resolution 1888 (2009) on sexual violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict, which emphasises the responsibility of all states to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including those relating to sexual and other violence against women and girls,

—

having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas on 9 October 2012 Malala Yousafzai, a 14-year-old girl from the Swat Valley, was singled out in the school bus on her way home, shot in the head and neck and severely wounded, while two other girls also sustained wounds in the attack;

B.

whereas Malala Yousafzai had become a national symbol of resistance against the Taliban’s efforts to deprive girls of an education through blogs she wrote since the age of 11, receiving in December 2011 the National Youth Peace Prize, which has been renamed in her honour the National Malala Peace Price;

C.

whereas the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have claimed responsibility for the attack and issued a statement after the attacks, claiming it was obligatory to kill anyone leading a campaign against Islamic law and announcing that the movement would attempt to kill Yousafzai again if she recovers from her injuries;

D.

whereas in Pakistan and many other Muslim countries protests have taken place in admiration of and solidarity with Malala Yousafzai and in condemnation of the brutal attack by the Taliban;

E.

whereas the security forces have reacted by arresting many suspects of the crime, and whereas the Pakistani Parliament has debated a motion condemning the attack, which has, however, met with resistance from the main opposition party, the Pakistan Muslim League-N;

F.

whereas the attack on Malala Yousafzai has been preceded in the last 12 months by the killing of human rights defenders Farida Afridi and Zarteef Afridi, allegedly for their work for women’s welfare and education;

G.

whereas in recent months Pakistan has continued to experience attacks by armed groups using terror tactics and influenced by and/or associated with the Taliban or Al-Qaida, including the TTP and those attacks have often targeted government sites, schools and civilians, including children, in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and urban centres;

H.

whereas, in 2011,11 incidents were reported of children being used by armed groups to carry out suicide attacks, children continued to be victims of indiscriminate attacks, including by improvised explosive devices and suicide bombings, a total of 57 children were killed during the reporting period by landmines, explosive remnants of war and improvised explosive devices, bomb blasts, shelling and targeted attacks and, on 13 September 2011, TTP allegedly attacked a school bus in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, killing four children;

I.

whereas, according to government figures, in 2012, 246 schools (59 girls’ schools, 187 boys’ schools) were destroyed and 763 damaged (244 girls’ schools, 519 boys’ schools) in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province as a result of the conflict with the Taliban, depriving thousands of children of access to education;

J.

whereas, from 2009 to the present, girls’ schools have continued to be directly targeted by armed groups in bomb and improvised explosive device attacks, resulting in 152 incidents of partial or complete destruction of school facilities in the FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in 2011; whereas the attacks were reportedly intended to avenge military operations in the region and were in opposition to secular and girls’ education; whereas the most recent attack on a girls’ school was perpetrated on 25 September 2012 in the Charsadda district;

K.

whereas the situation remains extremely serious for many women and girls in Pakistan, and whereas Pakistan is labelled the third most dangerous place in the world for women by the Global Gender Gap Index;

L.

whereas the Unesco’s Education For All (EFA) Global Monitoring Report of 16 October 2012 revealed that Pakistan had reduced the amount it spent on education to less than 2,3 % of the Gross National Product (GNP), despite having the second-largest number of out-of-school girls in the world;

M.

whereas girls often continue to be victims of domestic violence, trafficking and forced marriages or are traded in settlement of disputes;

N.

whereas, in most cases, the perpetrators of violence against women and girls remain unprosecuted;

O.

whereas, although there are a number of discriminatory laws against women in Pakistan, in 2011 and 2012 the Government of Pakistan introduced new legislation to tackle discrimination and violence against women more effectively, including laws against forced marriage, harassment of women at the workplace and at home, and acid attacks; whereas these laws are still awaiting implementation and enforcement;

P.

whereas the rise of Taliban control in certain territories is having negative consequences for women and girls, hindering them in the exercise of their rights;

Q.

whereas, in its five-year engagement plan of March 2012, the EU reaffirmed its commitment to building a strong long-term partnership based on mutual interests and shared values with Pakistan, supporting Pakistan’s democratic institutions and civilian government, as well as civil society;

R.

whereas, while the EU is prepared to pursue cooperation, it is counting on Pakistan to respect its international commitments, in particular in the field of security and human rights, including women’s rights;

S.

whereas on 5 June 2012 the EU and Pakistan announced that a Steering Committee on Counter-Terrorism was being set up with a view to closer cooperation in combating terrorism;

T.

whereas Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union states that the promotion of democracy and respect for human rights and civil liberties are fundamental principles and aims of the European Union and constitute common ground for its relations with third countries; whereas EU assistance in trade and development is conditional upon respect for human rights and minority rights;

1.

Strongly condemns the violent attack on Malala Yousafzai and the serious injuries inflicted on two of her classmates, noting that the assault constitutes a severe violation of the Rights of the Child, as well as an assault on both basic human values and all human rights defenders in Pakistan;

2.

Expresses its admiration at and acknowledgement of the courage and determination with which Malala Yousafzai has, since a very young age, engaged in the struggle for the rights of girls to receive education and has become a role model for many girls of her age; welcomes the swift medical action that was taken by Pakistani military medics and medics in the UK and strongly hopes that she will be able to fully recover from her serious injuries;

3.

Welcomes the widespread condemnation of the attack by large sections of Pakistani society, Islamic scholars and most major political parties; calls on all political parties to clearly condemn the TTP as the ones who have claimed responsibility for the attack;

4.

Expresses its support for all those Pakistani families who encourage the education of their daughters;

5.

Calls on the Government of Pakistan to ensure the safety of Malala Yousafzai and her family and to bring to justice those responsible for the assault; calls on the Government of Pakistan to ensure the safety of other human rights activists – particularly women and girls who become active in society and politics – who have received threats from the Taliban and other extremist groups; expresses its concern about the reported threats against 17-year-old Hinna Khan and her family;

6.

Is deeply concerned about the situation of women and girls and the repeated reports of violations of children’s and women’s rights in Pakistan, including reports of children being used by armed groups to carry out suicide attacks; stresses that closer international attention must be paid as a matter of urgency to the situation of women and girls in Pakistan;

7.

Is deeply worried about the worsening trend of violent extremism, which constitutes a serious threat to women and girls, and the use of intimidation and violence, which has already led to the blowing up of girls’ schools and the flogging of women in parts of the FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa;

8.

Urges the Pakistani authorities to prosecute those individuals and groups inciting violence, in particular those calling for the killing of individuals and groups with whom they disagree;

9.

Demands that much more be done by the Pakistani Government to trace the hundreds, if not thousands, of victims of enforced disappearance in Pakistan, including children, some of them girls as young as nine and ten years old; calls for the results of internal government investigations into the scale of this problem to be published;

10.

Welcomes the child protection policy in the FATA, launched on 10 January 2012, which is seeking to implement a plan for protective services and child protection units in all FATA agencies;

11.

Welcomes the fact that the Child Protection Act 2010, as already in force in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, is now to be extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA), including Swat, with immediate effect; hopes that the effective application of this act will help to bring the PATA under the writ of law;

12.

Urges the Government of Pakistan to use the current momentum to make real improvements to women’s and girls rights, reviewing and reforming parts of the Hudood Ordinances and the Law of Evidence, the Child Marriage Restraint Act and other pieces of legislation that violate the status and rights of women, making them subordinate in law;

13.

Welcomes the introduction of new legislation by the Government of Pakistan in 2011 and 2012 in order to tackle discrimination and violence against women more effectively, and calls on the government to ensure the actual implementation and enforcement of these new laws;

14.

Urges the Government of Pakistan to work closely with the UN and the EU in delivering on the Millennium Development Goals, in particular Goal 2 which states that ‘by 2015 all children, girls and boys, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling’; calls on the Pakistani Government to make it a priority to increase the number of girls receiving school education and to guarantee their safety while receiving education;

15.

Calls on the Government of Pakistan to increase funding for public schools and to take effective measures to impose a mandatory standard curriculum of basic education and an inspection regime on all privately or publicly owned madrassas, which are often the only source of education, especially in rural areas;

16.

Calls on the Commission to develop, jointly with the Government of Pakistan, education programmes aimed at improving the literacy and education of women in Pakistan as part of its development aid policy;

17.

Urges the Commission and the Council, as well as the international community, to significantly increase funds aimed at efforts to protect women and girls from rape, abuse and domestic violence and to support measures to enable civil society movements against discrimination of women and girls;

18.

Calls on the Commission to act upon its pledge to children in its communication ‘A Special Place for Children in the EU External Action’ and to ensure that the EU does all it can to promote and safeguard the rights of children;

19.

Insists that women’s and children’s rights should be explicitly addressed in all human rights dialogues, and in particular the issue of combating and eliminating all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls, in particular forced marriage, domestic violence and feminicide, and likewise insists that the invocation of any custom, tradition or religious consideration of any kind in order to evade the duty to eliminate such brutality should be rejected; believes that the prevention of the practice of child marriage is vital to ensure that the fundamental rights of adolescent girls in Pakistan are respected;

20.

Calls on the competent EU institutions to continue to emphasise the issue of religious tolerance in society in their political dialogue with Pakistan, given that this matter is of central importance to the long-term fight against Islamist extremism;

21.

Urges the competent EU institutions to insist that the Government of Pakistan must uphold the democracy and human rights clause enshrined in the cooperation agreement between the European Union and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; reiterates its call on the European External Action Service and the EU Special Representative for Human Rights in particular to regularly report on the implementation of the cooperation agreement and the democracy and human rights clause, including the exercise of women’s and children’s rights;

22.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the European External Action Service, the Vice-President of the European Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, UN Women, the UN Human Rights Council and the Government and Parliament of Pakistan.

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/48

—

having regard to the reports of 16 July and 24 September 2012 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia,

—

having regard to the 21st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council of 24 September 2012,

—

having regard to the Statement by the Spokesperson of the EU High Representative Catherine Ashton of 1 October 2012 on the sentencing of human rights defenders in Cambodia,

—

having regard to the recommendations of the EU Election Observation Mission report on the National Assembly Elections of 27 July 2008 in Cambodia,

—

having regard to the joint letter of 1 October 2012 from ten NGOs to the EU Trade Commissioner de Gucht,

—

having regard to the EU ‘everything but arms’ (EBA) trade scheme, which allows all least developed countries (LDCs), including Cambodia, unhindered access for all it’s exports, except arms, to the EU,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Cambodia is a party,

—

having regard to the 1998 UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,

—

having regard to the Cooperation Agreement of 1997 between the European Community and the Kingdom of Cambodia (1), in particular Article 1 (respect for human rights), Article 19 (non-execution of the agreement) and Annex 1 regarding Article 19 (suspension of the agreement if one party violates Article 1),

—

having regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the UN General Assembly during its 62nd session on 13 September 2007,

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on Cambodia, especially the one of 21 October 2010 (2),

—

having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the latest report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia recognises that after two decades of conflict, and since the Paris Peace Accords in 1991, Cambodia has made progress in strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law;

B.

whereas four human rights defenders accused of anti-state crime – Mom Sonando, Head of the Association of Democrats of Cambodia and Director of Beehive Radio, and his co-defendants, Phorn Sreoun, Touch Ream and Kann Sovann – were sentenced by the Phnom Penh Municipal Court on 1 October 2012;

C.

whereas the security forces continue to use excessive force against protestors; whereas on 26 April 2012 Chut Wutty, a leading environmental campaigner who investigated illegal logging, was shot dead by the police; whereas on 22 May 2012 thirteen women activists from Boeung Kak area were arbitrarily arrested and sentenced to lengthy prison terms for holding a peaceful protest at the development site affecting their community; whereas they have been released upon international pressure though their convictions have been upheld; whereas on 16 May 2012 a 14-year old girl, Heng Chantha, was shot dead by the security forces and no investigation into her death is taking place;

D.

whereas due to the Government’s Economic Land Concession (ELC) policy, over the past decade at least 400 000 people have been displaced and dispossessed of their land, homes and livelihoods by the authorities and by businesses, leading to violent clashes with communities and having aggravating effects on poverty;

E.

whereas as of August 2012 the Cambodian Government has granted at least 2 157 744 hectares of economic land concessions to over 200 companies, often in violation of the provisions of the 2001 Land Law and bypassing legal safeguards such as the obligations to prevent concessions in protected areas, undertake social impact assessment and obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities;

F.

whereas the Prime Minister, Hun Sen, issued in May 2012 a directive establishing a moratorium on new economic land concessions and stipulating a review of the existing concessions; whereas despite the directive at least 12 new concessions were granted, since a loophole in the directive allows conclusion of new land concessions already in an advanced stage of negotiations or agreed to in principle; whereas there has been no real review of existing land concessions and none of the problematic ones have been cancelled;

G.

whereas according to the main findings of the UN Special Rapporteur’s report, major flaws exist in the administration of elections in Cambodia and urgent reforms are needed to give Cambodians confidence in the electoral process as the country approaches its general elections in July 2013;

H.

whereas following Cambodia’s last national elections, the EU Election Observation Mission in Cambodia concluded that the elections did not meet international standards for democratic elections and called on the Cambodian Government to undertake a number of fundamental electoral reforms;

I.

whereas the EU is Cambodia’s single largest donor;

1.

Condemns all politically motivated sentences and convictions against political critics, parliamentary opposition politicians, notably Sam Rainsy, human rights defenders and land activists, and deplores the deaths of Chut Wutty and Heng Chantha, both killed while exercising their right to peaceful protest;

2.

Calls for an immediate and unconditional release of Mom Sonando and other government critics and land rights activists who are being held for political reasons only;

3.

Stresses that all those responsible for human rights violations should be identified and held accountable for their actions;

4.

Underlines the importance of the UN Special Rapporteur’s conclusion that the serious and widespread human rights violations associated with land concessions need to be addressed and remedied;

5.

Urges the Cambodian Government to cease all forced evictions, review the May 2012 directive and introduce and enforce a moratorium on evictions in Cambodia until a transparent and accountable legal framework and relevant policies are in place to ensure that future economic land concessions are granted in accordance with international human rights law and to ensure that all those forcibly evicted are guaranteed adequate compensation and suitable alternative accommodation;

6.

Calls on the Commission to investigate the escalation of human rights abuses in Cambodia as a result of economic land concessions being granted for agro-industrial development linked to the export of agricultural goods to the European Union, and to temporarily suspend EBA preferences on agricultural products from Cambodia in cases where human rights abuses are identified; notes the decision of the Prime Minister of Cambodia to halt new economic land concessions and his pledge to review existing concessions;

7.

Urges the Cambodian Government, the National Election Committee and the provincial election committee to implement the recent UN recommendations on reforming the electoral system to ensure it conforms with international standards before, during and after the casting of votes; calls on the Commission closely to monitor the implementation of the UN recommendations by the Cambodian authorities;

8.

Is concerned about the situation of Sam Rainsy, the leader of the Sam Rainsy Party, who has been convicted on charges that are allegedly politically motivated; urges the Cambodian Government and opposition parties to work towards reconciliation in order to enable the opposition to play a full role in Cambodian politics and in the forthcoming elections, in order to provide credibility to the electoral process;

9.

Encourages the Cambodian Government to strengthen democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms – in particular media freedom and freedom of expression and assembly – as these values constitute an essential element of the EU-Cambodia Cooperation Agreement, as defined in Article 1 of that Agreement;

10.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Government and National Assembly of the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the governments and parliaments of the EU Member States, the governments of the ASEAN Member States, the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/51

—

having regard to the Commission communications entitled ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’ (COM(2011)0500), ‘A framework for the next generation of innovative financial instruments – the EU equity and debt platforms’ (COM(2011)0662) (‘the communication on financial instruments’), ‘A growth package for integrated European infrastructures’ (COM(2011)0676), ‘An action plan to improve access to finance for SMEs’ (COM(2011)0870) and ‘A pilot for the Europe 2020 Project Bond Initiative’ (COM(2011)0660),

—

having regard to the Commission proposals, in particular the proposal for a Council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (COM(2011)0398), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the annual budget of the Union (COM(2010)0815), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks (COM(2011)0659), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (COM(2011)0809), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (2014-2020) (COM(2011)0834), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing the Creative Europe Programme (COM(2011)0785), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing ‘Erasmus For All’, the Union Programme for Education, Training, Youth and Sport (COM(2011)0788), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (COM(2011)0665), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation (COM(2011)0609), the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (COM(2011)0615/2),

—

having regard to the Commission working documents entitled ‘Financial Instruments in Cohesion Policy’ (SWD(2012)0036) and ‘Elements for a Common Strategic Framework 2014 to 2020 – the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund’ (SWD(2012)0061) (‘the common strategic framework for the structural and cohesion funds’),

—

having regard to the European Court of Auditors special reports No 4/2011 on the audit of the SME Guarantee Facility and No 2/2012 on financial instruments for SMEs co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, and to Opinion No 7/2011 of the Court of Auditors on the proposal for a regulation on the structural and cohesion funds,

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 entitled ‘Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (1), and its resolution of 6 July 2011 on the financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0270/2012),

A.

whereas, since the early years of the last decade, the EU institutions have developed a series of innovative financial instruments (IFIs) based on arrangements combining grants from the Union budget with public and/or private funding in order to boost the volume of investment available to achieve the Union’s strategic objectives;

B.

whereas, under point 49 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, ‘the institutions agree that the introduction of co-financing mechanisms is necessary to reinforce the leverage effect of the European Union budget by increasing the funding incentive. They agree to encourage the development of appropriate multiannual financial instruments acting as catalysts for public and private investors’;

C.

whereas it is estimated that approximately 1,3 % of the EU budget is currently devoted to IFIs, the Union having created, within the 2007-2013 MFF, 14 such instruments in the field of internal policies (EUR 3 billion, or 3,4 % of the available budget, under heading 1a, and approximately EUR 5,9 billion for regional and cohesion policy) as well as 11 in the field of external policies (EUR 1,2 billion, or 2,2 %, under budget heading 4, without taking into account those IFIs created in connection with the European Development Fund);

D.

whereas the Union has already acquired experience in the management of IFIs, and numerous relevant evaluations and comparative impact assessments have been published;

E.

whereas, according to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe, the implementation framework of the innovative financial instruments should be decided through the ordinary legislative procedure, in order to ensure a continuous flow of information and participation of the budgetary authority regarding the use of these instruments across the Union, allowing Parliament to verify that its political priorities are met, as well as a strengthened control on such instruments from the European Court of Auditors;

1.

Recalls that the introduction of IFIs at European level was seen as a way of enabling the Union to stimulate investment in the real European economy in line with the Union’s objectives at a time when, against the background of a constant fall in the volume of resources allocated to its budget, its political ambitions, and thus its needs, were steadily growing;

2.

Emphasises that the ultimate purpose of and the rationale for IFIs is that they should act in situations of market failure or suboptimal investment as a catalyst which makes it possible, on the basis of a contribution from the Union budget, to mobilise funding – public and/or private – for projects which can secure no support, or only inadequate support, from the market; points out that intervention by the public sector thus makes it possible to reduce the risk-related costs, by defraying part of those costs, thereby facilitating the implementation of the projects concerned;

3.

Points out that the IFIs developed thus far have been used to carry out an extremely wide variety of interventions, ranging from the taking of stakes in equity/venture capital funds to the provision of guarantees/counter-guarantees to financial intermediaries (in particular banks), via the creation jointly with financial institutions of risk-sharing instruments in order to stimulate investment, innovation and research;

4.

Notes that this variety is justified by the diversity of areas covered (support for SMEs, energy, climate change, employment and micro-credit, research and innovation, transport infrastructure, information technologies);

5.

Emphasises that the use of IFIs is governed by strict legislative (agreement of the legislative authority required) and budgetary rules; notes that the use of IFIs does not generate unforeseen costs for the Union budget, in that the liability borne by the Union budget is limited to the amount of the Union contribution committed to the IFI in question on the basis of annual budget appropriations, as agreed by the budgetary authority, and there shall not give rise to contingent liabilities for the Union budget; points out that in fact IFIs contribute to the sound and efficient management of public funds, given that the contribution paid from the budget may generate proceeds which can be reinvested (reflows) in the IFI concerned, thereby strengthening its capacity to provide support and enhancing the effectiveness of public-sector action; stresses the need, therefore, for IFIs funded operations to be properly audited by the EU Court of Auditors and for the co-legislators to be fully informed about any findings;

6.

Points out that there are three types of investment situation: 1) optimal, where the investment is certain to generate a return and allows financing by the market, 2) sub-optimal, in which there is a return but it is not sufficient to secure financing by the market and justifies the use of an IFI, and 3) investment characterised by little or no return, which necessitates intervention by the Union in the form of grants, which may be combined with IFIs if the project permits;

7.

Reiterates that the increased use of IFIs should not turn into a strategy to reduce the size of the Union budget but should serve to optimise its use, and welcomes the fact that in its communication on IFIs, as referred to above, the Commission acknowledges that ‘the intention behind an increased use of innovative financial instruments is (…) not to replace grant funding with financial instruments’;

8.

Emphasises that the experience gained thus far with IFIs is satisfactory in overall terms, even if their multiplier effect varies substantially depending on the area of intervention, the sectoral objectives to be achieved with IFIs, the type of IFI proposed and the arrangements for its implementation;

9.

Points out that in the area of internal Union policies, IFIs are implemented either at European level (managed by the Commission itself or on the basis of authority delegated by it) or at the national level in the context of regional and cohesion policy (managed jointly with the Member States);

10.

Emphasises that the implementation of IFIs thus depends on the involvement of a chain of actors running from the Commission, as the body responsible for disbursing funds under the Union budget, to the EIB group (European Investment Bank and European Investment Fund), via banks, whether national or local, commercial or specialising in investment or development, and private and public investors; stresses that, more generally, their success is contingent on the mobilisation of public, quasi-public and private financial intermediaries whose objectives vary depending on the area of intervention (micro-credit institutions, guarantee funds for SMUs, regional development organisations, research support funds, etc.);

11.

Notes, in particular, substantial differences between the IFIs managed centrally at Union level and those implemented on the basis of shared management in the areas of regional and cohesion policy or external relations;

12.

Notes that in the cohesion policy field IFIs have been performing differently across Member States and across types of IFIs; acknowledges that IFIs in the context of cohesion policy have been beset by poor legislative framework resulting in delays in implementation, problems in achieving critical mass and substantial multiplier effect, and lack of oversight and coordination; welcomes in this regard the Commission's proposal to strengthen the legislative framework and thus enhance the use of IFIs in cohesion policy in the next programming period (2014-2020);

13.

Notes, as regards the use of IFIs in the external policy field, that the number of international financial institutions involved is very high, as is the multiplier effect generated by the Union contribution, but that the range of instruments, the number of which has increased in recent years in particular and now totals 13, is too wide;

14.

Notes that these IFIs are implemented on the basis of agreements even more complex than those concluded in the internal policy field and involve a range of different management procedures and actors (EBRD, international organisations);

15.

Notes that, under these conditions, there is sometimes a lack of visibility surrounding the effect of Union budget action on economic operators and citizens;

16.

Notes that in the external policy field most IFIs generate reflows which can be reinvested, whereas in the internal policy field the reverse is true;

17.

Notes that, depending on requirements, IFIs have developed in accordance with different strategic objectives and resources and not always in a coordinated manner, which has given rise to problems of overlapping;

18.

Notes that implementing IFIs takes time and calls for sophisticated investment skills, careful preparation of projects and detailed knowledge of market mechanisms, but that potentially such instruments can improve the management and effectiveness of the projects supported, through the combination of skills and know-how specific to the actors involved; points out that IFIs offer an incentive to pool financial and human resources with a view to achieving common and strategic European objectives;

19.

Notes that for the period 2014-2020, the Commission is proposing for the internal policy field a small number of IFIs with a broader scope; welcomes this development, which should improve the visibility of these instruments for actors, help them achieve critical mass and improve the way the risk associated with these instruments is spread and diversified, on the basis of a portfolio approach;

20.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal to create platforms for the equity and debt instruments; notes that these platforms are designed to simplify and standardise the IFIs implemented under the Union budget and make them more coherent in overall terms; stresses that for the platforms to be operational and successful in implementation, the framework for application and other technical details should be presented in a timely manner and certainly before the start of the next programming period 2014-2020;

21.

Draws attention, in this context, to the imminent creation of a Union platform for external cooperation and development, designed to improve the quality and effectiveness of the ‘blending’ (combination of grants and loans) mechanisms used in the context of those policies, whilst taking proper account of the regional frameworks governing the Union’s relations with its partner countries; notes that the purpose of the platform is to facilitate both the assessment of the existing external policy instruments and the design of the new instruments for the period 2014-2020;

22.

Welcomes the fact that the application of financial instruments (FIs) is being extended under the cohesion policy to all thematic objectives and all CSF funds, and to those projects, project groups or parts of project programmes that will generate income and profits and which therefore are appropriate for FIs in the next programming period; stresses, nevertheless, that a better overview of applied FIs is necessary in order to mitigate the risk of poor coordination and overlapping of different schemes;

23.

Notes that uniform model instruments will be made available to national management authorities (‘off-the-shelf instruments’); takes the view that their success will be contingent on timely introduction of technical details and more intensive upstream exchanges of information between the Commission and local authorities;

24.

Welcomes the fact that Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 is henceforth the legislative framework of reference for the definition, design and use of IFIs, thereby ensuring compliance with the objectives and interests of the Union;

25.

Takes the view that the creation of the platforms referred to above could be accompanied by the introduction of continuous, centralised coordination of IFIs by the Commission; notes that an interdepartmental experts group on financial instruments (FIEG) has been set up, and considers that it should be given the task of strengthening the Commission’s institutional capacity to monitor IFIs;

26.

Takes the view that the introduction of innovative IFIs under the umbrella of the Union will help put finance at the service of the real economy for projects with European added value;

27.

Emphasises that since the mid-1990s, public investment in the EU has been falling steadily, and that this trend has become more pronounced since the start of the financial crisis in 2008; notes, further, that project promoters are facing a credit squeeze and are finding it more difficult to borrow money on the capital markets; is convinced, therefore, that the continued development of IFIs at national and Union level could become a contributing factor if the Union is to ensure a coordinated return to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

28.

Emphasises that, according to Commission estimates, implementing the EU 2020 Strategy and its seven headline initiatives would require investment throughout the Union totalling EUR 1 600 billion between now and 2020; notes that these investments meet objectives ranging from the implementation of major infrastructure projects to the provision of support for smaller-scale projects that offer significant potential for growth at local and regional level, including measures to foster social cohesion;

29.

Reiterates that IFIs are intended to help or facilitate projects regarded as fundamental to the achievement of the Union’s strategic objectives, and must therefore take better account of, and fit in with, programme time scales;

30.

Firmly believes that IFIs must address one or more specific policy objectives of the Union, in particular those outlined by the EU 2020 Strategy, operate in a non-discriminatory fashion, have a clear end date, respect the principles of sound financial management and be complementary to traditional instruments such as grants, thus improving the quality of spending and contributing to the guiding principles of ensuring optimal use of financial resources;

31.

Takes the view that innovative IFIs can facilitate the implementation of public-private partnerships by attracting more private capital for public infrastructure projects;

32.

Emphasises the importance of ex ante assessments in identifying situations of market failure or sub-optimal investment conditions, investment needs, potential private sector involvement, possibilities for economies of scale and questions of critical mass, and in verifying that the instrument does not distort competition within the internal market and does not violate the rules on State aid; calls on the Commission to propose objective, polythematic and relevant criteria to govern the role and use of ex ante assessments; believes firmly in the principle of evidence-based policy making, and believes that such assessments will contribute to the efficient and effective running of IFIs;

33.

Regards it as essential, as part of a results-based approach, that a reasonable number of simple qualitative and/or quantitative indicators should be incorporated into the ex ante and ex post assessments of all IFIs, both as regards the financial performance of the instrument and as regards its contribution to achieving the Union’s objectives; takes the view that this requirement must not serve to impose an excessive administrative burden on project managers; emphasises, in this respect, the break in continuity in the use of an innovative IFI that may ensue from its requisite ex post assessment;

34.

Notes, however, that the increase in the number of IFIs is posing many challenges in the areas of regulation, governance and the monitoring of their effectiveness, and that it is essential to strike a balance between the need for transparency and monitoring, on the one hand, and a sufficient level of effectiveness and speed of implementation, on the other; takes the view that reducing the number of the financial instruments could minimise disparities and ensure a sufficient critical mass;

35.

Emphasises, therefore, the importance of a legal framework which is as simple, clear and transparent as possible, which does not increase the administrative burden on intermediaries and recipients and which makes IFIs attractive to public and private investors;

36.

Takes the view, in particular, that the rules on reporting should be improved in order to be clear and, as far as possible, uniform, so that a reasonable balance can be struck between the reliability of information and the attractiveness of IFIs; calls on the Commission to put in place the appropriate management and control systems that will ensure the enforcement of the existing auditing rules;

37.

Calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with a single, separate annual summary report on IFIs, covering the purposes for which they are used and their performance by type of fund, thematic objective and Member State;

38.

Given the inherent lack of visibility of these financial instruments, urges the Commission to take measures to ensure adequate communication about this type of intervention using the European budget, directed not only to potential investors but also to European citizens; underlines the importance of an extensive EU-level information campaign on the new financial instruments in order to allow access for all investors, regardless of the size of the institution they represent;

39.

Stresses that the leverage and multiplier effects vary considerably from one area of intervention to another; takes the view that the European legislator must not set targets that are too uniform in this field since these effects are, by their very nature, determined to a large extent by economic circumstances and by the characteristics of the area concerned;

40.

Emphasises that the scope for implementing IFIs is still vague, and likely to change quickly; notes, accordingly, that the creative capacity, or the capacity for flexibility and adaptability to local circumstances, should be as high as possible; proposes, therefore, that it should be possible for the budgetary authority to adjust the annual amount allocated to each instrument if this is likely to facilitate the achievement of the purposes for which it was created;

41.

Reiterates that the reinvestment of interest and other income generated by a given instrument in that instrument (‘reflows’) must be the principle governing all IFIs, and that any exception to this rule must be duly substantiated; welcomes the progress in this sense recorded by the new Financial Regulation that is to come into force next year;

42.

Believes that it is vital to develop the ability and technical capacity of managing authorities, financial intermediaries and banks and local authorities to use and manage IFIs; recommends that exchanges of expertise should be stepped up between all these actors, in particular those familiar with the relevant national market, ahead of the adoption by the Commission of the implementing act intended to define the standardised instruments made available to the Member States; regards it vital that such exchanges are effected in a timely manner if cultural obstacles are to be overcome, ownership of IFIs is to be guaranteed and such instruments are to be ensured every chance of success;

43.

Believes that the role of various national and regional banking institutions needs to be acknowledged, given their necessary experience and know-how in addressing local and regional specificities of relevance to the development and implementation of financial instruments;

44.

Takes the view that the innovative nature of IFIs requires the establishment of a framework for the coordination of public financial institutions that will be delegated the power of budgetary implementation of the IFIs, and which would involve representatives of the Commission, the Council and Parliament;

45.

Welcomes the prompt agreement reached between Parliament and the Council on the implementation of a pilot phase (2012-2013) for project bonds in the areas of transport, energy and information technologies (3); expresses its willingness, on the basis of the full-scale independent evaluation of this pilot phase, to assess what future steps are to be taken in order to enhance the efficiency of Union spending as well as to increase investment volumes towards priority projects;

46.

Requests as a matter of urgency, therefore, that the project bonds initiative be implemented and that an accurate evaluation be carried out of the appropriateness of a new, separate initiative for the issuing of European bonds for infrastructure, with the direct participation of EU capital in infrastructure projects in the common interest, with strong European added value, through the public issuing of project bonds on the part of the Union;

47.

Believes that the European Union would send a powerful signal to public and private investors, as well as to financial markets, by participating directly, alone or with other Member States, in the capitalisation of infrastructure projects (characterised by long-term return on investment); believes that this EU participation in an investment capacity should ensure consistency with the Union’s long-term policy objectives and would represent a guarantee of realisation of the project, serving as a strong catalyst and an equally strong lever;

48.

Welcomes, also, the agreement reached at the European Council meeting of 28 and 29 June 2012 to increase the EIB’s capital by EUR 10 billion, which will enable the EIB group to boost its lending capacity within the Union in coming years by approximately EUR 60 billion, and thus play a welcome countercyclical role as part of the concerted efforts to revive the European economy; points out that it is generally acknowledged that EIB loans have a multiplier effect of three; emphasises, therefore, that this new commitment must not undermine the parallel efforts to strengthen and improve the joint EIB-Union budget instruments used to share risk and take equity stakes, since these are used to support other types of projects and measures than those covered by EIB loans and have a higher multiplier effect than such loans;

49.

Draws attention to the fact that, irrespective of the degree to which IFIs fulfil their intended purpose, they will generate their full impact only if the overall legal and regulatory environment is conducive to their development, as reflected, for example, in the treatment of long-term investments under the prudential rules which are currently undergoing revision (Basel III, Solvency II);

50.

Is confident that the greater use of IFIs will have an extremely positive impact on the European economy, but fears that, in practice, this will be limited to projects offering short- to medium-term returns; fears that investment in projects equally fundamental to the achievement of the EU’s strategic objectives for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth may not be realised because such projects are deemed too risky for investors, and because public funds are lacking; calls, therefore, on the Commission to submit, as quickly as possible, proposals to facilitate the release of savings, an underused resource at present, to support medium- and long-term projects which generate sustainable growth in the Union;

51.

Takes the view that if the critical mass of a given innovative IFI is sufficient, this could be very attractive for the private capital market in light of the reduced risk resulting from the sizeable volume of the project portfolio and the possible fluidity of trade in the markets;

52.

Emphasises the need to ensure that the possible emergence of a ‘mixed financial economy’ does not result in innovative IFIs becoming complex derivatives that can be securitised or diverted from their original purpose;

53.

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

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/59

—

having regard to the annual report on the activities of the European Ombudsman 2011,

—

having regard to Article 24, third paragraph, Article 228 and Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

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

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 June 2008 (1) on the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament amending its Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994, on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (2),

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement on Cooperation concluded between the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman on 15 March 2006, which entered into force on 1 April 2006,

—

having regard to the implementing provisions of the Statute of the Ombudsman of 1 January 2009 (3),

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A7-0297/2012),

A.

whereas the annual report on the European Ombudsman’s activities in 2011 was formally submitted to the President of Parliament on 22 May 2012, and whereas the Ombudsman, Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros, presented the report to the Committee on Petitions in Brussels on 19 June 2012;

B.

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

C.

whereas Article 228 TFEU empowers the European Ombudsman to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role;

D.

whereas, pursuant to Article 298 TFEU the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies ‘shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration’, and whereas the same article provides for the adoption, to that end, of specific secondary legislation, in the form of regulations, applicable to all areas of EU administration;

E.

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

F.

whereas maladministration occurs not only when a public body fails to act in accordance with a rule or principle that is binding upon it, and whereas the principles of good administration require the EU institutions to be service-minded and to ensure that members of the public are properly treated and enjoy their rights fully;

G.

whereas this definition does not limit maladministration to cases where the rule or principle that is being violated is legally binding; whereas the principles of good administration go further than the law, requiring the EU institutions not only to respect their legal obligations, but also to be service-minded and to ensure that members of the public are properly treated and enjoy their rights fully;

H.

whereas in 2011 the Ombudsman received 2 510 complaints (2 667 in 2010), opened 396 inquiries (335 in 2010) and completed 318 inquiries (326 in 2010); whereas of the total of 2 544 complaints processed by the Ombudsman in 2011, 698 (27 %) were within his mandate (744 in 2010);

I.

whereas 1 321 complaints received were within the competence of a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen; whereas this Network is composed of national and regional ombudsmen; whereas Parliament’s Committee on Petitions is a full member of the Network of European Ombudsmen;

J.

whereas in 2011 the Ombudsman transferred 59 complaints to the Committee on Petitions; whereas 147 complainants were referred to the Commission and 591 to other institutions and bodies, including SOLVIT and Your Europe Advice, as well as to specialised ombudsmen or other complaint-handling bodies in the Member States;

K.

whereas almost 61 % of the complaints received in 2011 were submitted using the internet; whereas more than half of the internet submissions (53 %) were received through the electronic complaints form on the Ombudsman’s website;

L.

whereas the significantly reduced number of requests for information over the last few years demonstrate the success of the Ombudsman’s interactive guide, which has been available on his website since January 2009;

M.

whereas the number of complaints outside the Ombudsman’s mandate fell to 1 846 in 2011, which is the lowest level recorded since 2003;

N.

whereas, traditionally, the largest number of complaints were submitted by German and Spanish complainants; whereas in 2011 Spain moved to the top position, followed by Germany, Poland and Belgium; whereas relative to the size of their populations most complaints came from Luxembourg, Cyprus, Belgium, Malta and Slovenia;

O.

whereas the Ombudsman opened a total of 396 inquiries, of which 382 were based on complaints and 14 were opened on his own initiative; whereas the number of enquiries opened in 2011 was the highest ever;

P.

whereas most inquiries concerned the Commission (231), followed by EPSO (42); whereas the number of inquiries opened concerning Parliament dropped by more than half compared with 2010; whereas the number of inquiries concerning the Council rose by one third;

Q.

whereas the Ombudsman closed 318 inquiries in 2011; whereas most of these inquiries (66 %) were closed within one year, with one third closed within three months; whereas the average length of inquiries was 10 months;

R.

whereas in 64 cases the Ombudsman found no maladministration; whereas a finding of no maladministration is not a negative outcome as the complainant can benefit from a full explanation from the institution concerned, and the outcome serves as evidence that the institution acted in conformity with the principles of good administration;

S.

whereas in 84 of the cases closed a positive outcome was reached, with the institution concerned accepting a friendly solution or settling the matter; whereas the Ombudsman endeavours to achieve a friendly solution whenever possible; whereas the cooperation of the EU institutions is essential to the achievement of a friendly solution;

T.

whereas in 47 cases the Ombudsman found maladministration, and in 13 cases where maladministration was found the institution concerned either fully or partially accepted a draft recommendation;

U.

whereas 35 cases were closed with a critical remark, and 39 were closed with further remarks intended to help the institutions concerned improve the quality of the administration of the institutions concerned;

V.

whereas the Ombudsman annually publicises his findings on the institutions’ follow-up to critical and further remarks;

W.

whereas the overall rate of satisfactory follow-up to critical and further remarks in 2010 was 78 %; whereas the follow-up to further remarks was satisfactory in 95 % of cases, while the follow-up to critical remarks was significantly lower at 68 %;

X.

whereas in 2011 the Ombudsman issued 25 draft recommendations, and closed 13 cases when the institution concerned accepted a draft recommendation, either fully or in part;

Y.

whereas in 2011 the Ombudsman did not submit any special reports to Parliament;

Z.

whereas the Ombudsman’s Budget is an independent section of the budget of the European Union, divided into three titles: Title 1 concerning salaries, allowances, and other expenditure related to staff; Title 2 covering buildings, furniture, equipment, and miscellaneous operating expenditure; Title 3 concerning the expenditure resulting from general functions carried out by the institution;

1.

Approves the annual report for 2011 presented by the European Ombudsman;

2.

Notes that in 2011 the Ombudsman helped more than 22 000 citizens, of whom 2 510 submitted complaints, 1 284 requested information and 18 274 obtained advice through the interactive guide on the Ombudsman’s website;

3.

Notes the fact that in recent years the total number of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman has gradually decreased, in particular the number of complaints falling outside his mandate; is following this phenomenon with interest in order to assess whether there is a direct link between this decrease and the introduction of the interactive guide;

4.

Notes that in over 65 % of the complaints dealt with by the Ombudsman, he was able either to open an inquiry or to refer the complainant to a competent body, such as a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen, which includes Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, the Commission or another complaint-handling body (e.g. SOLVIT); notes that in 2011 the Committee on Petitions received 59 complaints from the Ombudsman;

5.

Notes that the main types of alleged maladministration investigated by the Ombudsman in 2011 concerned issues of lawfulness (28 % of inquiries), requests for information (16,2 %), fairness (13,6 %), grounds for decisions and possibilities for appeal (8,1 %), reasonable time limits for taking decisions (7,3 %), requests for public access to documents (7,1 %), absence of discrimination (86,8 %) and the obligation to reply to letters in the language of citizens and to indicate the competent official (5,8 %);

6.

Notes that the majority of inquiries opened by the Ombudsman in 2011 concerned the Commission (231), with EPSO in second position (42); considers that, since the Commission is the institution whose decisions have direct impact on citizens, it is logical that it should be the main object of complaints;

7.

Is pleased to note that the number of inquiries opened by the Ombudsman with regard to Parliament dropped by more than half compared with 2010; notes that the Ombudsman opened one third more inquiries concerning the Council of the EU;

8.

Notes that in 2011 the Ombudsman modified his procedures in order to make them more citizen-friendly, and introduced a new type of inquiry – a ‘clarificatory inquiry’ –which enables complainants to clarify their complaint if the Ombudsman, at first sight, is not convinced that there are grounds to ask an institution for its opinion on a case;

9.

Points out that the Ombudsman now actively invites complainants to make observations when they are dissatisfied with an institution’s reply, whereas previously complainants had to make a new complaint if they were not satisfied with the substance of a reply;

10.

Is pleased that this new approach resulted in the Ombudsman closing fewer cases as ‘settled by the institution’ and closing a higher number of cases with a finding of ‘no maladministration’ or ‘no further inquiries justified’;

11.

Notes that the Ombudsman also reviewed the treatment of complaints falling outside his mandate, which are now dealt with by the Registry department at the Ombudsman’s office, which ensures that complainants are informed as rapidly as possible that the Ombudsman cannot deal with their complaints and that they are advised who to turn to;

12.

Points out that a 2011 special Eurobarometer report on citizens’ rights and the performance of the EU administration (4) showed that citizens attach great value to their right to complain to the European Ombudsman and that only their right to move and reside freely in the Union, and their right to good administration, were more important in their view;

13.

Commends the Ombudsman for publishing a booklet entitled Problems with the EU? Who can help you, which contains comprehensive information on problem-solving mechanisms for citizens who face problems with the EU, and for making this publication available also in audio and large-print format;

14.

Highlights the fact that, despite some progress in recent years, the proportion of processed complaints which actually fell within the Ombudsman’s remit in 2011 was once again relatively low (approximately 27 %), and that consideration should therefore be given to more comprehensive and proactive public awareness-raising – particularly in close cooperation with national and regional ombudsmen, Parliament and the Commission – about the Ombudsman’s sphere of responsibility;

15.

Agrees with the Ombudsman that a straightforward and concise statement of the fundamental values that EU civil servants’ behaviour should reflect can effectively promote citizens’ trust in the European civil service and the EU institutions it serves;

16.

Endorses the Ombudsman’s view that an institution in which a culture of service is embedded does not regard complaints as a threat, but as an opportunity to communicate more effectively and, if a mistake has been made, to put matters right and learn lessons for the future;

17.

Recalls that the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 41) includes the right to good administration as a fundamental right of Union citizenship;

18.

Calls on all European Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to act in accordance with the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, adopted by Parliament in its resolution of 6 September 2001 (5);

19.

Welcomes the Ombudsman’s sustained and constructive efforts, through the production of relevant publications, for example, to facilitate the drafting of a regulation on the European Union’s general administrative procedures; stresses that such legislation, which should provide for legally binding minimum quality standards and procedural guarantees in all spheres of direct EU administration, could be based on Article 298 TFEU and that the Ombudsman ought to be closely consulted on its actual drafting;

20.

Endorses the Ombudsman’s view that the principles of good administration go further than the law and require the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies not only to respect their legal obligations, but also to be service-minded and to ensure that members of the public are properly treated and enjoy their rights fully;

21.

Commends the Ombudsman for having published and distributed to staff in all EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies The European Ombudsman’s Guide to complaints, with a view to encouraging the EU administration to improve its performance by deepening its commitment to the principles of a culture of service to citizens;

22.

Welcomes the Ombudsman’s cooperation with the European Network of Ombudsmen and asks that such cooperation be directed inter alia to publicising the European Citizens’ Initiative as a new tool enabling citizens to be involved directly in the process of preparing EU legislation and ensuring that this instrument is not too cumbersome for citizens in terms of technical requirements;

23.

Recalls that the Eighth National Seminar of the Network of European Ombudsmen was held in Copenhagen in October 2011; recalls that its Committee on Petitions is a full member of the Network and that the Committee was represented at the Seminar; recalls that at the Seminar the members of the Network agreed to find ways better to inform citizens in Europe of their rights;

24.

Recalls that at the Seminar the Ombudsman presented a draft text on public service principles for EU civil servants wherein he identified five such principles, namely commitment to the EU and its citizens, integrity, objectivity, respect for others and transparency; notes that the Ombudsman organised a public consultation on these principles and that the final version of the text was published on 19 June 2012;

25.

Notes with satisfaction that the Ombudsman has exercised his powers in an active and balanced way, in a spirit of critical consensus and close cooperation with the other EU bodies, during the reporting period;

26.

Insists that the Ombudsman continue to ensure the best possible use of resources, avoiding unnecessary duplication of staff and cooperating with other existing EU institutions in order to secure efficiency savings for the EU budget;

27.

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

11.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 72/64

—

having regard to its resolution of 1 December 2011 on the European semester for economic policy coordination (1),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 28/29 June 2012,

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 136 in combination with Article 121(2) thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1175/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (2),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2011/85/EU of 8 November 2011 on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1174/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on enforcement measures to correct excessive macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area (4),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 1177/2011 of 8 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 on speeding up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit procedure (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Scoreboard for the surveillance of macroeconomic imbalances: envisaged initial design (8);

—

having regard to Annex I to the European Council Conclusions of 24-25 March 2011 entitled ‘The Euro Plus Pact: Stronger economic policy coordination for competitiveness and convergence’ (9),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 23 November 2011 on the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (COM(2011)0815),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2012 on the contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2012 (10),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 10 July 2012 on the implementation of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States whose currency is the euro (11),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 10 July 2012 on the National Reform Programme 2012 of Austria and delivering a Council opinion on the Stability Programme of Austria, 2011-2016 (12),