—

having regard to Articles 168 and 179 to 181 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the written question to the Commission of 2 September 2019 on ‘Research into myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)’ (E-002599/2019) and the Commission’s answer of 28 October 2019,

—

having regard to the written question to the Commission of 4 December 2018 on ‘Chronic fatigue syndrome’ (E-006124/2018) and the Commission’s answer of 30 January 2019,

—

having regard to the written question to the Commission of 28 August 2018 on ‘Myalgic encephalomyelitis: recognition by the World Health Organisation and Commission support for research and training’ (E-004360/2018) and the Commission’s answer of 1 November 2018,

—

having regard to the written question to the Commission of 9 November 2017 on ‘Funding of research on ME/CFS’ (E-006901/2017) and the Commission’s answer of 18 December 2017,

—

having regard to Rule 227(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the Committee on Petitions has received several petitions raising concerns over the absence of treatments and the current underfunding of biomedical research on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) within the EU;

B.

whereas under Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union everyone has ‘the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices’, while other international human rights instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, recognise or refer to the right to health or elements of it, such as the right to medical care;

C.

whereas the actions of Member States and the Union must be directed towards improving public health; whereas this objective should be achieved through the Union’s support to Member States, by fostering cooperation and by promoting research into the causes, transmission and prevention of illnesses;

D.

whereas ME/CFS is a debilitating chronic multisystem disease of unknown aetiology, whose symptoms, severity and progression are extremely variable;

E.

whereas ME/CFS is classified as a disorder of the nervous system by the World Health Organisation under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) under code 8E49 (Postviral fatigue syndrome);

F.

whereas ME/CFS is a complex, highly disabling disease, as extreme tiredness and other physical symptoms can make it impossible to carry out everyday activities; whereas quality of life may be severely affected and patients with ME/CFS may end up being bedbound or housebound with severe suffering, negative impacts on social and family relationships and significant costs to society in terms of lost working capacity;

G.

whereas special attention needs to be paid to the high risk of social exclusion of persons affected with ME/CFS; whereas in this sense, for employed persons suffering from the disease it is crucial to be able to keep their jobs in order not to find themselves isolated;

H.

whereas all possible measures should be taken to adjust the working conditions and environment of employed people suffering from ME/CFS; whereas they should also be entitled to the adaptation of the workplace and working time;

I.

whereas there are still no established biomedical diagnostic tests for ME/CFS, nor are there any EU/EMA-approved treatments;

J.

whereas the incidence and prevalence of ME/CFS in the EU are unknown, as is equally the overall social and economic burden arising from it, owing to the lack of coordinated and comprehensive data collection at EU level;

K.

whereas according to the Commission’s answer of 30 August 2019 to Petition No 0204/2019, ME/CFS is diagnosed for around 24 million people worldwide but this is considered to be only 10 % of the total ME/CFS population;

L.

whereas the American Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Society estimates that around 17 to 24 million people worldwide suffer from ME/CFS;

M.

whereas approximately two million people in the EU, of whatever ethnicity, age or gender, are believed to be afflicted with ME/CFS; whereas among adults, women are the most affected;

N.

whereas to date ME/CFS is poorly understood and, consequently, underdiagnosed, owing to insufficient knowledge about this disease among healthcare providers, or else because of the difficulties encountered in the detection of symptoms and the absence of appropriate diagnostic tests; whereas the lack of understanding of ME/CFS can considerably hamper the recognition of occupational disability of patients;

O.

whereas the patients’ community feels deprived and ignored by public authorities and society as a whole, and legitimately asks for greater awareness and additional funding to support progress in research; whereas patients denounce being victims of stigmatisation as a result of poor knowledge of this disease; whereas the stigma surrounding the rights of persons with ME/CFS and the associated psychological distress, which has a dramatic impact on individuals, families and society and on every aspect of citizens’ lives, is too often poorly recognised;

P.

whereas children and young people afflicted with ME/CFS could potentially see their access to education hampered;

Q.

whereas the need for better recognition of this type of diseases at Member State level is evident; whereas specifically targeted training should be provided to raise awareness among public authorities, healthcare providers and officials in general;

R.

whereas Petition No 0204/2019 received and continues to receive a significant number of signatures of support, from patients and their families and also from the scientific community, calling for more resources to be invested in biomedical research into ME/CFS and patient support;

S.

whereas over the years several Members of the European Parliament have tabled questions to the Commission regarding the availability of EU funding for research on ME/CFS;

T.

whereas research efforts on ME/CFS remain rather fragmented and coordination of research at EU level is missing; whereas, despite support granted by Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), to a number of research projects on neurological disorders of different aetiologies as well as research on pain (such as Help4Me, GLORIA and the RTCure), the Commission admitted in its answer of 30 January 2019 to Written Question E-006124/2018 that ‘to date no specific projects on diagnosis/treatment of ME/CFS have been supported by the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation’;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

—

having regard to its resolutions of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (1), of 16 February 2017 on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (2), of 16 February 2017 on budgetary capacity for the euro area (3), and of 13 February 2019 on the state of the debate on the future of Europe (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2017 on a European Pillar of Social Rights (5),

—

having regard to the proposal by the then President-Designate of the Commission Ursula von der Leyen of 16 July 2019 in the framework of the political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024 on the organisation of a Conference on the Future of Europe (the ‘Conference’),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 22 January 2020 entitled ‘Shaping the Conference on the Future of Europe’ (COM(2020)0027),

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 12 December 2019 on the general approach to the Conference on the Future of Europe,

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Parliament’s position on the Conference on the Future of Europe (6),

—

having regard to the resolution of the Committee of the Regions of 12 February 2020 on the Conference on the Future of Europe,

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 May 2020 on the new multiannual financial framework, own resources and the recovery plan (8),

—

having regard to the statement of the Conference of Presidents on the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration,

—

having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas there is a need to tackle both the internal and the external challenges that Europe is facing, as well as the new societal and transnational challenges which had not been fully envisaged when the Lisbon Treaty was adopted; whereas the number of significant crises that the Union has undergone demonstrates that institutional and political reform are needed in multiple governance areas;

B.

whereas the current COVID-19 crisis has shown to a very high cost that the EU remains an unfinished project and that the failure to ensure solidarity and coordination, the economic, health and social shocks, and the ongoing attacks on fundamental rights and the rule of law need to be better addressed by the Conference; whereas the ongoing crisis therefore makes it even more urgent for the European Union to start work on how to become more effective, democratic and closer to citizens;

C.

whereas Parliament, the Commission and the Council have all stated that a Conference on the Future of Europe should be organised and that this Conference process should be an opportunity to closely involve EU citizens in a bottom-up exercise in which they are listened to and their voices contribute to the debates on the future of Europe;

D.

whereas the Conference should enable an open forum for discussion among the different participants without a predetermined outcome; whereas the common agreement of the three institutions should therefore only concern the format and organisation of the Conference;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

—

having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, and Articles 2, 9, 10, 19 and 216(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), in particular Articles 3, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 47 thereof,

—

having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights, in particular principle 17 thereof on the inclusion of people with disabilities, principle 3 thereof on equal opportunities, and principle 10 thereof on a healthy, safe and well-adapted work environment and data protection,

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and its entry into force on 21 January 2011, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1),

—

having regard to the CRPD General Comments as the authoritative guidance on the implementation of the CRPD,

—

having regard to the Code of Conduct between the Council, the Member States and the Commission setting out internal arrangements for the implementation by and representation of the European Union relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2),

—

having regard to the concluding observations of 2 October 2015 of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) on the initial report of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to the European Ombudsman’s strategic inquiries into how the European Commission ensures that persons with disabilities can access its websites (OI/6/2017/EA), how the European Commission treats persons with disabilities under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for EU staff (OI/4/2016/EA), and her decision in the joint inquiry in cases 1337/2017/EA and 1338/2017/EA on the accessibility for visually impaired candidates of selection procedures to recruit EU civil servants, organised by the European Personnel Selection Office,

—

having regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which the EU is committed to implementing,

—

having regard to the explicit disability references in the SDGs related to education (SDG 4), growth and employment (SDG 8), inequality (SDG 10), accessibility of human settlements (SDG 11) and data collection (SDG 17),

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention),

—

having regard to the exploratory opinion from the European Economic and Social Committee requested by Parliament on the situation of women with disabilities,

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (4),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (‘Audiovisual Media Services Directive’) in view of changing market realities (5) ,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2016 on application of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Employment Equality Directive’) (7),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) (8),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 15 November 2010 entitled ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A renewed commitment to a barrier-free Europe’ (COM(2010)0636),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 14 January 2020 entitled ‘A Strong Social Europe for Just Transitions’ (COM(2020)0014),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 2 February 2017 entitled ‘Progress Report on the implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020’ (SWD(2017)0029),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426) and Parliament’s position thereon of 2 April 2009 (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2019 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2017 (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2017 on implementation of the European Disability Strategy (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2016 on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with special regard to the Concluding Observations of the CRPD Committee (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2015 on the List of Issues adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the initial report of the European Union (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of persons with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (15),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 17 June 1988 on sign languages for deaf people (16), of 18 November 1998 on sign languages (17) and of 23 November 2016 on sign languages and professional sign language interpreters (18),

—

having regard to the 2016 study from Parliament’s Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C entitled ‘European structural and investment funds and persons with disabilities in the European Union’,

—

having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service briefing entitled ‘The European Disability Strategy 2010-2020’,

—

having regard to the Annual Report 2018 from the European Ombudsman,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘Shaping the EU agenda for disability rights 2020-2030’,

—

having regard to the Fundamental Rights Reports 2019 of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),

—

having regard to FRA’s thematic reports,

—

having regard to the statement by the Commission of 17 December 2019 on the EU Disability Strategy post-2020,

—

having regard to the Eurostat disability statistics on labour market access, access to education and training, and poverty and income inequalities,

—

having regard to the reports and recommendations of representative organisations of persons with disabilities,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 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 and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (19), in particular Articles 4, 6 and 7 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (20), in particular Article 5(9)(a) thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation(EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17. December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (21), in particular Article 2(3) and Article 8 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (22),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

—

having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas, as full citizens, all persons with disabilities have equal rights in all fields of life (including access to an open labour market and education) and are entitled to inalienable dignity, equal treatment, independent living, autonomy and full participation in society, respecting and valuing their input to the social and economic progress of the EU; whereas more than half of the Member States are depriving people suffering from mental health problems or with an intellectual disability of their right to vote;

B.

whereas there are an estimated 100 million persons with disabilities in the European Union (23), who are still deprived of their basic human rights and are hindered on a daily basis from leading an independent life; whereas women account both for over 60 % of persons with disabilities and for the large majority of caregivers for people with disabilities; whereas the number of children with disabilities is unknown owing to a lack of statistics, but may be in the region of 15 % of the total number of children in the European Union; whereas an increasingly ageing population will see more people experience disabilities and in need of a more accessible and supportive environment, including suitably adapted services;

C.

whereas the TFEU requires the Union to combat discrimination based on disability when defining and implementing its policies and activities (Article 10) and gives it the power to adopt legislation to address such discrimination (Article 19);

D.

whereas Article 21 and Article 26 of the Charter explicitly prohibit discrimination on the grounds of disability and provide for equal participation of persons with disabilities in society;

E.

whereas the CRPD is the first international human rights treaty to be ratified by the EU and all its Member States;

F.

whereas the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) reinforces the fact that the CRPD is binding on the EU and on its Member States when adopting and implementing EU law, as it is an instrument of secondary law (24);

G.

whereas the Optional Protocol of the CRPD has not been ratified by the EU and several Member States;

H.

whereas children with disabilities should fully enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children, including the right to grow up in their families or a family environment in line with their best interests as defined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child; whereas family members often have to reduce or stop professional activities in order to care for family members with a disability; whereas the European Commission Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee (intermediate report) points out that the main barriers identified for children with disabilities are problems involving physical access, the non-adaptation of services and facilities to children’s needs and, in many cases, simply the non-availability thereof; whereas in the same study many respondents pointed to problems of discrimination, specifically in relation to problems relating to education, and affordability in relation to problems relating to housing;

I.

whereas the CRPD principles go far beyond discrimination, pointing the way to the full enjoyment of human rights by all persons with disabilities and their families in an inclusive society;

J.

whereas the case-law of the CJEU provides that a policy may be deemed indirectly discriminatory if, in practice, the contested provision negatively affects a substantially higher proportion of persons with disabilities; whereas, if a provision is even suspected of being intrinsically discriminatory and liable to have a similar negative effect, it will also be deemed discriminatory;

K.

whereas Article 1 of the CRPD states that ‘persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others’; whereas Article 9 of the CRPD is of particular importance in that regard;

L.

whereas 37 % of the EU-28 population aged 15 and over reported moderate or severe physical or sensory limitations in 2018; whereas in the EU-28, 24,7 % of the population aged 16 and over reported some or severe long-standing limitations in their usual activities due to health problems in 2018; whereas 17,7 % reported some long-standing limitations and 7 % reported severe long-standing limitations (25);

M.

whereas the burden of major chronic diseases is calculated on the basis of disability-adjusted life year (DALY); whereas frameworks addressing chronic diseases vary across the EU, however, and may be part of broader disability schemes in some Member States;

N.

whereas Eurofound pointed out that there is a lack of clarity regarding the inclusion of the concept of (chronic) ‘sickness’ in the definition of disability (26); whereas the agency recommends that a review of the European Disability Strategy should seek to address this issue;

O.

whereas the EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020 failed to mainstream gender equality and include and address the specific situation, forms of discrimination and rights deprivations of women and girls with disabilities, who face multiple discrimination and other violation of their rights; whereas the effects of multiple discrimination are poverty, social, educational and labour market exclusion (more likely to occupy low-paid, temporary or precarious jobs), causing further stress and psychological burden for persons with disabilities and their families and carers; whereas equal treatment can be ensured by applying positive measures and policies for women with disabilities, mothers/fathers of children with disabilities, single parents with disabilities and/or single parents of children with disabilities; whereas including a gender dimension in the expected post-2020 European Disability Strategy will contribute to an intersectional approach to eliminating discrimination against women and girls with disabilities;

P.

whereas in 2018 about 28,7 % of the EU population with a disability (aged 16 or over) was at risk of poverty or social exclusion (27);

Q.

whereas although Article 19 of the CRPD states that ‘States Parties to the present Convention recognise the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community’, 800 000 persons with disabilities are still denied their right to vote in the EU;

R.

whereas deafblind people suffer from unique dual disabilities, combining two sensory deficiencies (visual and hearing), which restricts their full participation and causes specific problems such as access to communication, information, mobility and social interactions;

S.

whereas benefits related to disability should be regarded as state support aimed at helping people to remove barriers arising from their disability and/or medical condition in order to participate fully in society, in addition to income replacement when it is needed;

T.

whereas Article 9 CRPD recognises that appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that persons with disabilities, in particular girls and women, can enjoy real access to the physical environment, transport facilities, information and communications, including information and communication technologies, and to other facilities and services that are open to, or provided for, the public, in both rural and urban areas;

U.

whereas the Directive on Work-life balance for parents and carers adopted in June 2019 (28) establishes, for the first time at EU level, a right for each worker to a carers’ leave of five working days per year;

V.

whereas the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (the Strategy) has served as a framework for policy and legislative proposals to implement the CRPD both within the EU and beyond;

W.

whereas persons with disabilities are still not fully participating in society and enjoying their rights; whereas in accordance with Article 29 of the CRPD the participation of persons with disabilities can be achieved only if they are included in political and public life, where they are often underrepresented;

X.

whereas the Strategy has not been adapted to emerging policy areas, such that it has not been aligned with either the Agenda 2030, which the EU and all its Member States are committed to implementing, or with the European Pillar of Social Rights;

Y.

whereas during the COVID-19 crisis, persons with disabilities have experienced serious challenges and rights violations, such as disruptions in personal assistance, care and support services, unequal access to and/or complete exclusion from health-related information and healthcare, including urgent care, lack of general, public safety-related information presented in a clear and simple manner, including in accessible, barrier-free and usable formats, lack of precautionary measures in residential institutions, unequal access to the alternatives offered by educational institutions, namely distance and online learning, and an increase in instances of domestic violence; whereas there is a possibility that the pandemic and the above challenges could resurge in the coming months;

Z.

whereas the Strategy does not cover all the provisions of the CRPD;

AA.

whereas the Commission to date has not undertaken a cross-cutting, comprehensive review of its legislation in order to ensure full harmonisation with the provisions of the CRPD;

AB.

whereas the Strategy has achieved limited progress;

AC.

whereas there has been a lack of mainstreaming of the rights of persons with disabilities in a large number of EU policy areas;

AD.

whereas there continues to be new and revised legislation without any reference to the CRPD and accessibility; whereas accessibility is a prerequisite for independent living and participation; whereas the EU, as a party to the CRPD, has the duty to ensure the close involvement and active participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations in the development and implementation of legislation and policies, while respecting diverse concepts of disability;

AE.

whereas it is imperative for persons with disabilities to have full and equal access to the labour market, which continues to be problematic given the current employment rate, standing at 50,6 % (53,3 % for men and 48,3 % for women with disabilities), compared with 74,8 % among persons without disabilities (29), and the unemployment rate of persons aged 20-64 with disabilities, standing at 17 %, compared to 10 % of people without disabilities, thus preventing many persons with disabilities from living an independent and active life; whereas a considerable proportion of the 4 million people experiencing homelessness every year have disabilities; whereas the data varies considerably between different types of disabilities and support needs;

AF.

whereas employers must be supported and encouraged to ensure that persons with disabilities are empowered all the way from education to employment; whereas to this end, the awareness-raising of employers is one way to combat discrimination in the hiring of persons with disabilities;

AG.

whereas measures in the workplace are crucial for promoting positive mental health, preventing mental ill-health and psychosocial disabilities;

AH.

whereas actions aimed at tackling the challenges of demographic change need to include adequate measures for keeping persons with disabilities active and in the labour market; whereas this not only includes prevention measures regarding occupational safety and health in the workplace, but also measures focusing on rehabilitation and participation following sickness or accident;

AI.

whereas participation can be fully achieved only if a large range of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations are included and all types of stakeholders are meaningfully consulted, respecting diverse concepts of disability;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 101 to Article 109 thereof,

—

having regard to the relevant Commission rules, guidelines, resolutions, public consultations, communications and papers on the subject of competition,

—

having regard to the Commission report of 15 July 2019 on Competition Policy 2018 (COM(2019)0339) and to the Commission staff working document published as a supporting document on the same date,

—

having regard to its resolution of 31 January 2019 on the Annual Report on EU Competition Policy (1),

—

having regard to the mission letter of 10 September 2019 from President-elect Ursula von der Leyen to Margrethe Vestager,

—

having regard to the written and oral replies given by Commissioner-designate Margrethe Vestager at the hearing by the European Parliament on 8 October 2019,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication — Commission Notice on the recovery of unlawful and incompatible State aid (2) ,

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 to empower the competition authorities of the Member States to be more effective enforcers and to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediations services (4);

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 December 2019 on the Commission report of 15 July 2019 on Competition Policy 2018,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 5 December 2019 on the Commission report of 15 July 2019 on Competition Policy 2018,

—

having regard to the report of 4 April 2019 entitled ‘Competition policy for the digital era’ by high-level experts from the Commission,

—

having regard to the Preliminary Opinion of 26 March 2014 from the European Data Protection Supervisor on ‘Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data: The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy’ and the Opinion 8/2016 of 23 September 2016 from the European Data Protection Opinion on ‘Coherent enforcement of fundamental rights in the age of big data’,

—

having regard to the Statement of 29 August 2018 from the European Data Protection Board on the data protection impacts of economic concentration,

—

having regard to the letter of 4 February 2020 sent to Commissioner Margrethe Vestager by the economic and finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy and Poland, as well as the joint contribution of Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden drafted in preparation for the upcoming March 2020 European Council,

—

having regard to the proposal of 4 July 2019 by France, Germany and Poland entitled ‘For a modernised European Competition Policy’,

—

having regard to the 2019 report by the European Consumers’ Organisation (BEUC) on ‘The Role of Competition Policy in Protecting Consumers’ Wellbeing in the Digital Era’,

—

having regard to the Commission's decision of 7 January 2019 to prolong seven sets of EU State aid rules (State aid modernisation initiative for 2014-2020) until the end of 2022 and to launch evaluations in the meantime,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 22 March and 27 May 2019,

—

having regard to the statement of 18 December 2018 issued by 18 Member States at the 6th Friends of Industry ministerial meeting,

—

having regard to the report from report of the Strategic Forum for Important Projects of Common European Interest entitled ‘Strengthening strategic value chains for a future-ready EU industry’,

—

having regard to the ongoing revision of the guidelines on horizontal cooperation,

—

having regard to the public consultation on horizontal block exemption regulations,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 June 2019 entitled ‘Towards an appropriate European legal framework for social economy enterprises’,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

—

having regard to the letter from the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0022/2020),

A.

whereas competition and effective enforcement of competition policy must benefit all EU citizens, especially those in a weak consumer position, while promoting innovation and fair competition among businesses operating in the single market, in particular by ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have the opportunity to compete on a fair basis;

B.

whereas competition policy must be adapted to tackle digital, ecological, geopolitical, industrial and social challenges, and must be in line with the priorities outlined in the European Green Deal and the objectives of the Paris Agreement, in order to ensure a level playing field in all sectors as a cornerstone of the EU social market economy, while taking into account social economy enterprises;

C.

whereas global cooperation on competition enforcement helps to avoid inconsistencies in remedies and in outcomes of enforcement actions and helps businesses to reduce their compliance costs;

D.

whereas in fast-moving digital markets, competition policy could in some cases be excessively slow and therefore be at risk of being ineffective when it comes to remedying systemic market failures and reinstating competition; whereas complementary ex-ante regulation and monitoring could prove beneficial to ensure more effective oversight;

E.

whereas European competition authorities should be equally attentive in order to avoid under-enforcement in digital markets, as the latter are wary of over-enforcement;

F.

whereas the primary objective of EU competition policy is to prevent the distortion of competition in order to preserve the integrity of the internal market and to protect consumers;

G.

whereas given that recent data scandals, investigations and evidence have shown how personal data is being collected, used and sold to third parties by platforms and how dominant techology players and platforms have been tracking consumers online systematically;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

—

having regard to Articles 13(2) and 17(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

having regard to its previous decisions and resolutions on discharge to the Commission for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018,

—

having regard to the administrative investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into the project in the Czech Republic known as ‘Stork Nest’, which found ‘serious irregularities’,

—

having regard to the fact-finding mission to the Czech Republic undertaken by the Committee on Budgetary Control on 26 and 27 March 2014,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2018 on conflicts of interest and the protection of the EU budget in the Czech Republic (1),

—

having regard to Czech Act No 159/2006 of 16 March 2006 on conflicts of interest, Article 4(c) of which entered into force in February 2017,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (2) (the new Financial Regulation), which entered into force on 2 August 2018, and in particular to Article 61 thereof,

—

having regard to Articles 144 and 145 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 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 and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (3),

—

having regard to the questions and complaint sent to the Commission regarding the potential conflict of interest in the Czech Republic (4),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Commission’s Legal Service of 19 November 2018 entitled ‘Impact of Article 61 of the new Financial Regulation (conflict of interests) on payments from the European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds’,

—

having regard to the press conference given by the Chief Public Prosecutor on 4 December 2019 regarding the reopening of the investigation into the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic for the misuse of EU funds,

—

having regard to its plenary debate of 18 December 2019 on conflicts of interest and corruption affecting the protection of the EU’s financial interests in the Member States,

—

having regard to its plenary debate of 15 January 2020 on the reopening of the prosecution against the Prime Minister of the Czech Republic on for the misuse of EU funds and potential conflicts of interest,

—

having regard to the fact-finding mission to the Czech Republic undertaken by the Committee on Budgetary Control from 26 to 28 February 2020,

—

having regard to Decision Pl. ÚS 4/17 of the Czech Constitutional Court of 18 February 2020,

—

having regard to Rule 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the criminal investigation into Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babiš that followed OLAF’s report on irregular use of EU subsidies intended for small businesses, which was suspended two years later, has recently been reopened by the Czech Chief Public Prosecutor; recalls that as part of the ‘Stork Nest’ project Agrofert artificially created a medium-sized company, which remained in Agrofert’s control, in order to obtain funds intended for small and medium-sized businesses amounting to a total of around EUR 2 million;

B.

whereas the Czech Chief Public Prosecutor denounced the dropping of the criminal investigation as ‘unlawful and premature’, since EU law had not been taken into account, adding also that the process of allocating subsidies had lacked sufficient checks;

C.

whereas Article 61(1) of the Financial Regulation (in conjunction with Article 61(3)) lays down:

D.

whereas Article 63 of the Financial Regulation requires the Member States to put in place management and control systems that, as required by Article 36(3), should be capable of avoiding conflicts of interest;

E.

whereas in February 2017, Czech Act No 159/2006 on conflicts of interest was amended with an expanded list of forbidden activities, including provisions preventing certain companies from being involved in public procurement even as a subcontractor or from receiving grants; whereas the act aims to prevent conflicts of interest in all their forms;

F.

whereas public procurement rules oblige Member States to avoid conflicts of interest (Article 24 of Directive 2014/24/EU (5)), including direct or indirect personal interests, and rules are in place to address situations perceived as conflicts of interest, as well as specific obligations in shared management (e.g. Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013);

G.

whereas according to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (6)‘a conflict of interest constitutes, objectively and in itself, a serious irregularity without there being any need to qualify it by having regard to the intentions of the parties concerned and whether they were acting in good or bad faith’;

H.

whereas the Commission is obliged to suspend EU fund payments in cases where a serious deficiency in the functioning of the management and control systems exists and where undiscovered, unreported and uncorrected serious irregularities related to a conflict of interest have come to light;

I.

whereas Agrofert is a conglomerate established by the Czech Prime Minister, consisting of over 230 companies and over 34 000 employees (2017); whereas Mr Babiš has been revealed to be the beneficial owner of Agrofert, the controlling company of the Agrofert Group, including among others a number of important Czech media outlets, through trust funds AB I and AB II of which he is the founder and, at the same time, the sole beneficiary; whereas whenever Mr Babiš decides to dissolve these trust funds he regains full ownership of all assets they possess;

J.

whereas in January and February 2019, a coordinated, comprehensive audit was carried out by several Commission services (DG REGIO/DG EMPL, DG AGRI (associated DG)) on the application of EU and national law; whereas an ongoing AGRI audit is examining alleged conflicts of interest with regard to the Czech Minister of Agriculture;

K.

whereas in November 2019 the Commission sent the final audit report by DG REGIO and DG EMPL to the Czech authorities, following up on allegations of conflicts of interest in the Czech Republic on the basis of Article 61 of the Financial Regulation, which was leaked to the Czech media;

L.

whereas the Committee on Budgetary Control held an in camera meeting with Commissioner for Budget and Administration Johannes Hahn on 16 December 2019;

M.

whereas Commissioner Hahn informed the Committee on Budgetary Control that the Commission would only make its audit’s conclusions public once all evidence had been duly considered and thoroughly analysed; whereas the Czech authorities submitted their replies to the final audit report by DG REGIO on 29 May 2020;

N.

whereas the Commission audit is still ongoing and, as a precautionary measure and until the situation is clarified, no payments from the EU budget under the ESI Funds are being made to companies directly or indirectly owned by Mr Babiš that could potentially be implicated in the alleged conflict of interest;

O.

whereas the Commission is not reimbursing the Czech authorities for payments made under the Rural Development Fund to Agrofert Group projects that could potentially be concerned by the alleged conflict of interest;

P.

whereas the Czech Parliament has no oversight over possible public tenders, Czech national-level subsidies or state-supported public investments that the Agrofert Group might continue to profit from;

Q.

whereas the Agrofert Group owns two of the largest Czech daily newspapers, Mladá fronta Dnes and Lidové Noviny, and controls the Óčko television station and the Impuls and RockZone radio stations; whereas according to a report by the European Federation of Journalists, Mr Babiš is the de facto owner of 30 % of the private media in the Czech Republic (7);

R.

whereas the revenues of the Agrofert Group have grown significantly during Mr Babiš’s time in public office, while at the same time the Agrofert Group has benefited from EU agricultural subsidies amounting to a total of CZK 970 414 000 in 2016, CZK 1 048 685 000 in 2017 and CZK 973 284 000 in 2018 in the Czech Republic alone; whereas the Agrofert Group allegedly received EU Cohesion Fund subsidies amounting to CZK 427 385 000 for the period 2014-2020 in the Czech Republic; whereas the Agrofert Group has most likely received additional subsidies in other Member States, such as Slovakia and Germany;

S.

whereas the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic in Decision Pl. ÚS 4/17 of February 2020 dismissed legal action brought by the President of the Czech Republic and Members of the Parliament of the Czech Republic over the repealof the Czech law which defines conflicts of interest among public officials; whereas the Constitutional Court clarified in the same decision that elections are not to be used as a means to seize control over the state for the purpose of using or even abusing its capacities and resources;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2019 on Banking Union — annual report 2018 (1),

—

having regard to the feedback of the Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) on Parliament’s resolution of 16 January 2019 on Banking Union — annual report 2018,

—

having regard to the approval of the Banking Package by the European Parliament and the Council,

—

having regard to The Five Presidents’ Report of 22 June 2015 entitled ‘Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union’,

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 24 November 2015 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in order to establish a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (COM(2015)0586),

—

having regard to the 2010 Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission,

—

having regard to the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024 entitled ‘A Union that strives for more — My agenda for Europe’, presented by Ursula von der Leyen on 16 July 2019,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2016 on the finalisation of Basel III (2), and to the conclusions of the Ecofin Council of 12 July 2016,

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 24 May 2018 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on sovereign bond-backed securities (COM(2018)0339),

—

having regard to the ECB Annual Report on supervisory activities 2018, published in March 2019 (3),

—

having regard to the European Systemic Risk Board report of July 2019 entitled ‘EU Non-bank Financial Intermediation Risk Monitor 2019’ (4),

—

having regard to the European Banking Authority (EBA) Fintech Roadmap conclusions from the consultation on the EBA’s approach to Financial Technology (Fintech) of March 2018,

—

having regard to the EBA report of November 2019 entitled ‘Risk Assessment of the European Banking System’ (5),

—

having regard to the EBA report of 18 July 2019 on regulatory perimeter, regulatory status and authorisation approaches in relation to FinTech activities,

—

having regard to the European Supervisory Authorities’ (ESAs) report of January 2019 entitled ‘FinTech: Regulatory sandboxes and innovation hubs’ (6),

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2013 between the European Parliament and the European Central Bank on the practical modalities of the exercise of democratic accountability and oversight over the exercise of the tasks conferred on the ECB within the framework of the Single Supervisory Mechanism (7),

—

having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding of 9 October 2019 between the ECB and the European Court of Auditors (ECA) regarding audits on the ECB’s supervisory tasks (8),

—

having regard to the endorsement by the Euro Summit on 14 December 2018 of the report of the Eurogroup in its inclusive format establishing a High-Level Working Group,

—

having regard to the endorsement by the same Euro Summit of the terms of reference of the common backstop to the Single Resolution Fund,

—

having regard to the Commission report of 30 April 2019 on the application and review of Directive 2014/59/EU (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)) and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR)) (COM(2019)0213),

—

having regard to the statement agreed by the Euro Summit at its meeting of 21 June 2019,

—

having regard to the ECA special report of 10 July 2019 on EU-wide stress tests for banks (9),

—

having regard to the announcement by the ECB of 22 August 2019 of the revision of supervisory expectations for prudential provisioning for new non-performing loans to account for the new EU regulation on supervisory expectations for prudential provisioning (10),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 June 2019 entitled ‘Fourth Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans and further risk reduction in the Banking Union’ (COM(2019)0278),

—

having regard to the European Securities and Markets Authority Technical Advice of 18 July 2019 to the European Commission on Sustainability Considerations in the credit rating market (11),

—

having regard to the European Stability Mechanism discussion paper of October 2019 entitled ‘Completing banking union to support Economic and Monetary Union’, (12)

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth’ (COM(2018)0097),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on credit rating agencies: future perspectives (13),

—

having regard to the Commission study of November 2019 on the differences between bank insolvency laws and on their potential harmonisation,

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 September 2019 on the state of implementation of the Union’s anti-money laundering legislation (14),

—

having regard to the EBA opinions of 8 August 2019 on the eligibility of deposits, coverage level and cooperation between deposit guarantee schemes (DGSs), of 30 October 2019 on deposit guarantee scheme payouts and of 23 January 2020 on deposit guarantee scheme funding and uses of deposit guarantee scheme funds,

—

having regard to the Joint Opinion of the ESAs of 4 October 2019 on the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the European Union’s financial sector (15),

—

having regard to the Commission study of November 2019 on options and national discretions under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme Directive and their treatment in the context of a European Deposit Insurance Scheme,

—

having regard to the agreement on the exchange of information between the ECB and the competent authorities responsible for anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT),

—

having regard to the Commission’s withdrawal of its proposal on structural measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions (COM(2014)0043),

—

having regard to the EBA report of November 2019 on NPLs — progress made and challenges ahead (16),

—

having regard to the ECB’s financial stability review of November 2019,

—

having regard to the joint advice of the ESAs to the European Commission of 10 April 2019 on the need for improvements relating to ICT risk management requirements in the EU financial sector (17),

—

having regard to the 2018 Annual Economic Report of the Bank of International Settlements,

—

having regard to the EBA report of 29 October 2019 on potential impediments to the cross-border provision of banking and payment services (18),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0026/2020),

A.

whereas a more stable, competitive and convergent Economic and Monetary Union requires a solid Banking Union and a more developed and safe Capital Markets Union, as well as the creation of a Budgetary Instrument;

B.

whereas the completion of the Banking Union is a vital contributor to the international perception of the euro and its increased role in global markets;

C.

whereas downside risks to global and euro area economic growth have increased, particularly since the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and continue to create financial stability challenges;

D.

whereas the Banking Union remains incomplete as long as it lacks a backstop for the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) and a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (EDIS) as the third pillar of the Banking Union;

E.

whereas a well-functioning market for retail financial services is important for both the economy and citizens of the EU;

F.

whereas the Banking Union still lacks effective tools to tackle problems consumers are facing: artificial complexity, unfair commercial practices, exclusion of vulnerable groups from using basic services as well as limited involvement of public authorities;

G.

whereas, despite the overall reduction of non-performing loans (NPLs) in recent years, the level of NPLs in some financial institutions still remains high;

H.

whereas entrusting the ECB with the supervision of systemically important financial institutions has proven to be successful; whereas the ECB can exercise, where necessary, supervisory tasks in relation to all credit institutions authorised in, and branches established in, participating Member States;

I.

whereas the development of the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM), which aims at ensuring uniform rules and procedures and a common decision-making process for orderly resolution of failing banks with minimum impact on the real economy, was efficient; whereas there is still, however, work to be done in order to effectively prevent taxpayer-funded intervention in failing banks;

J.

whereas recent large-scale money laundering scandals involving financial institutions in the EU demonstrate that prudential and anti-money laundering supervision cannot be treated separately and that a proper system of supervision and enforcement of EU legislation is lacking;

K.

whereas the European banking sector still remains by far the main provider of financing to companies, in contrast with other jurisdictions, where capital markets account for a considerable share of financing to companies;

L.

whereas more than ten years after the financial crisis, the ‘too big to fail’ and ‘too interconnected to fail’ problems remain insufficiently addressed and under review by the Financial Stability Board;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

—

having regard to Rule 132(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas tourism is a cross-cutting economic activity with a wide-ranging impact on economic growth, employment and social and sustainable development;

B.

whereas the tourism sector employs 22,6 million people, equating to 11,2 % of total EU employment, contributed 9,5 % to EU GDP in 2019, helps to promote a balanced regional structure, and has a positive impact on regional development; notes that at least 6,4 million jobs are at risk in the EU;

C.

whereas tourism, and especially overtourism, like all human activities, has an impact on climate change, as well as environmental and economic impacts such as increased pollution, loss of biodiversity, congestion, infrastructure maintenance costs and rising prices; whereas, however, the sector is committed to accelerating progress towards sustainable tourism development and to ensuring it contributes towards European and international climate goals through initiatives aimed at reducing emissions;

D.

whereas tourism consists of a complex value chain of many stakeholders with a direct link to passenger transport activities;

E.

whereas the transport, culture and tourism sectors have been the most negatively affected of all major economic sectors by COVID-19, with large-scale unemployment affecting, in particular, seasonal workers and those in vulnerable situations;

F.

whereas cultural sites and venues, festivals and museums have been particularly badly hit by the health crisis, while four out of ten tourists choose their destination based on what it has to offer by way of culture;

G.

whereas by adopting the communication on tourism and transport in 2020 and beyond (COM(2020)0550) and the Tourism and Transport Package on 13 May 2020, the Commission took the first necessary step to support the recovery of our valuable transport and tourism sectors from the COVID-19 outbreak;