—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’),

—

having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1381/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2020 on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (the Conditionality Regulation) (2),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 July 2021 entitled ‘2021 Rule of Law Report — The rule of law situation in the European Union’ (COM(2021)0700),

—

having regard to the Commission guidance of 23 September 2020 on the implementation of EU rules on definition and prevention of the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence (3),

—

having regard to the report of the European Economic and Social Committee Group on Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law of June 2020 entitled ‘National developments from a civil society perspective, 2018-2019’,

—

having regard to the report of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 17 January 2018 entitled ‘Challenges facing civil society organisations working on human rights in the EU’, its bulletins published in 2020 on the fundamental rights implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in the EU, and its other reports, data and tools, in particular the European Union Fundamental Rights Information System (EFRIS),

—

having regard to the FRA report of 22 September 2021 entitled ‘Protecting civic space in the EU’,

—

having regard to the joint Guidelines of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the Venice Commission of 1 January 2015 on Freedom of Association,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe report of 11 February 2019 entitled ‘Shrinking space for civil society: the impact on young people and their organisations’,

—

having regard to the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission Guidelines of 8 July 2019 on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly,

—

having regard to the United Nations guidance note of 23 September 2020 on the protection and promotion of civic space,

—

having regard to the UN declaration of 9 December 1998 on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

—

having regard to the General Comment No. 34 of the UN Human Rights Committee of 12 September 2011 on Article 19: freedoms of opinion and expression,

—

having regard to the General Comment No. 37 of the UN Human Rights Committee of 17 September 2020 on Article 21: the right to peaceful assembly,

—

having regard to the UN Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (Aarhus Convention) and Decision VII/9 of 21 October 2021 on a rapid response mechanism to deal with cases related to Article 3(8) of the Aarhus Convention,

—

having regard to UN resolutions 2250 (2015), 2419 (2018) and 2535 (2020) on youth, peace and security,

—

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

—

having regard to the recommendation of 10 October 2007 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to Member States on the legal status of non-governmental organisations in Europe,

—

having regard to the statement of 16 May 2019 of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe entitled ‘Let’s defend LGBTI defenders’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 20 March 2019 entitled ‘Resilient democracy through a strong and diverse civil society’,

—

having regard to the EESC opinion of 19 October 2017 entitled ‘Financing of civil society organisations by the EU’,

—

having regard to the 2020 Annual Report by the partner organisations to the Council of Europe Platform to Promote the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 December 2020 on a strategy to strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU (COM(2020)0711),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 December 2020 on the European democracy action plan (COM(2020)0790),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2017 on addressing shrinking civil society space in developing countries (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 April 2018 on the need to establish a European Values Instrument to support civil society organisations which promote fundamental values within the European Union at local and national level (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2018 on the need for a comprehensive EU mechanism for the protection of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2020 on the impact of COVID-19 measures on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2020 on strengthening media freedom: the protection of journalists in Europe, hate speech, disinformation and the role of platforms (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2020 on the situation of Fundamental Rights in the European Union — Annual Report for the years 2018-2019 (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 June 2021 on the Commission’s 2020 Rule of Law Report (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2022 with recommendations to the Commission on a statute for European cross-border associations and non-profit organisations (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on strengthening democracy and media freedom and pluralism in the EU: the undue use of actions under civil and criminal law to silence journalists, NGOs and civil society (13),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0032/2022),

A.

whereas the Union is founded on the values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and these values are common to the Member States; whereas Articles 11(2) TEU and 15(1) TFEU stress the importance of civil dialogue for the realisation of the Union’s objectives;

B.

whereas civil society organisations (CSOs) are non-profit making organisations independent of public institutions and commercial interests, whose activities contribute to the realisation of the EU values set out in Article 2 TEU and fundamental rights; whereas CSOs can take various forms such as associations and foundations; whereas human rights defenders, activists and informal groups are also key actors in civil society;

C.

whereas an intersectional approach is key both to understand and to successfully address the vulnerabilities citizens are facing when they engage in civil society;

D.

whereas many CSOs struggle to survive and have problems with funding, which can seriously hinder their effectiveness and their ability to fulfil their mandate;

E.

whereas civic space refers to the legal and political framework in which people and groups can meaningfully participate in the political, economic, social and cultural life of their societies, exercising the right to express views, the right to information, and the right to assemble, associate and engage in dialogue with one another and with authorities;

F.

whereas freedom of thought and freedom of expression, including in the online space, are the cornerstone of every free and democratic society; whereas civic activism is the fabric of a truly functioning democracy where the rights of minorities are safeguarded and respected; whereas CSOs should have the right to participate in matters of political and public debate, regardless of whether the position taken is in accordance with government policy or advocates a change in the law;

G.

whereas freedom of association is one of the essential bases of a democratic and pluralist society, as it allows citizens to act collectively in fields of mutual interest and to contribute to the proper functioning of public life; whereas freedom of association does not only include the ability to create or dissolve an association but also the ability for that association to operate without unjustified interference by the state; whereas the ability to seek, secure and use resources is essential to the operation of any association; whereas the prohibition or dissolution of an association should always be a last-resort measure and such decisions should be subject to legal redress;

H.

whereas the right to peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of democracy and is crucial to creating a tolerant and pluralist society in which groups with different beliefs, practices, or policies can coexist peacefully; whereas restrictions to and the policing of peaceful assemblies must respect legality, necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination;

I.

whereas the right to information is a precondition for an informed public debate and for holding authorities and public institutions accountable;

J.

whereas freedom of expression and access to information has been restricted in some Member States, often under the pretext of fighting disinformation related to COVID-19; whereas measures preventing terrorism or hate speech should not result in undue restrictions on freedom of expression; whereas strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) have also been used to target CSOs, human rights defenders and activists working in the fields of the environment, rule of law, LGBTIQ+ rights and women’s rights in several Member States; whereas these exert a severe chilling effect on freedom of expression and public activism;

K.

whereas freedom of association is being eroded in some Member States by reforms that put CSOs at risk of deregistration or that introduce unduly burdensome administrative processes, including but not limited to the improper application of anti-money-laundering measures or policies restricting the right to engage in advocacy;

L.

whereas in some Member States, restrictions have been imposed with the deliberate aim of limiting civic space and are accompanied by legal, administrative and fiscal harassment, criminalisation and negative rhetoric aimed at stigmatising and delegitimising CSOs and draining their capacity to carry out their legitimate work; whereas hate speech — both online and offline — and verbal and physical harassment and attacks also emanate from non-state actors; whereas CSOs and human rights defenders working on the rule of law, transparency and corruption, women’s rights, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, environmental issues and the protection of minorities and LGBTIQ+ rights, and freedom of media and expression as well as those providing assistance to migrants and asylum seekers and those involved in search and rescue operations are particularly exposed;

M.

whereas civic space restrictions in neighbouring countries also have implications on and impact the state of civil society in the EU;

N.

whereas some national CSOs that act as watchdogs, in particular by engaging in the monitoring and reporting of violations of rights and liberties, and advocacy and litigation, are particularly targeted by restrictions, retaliatory measures and surveillance;

O.

whereas the situation of LGBTIQ+ rights defenders in Europe was described as worrying by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who reported several instances of online and offline harassment, violent assaults, hate campaigns and death threats in Member States and neighbourhood countries; whereas this trend is interlinked with the scapegoating of other minority groups and it contravenes the principle that every person is born equal in dignity and rights;

P.

whereas a good relationship between the state and its citizens implies that all citizens, including children and young people, should be able to participate in debating and influencing public policies; whereas democracies will only prosper if everyone believes in the democratic systems and if institutions are credible to citizens;

Q.

whereas certain Member States have placed restrictions on CSOs’ ability to engage in political activities; whereas in others, accusations that CSOs are political have become tools to stigmatise and delegitimise them; whereas the delegitimisation of CSOs in certain Member States could appear to be linked to state or media-run smear campaigns; whereas CSOs report discriminatory and restrictive funding practices in certain Member States;

R.

whereas policies and practices instilling a chilling effect on civic space have been adopted in certain Member States with the aim of achieving self-censorship and deterring civic actors from exercising their rights; whereas such policies often combine vague provisions leaving large discretion to public authorities and disproportionately high sanctions; whereas the mere prospect of their application can be enough to instil self-censorship without an actual need to apply them;

S.

whereas the right to peaceful assembly has been restricted due to necessary social distancing rules in a majority of Member States; whereas some Member States have passed laws restricting the right to peaceful assembly in recent years, and have created requirements for permission and notification; whereas in some Member States, the powers of law enforcement authorities are increasing, generating concerns over their necessity and proportionality;

T.

whereas in some Member States, emergency legislation in response to the health crisis has been used as a pretext to arbitrarily restrict fundamental rights and freedoms and to crack down on civil society and other dissenting voices; whereas these measures have been found in some cases not to have met the necessity, proportionality, time limitations and non-discrimination requirements, meaning that any restrictions to fundamental rights and freedoms stemming from these measures cannot be considered legitimate and lawful; whereas despite their role on the ground, CSOs have not been consulted in the development of emergency measures;

U.

whereas the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has seen an unprecedented engagement of CSOs in providing solutions to the pandemic and providing support to people in vulnerable situations; whereas youth organisations have had a positive impact during the pandemic in countering misinformation and strengthening trust in public institutions; whereas long-term adequate funding and institutional support for civil society have an added value in times of crisis;

V.

whereas the emergence of government-organised non-governmental organisations (GONGOs) designed to always support the political legitimacy of those in power and to support the government in public debates and in its political goals while presenting themselves as independent voices constitutes one of the gravest forms of attack against CSOs, jeopardising their existence by undermining active citizenship and depriving them of public funding;

W.

whereas while CSOs increasingly perform economic activities and contribute to the social economy, no legislative steps have been taken to unlock their operations at EU level; whereas despite concrete Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case-law, the principle of non-discrimination and the free movement of capital in relation to cross-border donations is still not universally applied in Member States;

X.

whereas participation by CSOs in the development of law and policy should be facilitated by policy frameworks enabling them to engage in dialogue with public authorities; whereas while progress has been made both at national and EU level, civil dialogue still often remains an ad hoc process;

Y.

whereas foreign funding has been the target of legal and political attacks in some Member States; whereas restrictions imposed on CSOs receiving foreign funding is contrary to Union law, namely Article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital and the Charter; whereas in case C-78/18 (14), the CJEU ruled that the law referred to it violated free movement of capital and freedom of association;

Z.

whereas the Union has embarked on a process through the European Green Deal and digital transformation; whereas this process will require a healthy civic space to allow citizens and affected communities to articulate their interests, debate policy solutions and reach new social contracts;

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.

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular the second, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh indents of the preamble, Article 2, Article 3(3), second subparagraph, and Article 6 thereof,

—

having regard to Articles 10 and 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 21 thereof,

—

having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights, including the third principle on equal opportunities and the corresponding action plan,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1) (the Racial Equality Directive),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2),

—

having regard to the establishment in June 2016 of the EU High Level Group on combating racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 22 May 2018 entitled ‘Building a stronger Europe: the role of youth, education and culture policies’ (COM(2018)0268),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 September 2020 entitled ‘A Union of Equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0565),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 December 2020 entitled ‘Europe’s Media in the Digital Decade: An Action Plan to Support Recovery and Transformation’ (COM(2020)0784),

—

having regard to Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/817 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing Erasmus+: the Union Programme for education and training, youth and sport (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/818 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2021 to 2027) (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/888 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2021 establishing the European Solidarity Corps Programme (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (7),

—

having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights,

—

having regard to the Council recommendation of 12 March 2021 on Roma equality, inclusion and participation (8),

—

having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (9),

—

having regard to the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights’ fundamental rights report of 9 June 2020 and to its second EU minorities and discrimination survey of 5 December 2017 and related report and summary entitled ‘Being Black in the EU’ of 23 November 2018 and 15 November 2019 respectively, which describe the experiences of racial discrimination and racist violence among people of African descent in the EU,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 November 2020 entitled ‘Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0698),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2021 entitled ‘Union of Equality: Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030’ (COM(2021)0101),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 15 November 2018 on the Work Plan for Culture 2019-2022 (10),

—

having regard to the EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation for 2020-2030 of 7 October 2020,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 5 October 2021 entitled ‘EU Strategy on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life (2021-2030)’ (COM(2021)0615),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on the anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd (11),

—

having regard to the Council recommendation of 22 May 2018 on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension of teaching (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 March 2019 on fundamental rights of people of African descent in Europe (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2020 on the implementation of National Roma Integration Strategies: combating negative attitudes towards people with Romani background in Europe (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2021 on children’s rights in view of the EU Strategy on the rights of the child (15),

—

having regard to the infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission in relation to non-conformity with the Racial Equality Directive for discrimination against Roma children in education (infringement numbers 20142174, 20152025 and 20152206),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2021 on EU sports policy: assessment and possible ways forward (17),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts (COM(2021)0206),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2021 on the European Education Area: a shared holistic approach (18),

—

having regard to the study drawn up by the Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies of its Directorate-General for Internal Policies in October 2021 on the role of culture, education, media and sport in the fight against racism,

—

having regard to the general policy recommendations of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe, in particular recommendation No 10 of 15 December 2006 on combating racism and discrimination in and through school education,

—

having regard to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance roadmap to effective equality of 27 September 2019,

—

having regard to the Commission’s sixth evaluation of the Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online,

—

having regard to Goal 10 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: reducing inequality within and among countries,

—

having regard to the Conference on the Future of Europe,

—

having regard to the recommendations issued by the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services in October 2021 on the new Code of Practice on Disinformation,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A9-0027/2022),

A.

whereas discrimination and racism undermine human dignity, life opportunities, prosperity, well-being and often safety; whereas racist stereotypes have a tendency to continue over generations; whereas discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin is prohibited in the EU; whereas migrants, refugees and asylum seekers among others are subjected to racism and discriminatory behaviour;

B.

whereas according to the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (19), racial discrimination and harassment remain commonplace throughout the European Union; whereas racial, religious and ethnic minorities in particular are too often subjected to harassment, violence, racial and ethnic profiling, including by law enforcement, and hate speech, both online and offline; whereas the majority of hate-motivated racist and xenophobic incidents are not reported by the victims (20); whereas racial and ethnic minorities in the EU face structural discrimination and in some cases segregation in certain areas of daily life, including housing, healthcare, employment, education and judicial systems;

C.

whereas the EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025 refers to structural racism as the discriminatory behaviours which can be embedded in social, financial and political institutions, thereby impacting on the levers of power and policymaking;

D.

whereas the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights defines structural discrimination as the rules, norms, routines, and patterns of attitudes and behaviour in institutions and other societal structures that represent obstacles to groups or individuals in achieving the same rights and opportunities available to the majority of the population;

E.

whereas migrants, refugees, political asylum seekers and members of racial, religious and ethnic minorities have limited access to the labour market and are often subjected to labour exploitation;

F.

whereas it is demonstrably clear that the collection of good-quality data is one of the most effective ways to analyse social problems — both quantitatively and qualitatively — and is instrumental for devising, adapting, monitoring and developing evidence-based public policy responses to those problems;

G.

whereas racist and xenophobic attitudes are embraced by certain opinion leaders and politicians across the EU, fomenting a social climate that provides fertile ground for racism, discrimination and hate crimes; whereas this environment is further fuelled by extremist movements such as fascist and extreme right-wing movements which seek to divide our societies; whereas these acts run counter to the common European values and ideals of democracy and equality which all the Member States have undertaken to uphold;

H.

whereas many minority groups have to endure police violence, including collective punishment and racial profiling; whereas specific measures are needed to combat this phenomenon; whereas as a result of deficiencies with the rule of law and criminal justice, the victims of police violence have insufficient protection and access to justice and often face persecution at the hands of the state authorities; whereas racism against ethnic and racial minorities has led to violence and killing;

I.

whereas the way in which people are portrayed in the media, regardless of their racial or ethnic background, can reinforce negative stereotypes with racial connotations; whereas the cultural sector and the media have the power to promote inclusion and to fight racism and combat such stereotypes;

J.

whereas the fight against offline and online racism and discrimination in our societies, both overt and latent, needs to be stepped up and is a shared responsibility; whereas the European Union and its Member States need to further reflect on, commit to and continue their work on tackling the structural racism and discrimination faced by many minority groups;

K.

whereas disinformation often targets minorities and instigates social unrest; whereas an independent and pluralistic media that promotes balanced narratives serves to foster inclusive societies;

L.

whereas solidarity and respect for human life and other human beings are values handed down from generation to generation; whereas school education plays a crucial role in this process;

M.

whereas access to education and educational attainment is an issue for racialised communities throughout Europe; whereas segregation in education remains a significant issue in Europe; whereas the placement of children in segregated schools and the discriminatory practice of placing children of ethnic and racial minorities in schools for children with mental disabilities continues to persist in some Member States;

N.

whereas schools have an instrumental role to play in providing experience on the value of diversity, promoting inclusion, combating racism and reducing racial stereotypes and prejudice;

O.

whereas it is important for children and young people to see that they are represented throughout society, including in the education they are given, in the cultural and sporting clubs and activities in which they participate, and on the internet and media they consume;

P.

whereas although sport plays a key role in social, cultural and educational life and has the power to unite people from a variety of races, ethnicities and religions, and although it can be used to bring together communities and engender the values of equality, accessibility and respect, there have been repeated racist incidents at sporting events and within sport generally across Europe, and many challenges related to racism; whereas the radicalisation that is occurring in sport-related groups must be identified and combated;

Q.

whereas the negative consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic have disproportionately affected those from racial and ethnic minority communities, giving rise to, highlighting and exacerbating inequalities including in culture, media, education and sport; whereas hate-motivated harassment and hate crimes increased significantly at the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic;

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.

—

having regard to Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which requires a high level of human health protection in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities and aims to encourage cooperation between Member States in order to improve the complementarity of their health services in cross-border areas,

—

having regard to Article 174 TFEU on strengthening the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (2) (Cross-Border Healthcare Directive) and in particular Article 168 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 (3),

—

having regard to the Commission study on cross-border cooperation entitled ‘Capitalising on existing initiatives for cooperation in cross-border regions’ published in March 2018 (4),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 14 October 2020 on the implementation and future perspectives for cross-border healthcare (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 November 2020 entitled ‘Building a European Health Union: Reinforcing the EU’s resilience for cross-border health threats’ (COM(2020)0724),

—

having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report of 19 November 2020 entitled ‘Health at a Glance: Europe 2020’,

—

having regard to its position adopted at first reading of 9 March 2021 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health — for the period 2021-2027 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 (EU4Health Programme) (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/522 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health (EU4Health Programme) for the period 2021-2027, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 (7),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing Horizon Europe — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, laying down its rules for participation and dissemination, and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1290/2013 and (EU) No 1291/2013 (8),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund (9),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1059 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments (10),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (11),

—

having regard to the 2021 study on cross-border cooperation in healthcare commissioned by the Committee on Regional Development (12),

—

having regard to the Commission guidance on European structural and investment funds 2014-2020,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A9-0026/2022),

A.

whereas the lack of basic infrastructure, well-trained personnel and quality services in NUTS level 2 regions (regions with between 800 000 and 3 million inhabitants) with GDP per capita lower than 75 % of the EU-27 average, and transition regions with GDP per capita between 75 % and 90 % of the EU-27 average, seriously hampers equal access to healthcare and is the main reason why high-quality health infrastructure and adequate and well-trained health personnel should be a priority for all national and regional governments;

B.

whereas the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial importance of the health sector and put increased demands on healthcare systems and health workers, and thus exposed the weaknesses and shortcomings of healthcare systems as well as the healthcare disparities and inequalities between the Member States and within them, in particular in border, outermost, remote and rural regions, including in regions with low population density;

C.

whereas cohesion policy, through the coronavirus response investment initiative (CRII) and the coronavirus response investment initiative plus (CRII+), was the first line of defence against the COVID-19 pandemic, thus proving that this policy can contribute significantly to reducing health inequalities through supporting advances in e-health, e-medicine and other forms of digitalisation, that, while a source of new opportunities, also require appropriate equipment to master each specific situation, as well as training for medical personnel to cater to each specific situation;

D.

whereas the standard of healthcare provision in the EU is still a prerogative of the Member States and significant differences exist between regions, creating inequalities; whereas NUTS level 2 regions with GDP per capita lower than 75 % of the EU-27 average are not able to devote anything close to the amount of resources on healthcare per capita as their more developed counterparts;

E.

whereas the EU instruments aimed at compensating for some of these problems are mostly limited to ‘soft’ law resulting in general shortcomings; whereas a more structured Union-level approach complemented by a stronger and more comprehensive legal framework and legally binding means of action is required in order to enhance cooperation and coordination between Member States, better protect peoples’ health and effectively address the existing healthcare disparities;

F.

whereas the Commission supports cross-border cooperation in healthcare through numerous studies and initiatives, including through Interreg, financed under the structural funds;

G.

whereas cross-border healthcare-related cooperation requires the support and involvement of a wide range of partners, social and medical institutions, health insurance entities and public authorities, that should address existing barriers to crossing the border in areas such as free movement, information, different taxation and social security systems as well as the recognition of qualifications for healthcare staff and barriers with which healthcare institutions are faced;

H.

whereas the right to access quality healthcare, including preventive care, is part of the European Pillar of Social Rights and should be accessible to people in cross-border areas, which represent 40 % of the territory of the EU and are home to almost one third of the EU population, and generally perform worse economically than other regions within the Member States, in particular cross-border areas with lower population density and fragile economies, such as rural, remote, outermost regions and islands;

I.

whereas strengthening cohesion policy is necessary in order to reduce disparities between the standards of healthcare provision in the EU;

J.

whereas health spending accounts for almost 10 % of GDP in the EU, with people employed in health-related fields making up 15 % of the EU workforce; whereas significant differences regarding the level of healthcare expenditure and the availability of doctors and healthcare professionals still persist among Member States and their regions;

K.

whereas the serious depopulation of border regions, especially by young people and skilled workers, illustrates the lack of economic opportunities in these regions and makes them less attractive in terms of employment in health sector; whereas the shortage of human resources in equitable healthcare, whether as a result of limits on student numbers or lack of career prospects, is one of the key issues when it comes to the sustainability of European health systems;

L.

whereas in the last two multiannual financial frameworks (MFFs), health investments from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) tended to be concentrated in the less-developed Member States and NUTS level 2 regions with GDP per capita lower than 75 % of the EU-27 average, usually focusing on health service modernisation, while the European Social Fund (ESF) investments addressed access to healthcare and tended to be concentrated in the countries facing particular challenges in terms of access to affordable, sustainable and high-quality services;

M.

whereas at the moment, the primary responsibility for healthcare lies with the Member States since they control the organisation and financing of healthcare services and medical practices;

N.

whereas the priorities of NextGenerationEU include digitalisation and health system resilience;

O.

whereas cross-border healthcare is one of the policy areas and fields of intervention most concerned by legal and non-legal obstacles due to major differences between national systems;

P.

whereas a European Health Union should contribute to and foster closer cooperation, coordination and knowledge sharing on health between Member States and relevant stakeholders and increase the EU’s capacity to combat cross-border health threats;

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.

—

having regard to Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on strengthening the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the Union,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, the Just Transition Fund and the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Instrument for Financial Support for Border Management and Visa Policy (1) (the Common Provisions Regulation), and in particular its first policy objective as laid out in Article 5,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1058 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1059 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1057 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1296/2013 (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/2221 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards additional resources and implementing arrangements to provide assistance for fostering crisis repair in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social consequences and for preparing a green, digital and resilient recovery of the economy (REACT-EU) (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1056 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2021 establishing the Just Transition Fund (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/523 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 March 2021 establishing the InvestEU Programme and amending Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 (7),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/694 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2021 establishing the Digital Europe Programme (Digital Europe Programme Regulation) (8), which is dedicated to supporting digital transformation in the EU,

—

having regard to the NextGenerationEU recovery instrument,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 February 2020 entitled ‘Shaping Europe’s digital future’ (COM(2020)0067),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 9 March 2021 entitled ‘2030 Digital Compass: the European way for the Digital Decade’ (COM(2021)0118),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 10 March 2020 entitled ‘An SME Strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe’ (COM(2020)0103),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 1 July 2020 entitled ‘European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience’ (COM(2020)0274),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 30 September 2020 entitled ‘Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 — Resetting education and training for the digital age’ (COM(2020)0624),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 30 June 2021 on a long-term vision for the EU’s rural areas — towards stronger, connected, resilient and prosperous rural areas by 2040 (COM(2021)0345),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Digital Economy and Society Index reports of 2020,

—

having regard to the study of its Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies of 15 June 2018 entitled ‘Digital Agenda and Cohesion Policy’,

—

having regard to the Declaration of Commitment on Women in Digital of 9 April 2019 signed by EU ministers and Member States’ representatives plus Norway and the UK,

—

having regard to the Berlin Declaration on Digital Society and Value-Based Digital Government of 8 December 2020,

—

having regard to the European Institute for Gender Equality report of 16 October 2020 entitled ‘Gender Equality Index 2020: Digitalisation and the future of work’,

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Council of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on Broadband Connectivity amended on 24 February 2021,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 2 October 2020 on COVID-19, the single market, industrial policy and digital, and external relations, specifically those on the digital transformation,

—

having regard to the draft Council conclusions of 11 December 2020 on digitalisation for the benefit of the environment,

—

having regard to the draft Council conclusions of 7 April 2021 on telework in the context of remote work,

—

having regard to the combined teleworking and climate plan of the City of Brussels,

—

having regard to the study of its Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies of 30 April 2021 entitled ‘The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society: Special focus on surveillance and monitoring, as well as on mental health of workers’,

—

having regard to the Commission’s EU Action for Smart Villages,

—

having regard to the study of its Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies of 30 September 2020 entitled ‘EU Lagging Regions: state of play and future challenges’,

—

having regard to the Cork 2.0 Declaration of 5 and 6 September 2016 entitled ‘A Better Life in Rural Areas’,

—

having regard to the joint Committee of the Regions and Commission study of 18 January 2018 entitled ‘Innovation camp methodology handbook: realising the potential of the entrepreneurial discovery process for territorial innovation and development’ (9),

—

having regard to Ireland’s rural development policy for 2021-2025 entitled ‘Our Rural Future’ and its focus on telework in rural areas,

—

having regard to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions report of 28 September 2020 entitled ‘Living, working and COVID-19’,

—

having regard to the Commission study of August 2019 entitled ‘The changing nature of work and skills in the digital age’ (10),

—

having regard to the Commission working paper of December 2018 entitled ‘The Geography of EU Discontent’ (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2021 on shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2021 on cohesion policy and regional environment strategies in the fight against climate change (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2021 on reversing demographic trends in EU regions using cohesion policy instruments (15),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the letter from the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A9-0010/2022),

A.

whereas the EU’s ambition is to pursue effective digital policies that empower all people and businesses to achieve a sustainable and prosperous digital future in all regions;

B.

whereas the digital transformation must be fair and inclusive, create opportunities and promote equality, quality of life, regional competitiveness and the modernisation of the economy;

C.

whereas the digital transition must go hand in hand with the ongoing green transition — together referred to as the twin transitions; whereas the social dimension of this must not be disregarded;

D.

whereas a modern economy entails the introduction of new business models in accordance with trends that represent the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which will respond to the modern challenges of the digital and green transformations;

E.

whereas the European regions with the greatest need for a sustainable transition are generally those with high levels of poverty and exclusion; whereas decisive measures and investment are needed for a speedy recovery that should focus on mitigating the economic and social effects of the pandemic, restarting economic activity, fostering sustainable development, the green transition and the digital transformation, and implementing the policy principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, with a view to improving Europe’s competitiveness;

F.

whereas the new multiannual financial framework, coupled with NextGenerationEU, constitutes the largest ever stimulus package in the EU and will help rebuild a greener, more digital and more resilient Union in the post-COVID-19 era; whereas at the same time, the new cohesion policy presents an unprecedented opportunity for Member States to boost digitalisation as it requires them to allocate a minimum amount to the digital transition and to ensure that certain conditions are in place, as outlined in the 2021-2027 cohesion policy investment framework, in order to receive such funding;

G.

whereas there is still a digital divide in the EU in terms of geography, age, gender, educational attainment, socioeconomic status and income, which prevents some individuals and businesses from reaping the benefits of the digital transformation; whereas this digital divide can further alienate regions suffering from demographic decline, feeding into the EU’s territorial imbalances;

H.

whereas the level of broadband coverage in Europe shows that there is still a need for significant investment, especially in rural areas, where 10 % of households are not covered by any kind of fixed network and 41 % lack fast broadband technology of any kind, and with only 59 % having next-generation broadband access (at least 30Mbps), compared with 87 % of households in the rest of the EU (16); whereas in addition to poor ICT connectivity, rural and peripheral areas often face other structural challenges such as a lack of infrastructure and services, low incomes, or a lack of education facilities and cultural assets, which cause highly skilled people to move to more promising areas (brain drain) (17); whereas EU funding should facilitate the provision of essential infrastructure in order to tackle demographic challenges;

I.

whereas small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the European economy, representing 99 % of all businesses in the EU and employing around 100 million people; whereas they account for more than half of Europe’s GDP and are pivotal not only to achieving the EU’s twin transitions to a sustainable and digital economy but also in adding value in every sector of the economy; whereas, however, only 17 % of SMEs have successfully integrated digital technologies into their businesses, compared with 54 % of large companies; whereas some industries and traditional sectors such as construction, agri-food, textiles and steel are lagging behind in their digital transformations (18);

J.

whereas although the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a massive expansion of telework and ICT-based mobile work (TICTM) (19), which offers great potential to further connect workplaces from urban centres to smaller towns, suburbs and rural areas, there are marked differences in the ability to telework between high- and low-paid workers, white- and blue-collar workers and between genders (20); whereas TICTM and the digitalisation of services can, under certain conditions, facilitate a more balanced geographical distribution of employment and the population;

K.

whereas in order to contribute to the implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, the ESF+ should support investments in people and systems in the areas of employment, education and social inclusion, while also providing support to improve the quality, inclusiveness, effectiveness and relevance to the labour market of education and training systems, including the promotion of digital learning and the professional development of teaching staff; whereas doing so would support economic, territorial and social cohesion in accordance with Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

L.

whereas the experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic have shown how important the development of digital infrastructure is for the functioning of economies and societies including public health services, public education and public administration; whereas it has also highlighted many of the existing problems in rural areas and has emphasised the vulnerability of these regions, notably in terms of digital capacity, the quality and provision of health services, education, broadband access, the resilience of value chains, and digital skills;

M.

whereas although the European Skills Agenda set the objective of having 70 % of the EU’s adult population possess at least basic digital skills by 2025, 42 % of the EU population still do not have basic digital skills and 37 % of workers still lack sufficient digital skills, according to the Commission; whereas there are still severe geographical disparities in ICT skills; whereas women are disproportionately underrepresented in the ICT sector in the EU, as they occupy only 17 % (21) of specialist ICT roles and are less likely to have specialist digital skills and work in ICT-related fields; whereas fewer than 25 % of enterprises in the EU-27 provided ICT training to their personnel in 2019, with significant differences between the Member States (22); whereas the gender divide remains persistent for start-ups in particular, with 91 % of total capital invested in European tech in 2020 going to all-male founder teams (23);

N.

whereas the development of the ICT sector and measures to promote innovation are also necessary to support economic and social digitalisation in general and digitalisation in the industrial sectors in particular;

O.

whereas the digitalisation of public services must go hand in hand with the rights to privacy and personal data protection in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (24);

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.

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB811 (BCS-GH811-4), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D077486/02,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 11 January 2022, at which no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 8 July 2021, and published on 16 August 2021 (3),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’) (4),

—

having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

A.

whereas on 19 September 2018, BASF Agricultural Solutions Belgium NV, based in Belgium, which is a branch of BASF SE, based in Germany, submitted, on behalf of BASF Agricultural Solutions Seed US LLC (‘the applicant’), based in the United States, an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB811, (‘the GM cotton’) in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM cotton for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 8 July 2021, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in relation to the authorisation of the GM cotton, which was published on 16 August 2021;

C.

whereas the GM cotton was developed to confer tolerance to glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides (5); whereas HPPD inhibitor herbicides includes herbicides such as isoxaflutole, mesotrione and tembotrionine;

D.

whereas while the human consumption of cottonseed oil may be relatively limited in Europe, it can be found in a wide variety of food products, including dressings, mayonnaise, fine bakery wares, chocolate spreads and chips; whereas cotton is fed to animals mainly in the form of cottonseed cake/meal or as full fat cottonseeds (6); whereas cotton is also consumed in the form of cotton flour by humans;

E.

whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 (7) requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide resistant plants;

F.

whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds (8); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the GM cotton will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues may be present in the harvest;

G.

whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent scientific peer-reviewed studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate (9);

H.

whereas, according to EFSA, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for several breakdown products of glyphosate relevant for GM glyphosate-tolerant crops are missing (10);

I.

whereas isoxaflutole is, according to the harmonised classification and labelling approved by the Union, very toxic to aquatic life and suspected of damaging the unborn child (11); whereas only isoxaflutole was used on the GM cotton for the purpose of the risk assessment; whereas, however, HPPD-inhibitor herbicides encompass a range of herbicides, including mesotrione, which according to EFSA, may be considered to have endocrine disrupting properties (12);

J.

whereas, according to an independent scientific analysis (13), due to the mode of action of the active ingredients of the complementary herbicides, it is plausible that the application of those herbicides will cause stress responses in the plants and thus impact gene expression and plant composition itself;

K.

whereas assessment of herbicide residues and their breakdown products found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (‘EFSA GMO Panel’) and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic since the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, and the composition and thus toxicity of the breakdown products (‘metabolites’), can be impacted by the genetic modification itself (14);

L.

whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period (15); whereas those critical comments include that on the basis of the evidence presented, it is not possible to conclude on the comparative assessment of the GM cotton or on its safety, that cultivation of the GM cotton entails increased exposure of operators in third countries to glyphosate, whose impact on health is currently in dispute but could be adverse, that information and data provided on toxicology is insufficient and that the monitoring plan does not relate the monitoring activities to relevant protection goals;

M.

whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health (16); whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (‘SDG’) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination (17); whereas authorising the import of the GM cotton would increase demand for this crop which is treated with glyphosate and HPPD inhibitor herbicides, thereby increasing the exposure of workers and the environment in third countries; whereas the risk of increased worker and environmental exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;

N.

whereas, according to a peer-reviewed study published in 2020, Roundup, one of the world’s most widely used glyphosate-based herbicides, can trigger a loss of biodiversity, making ecosystems more vulnerable to pollution and climate change (18);

O.

whereas a 2021 peer-reviewed scientific study carried out in Mexico demonstrated physiological, metabolic, and ecological effects of transgene introgression (19) in wild cotton and found that, inter alia, the expression of cp4-epsps (glyphosate tolerant) genes in wild cotton under natural conditions altered secretion levels of extrafloral nectar and thus its association with different ant species as well as the level of herbivore damage (20); whereas the study states that ‘If we want to conserve in-situ the primary gene pool of wild relatives, we must work to identify the ecological and evolutionary processes affected by the existence and permanence of these transgenes within their populations’ and that ‘upon the detection of these genes, mitigation strategies to reduce the magnitude of the damage can be promptly designed’; whereas the most effective strategy to mitigate transgene introgression and the associated risks to wild populations and biodiversity, in line with the precautionary principle, would be to avoid the cultivation of transgenic crops in the first place;

P.

whereas the Union, as a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’), has the responsibility to ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States (21); whereas the import of the GM cotton should not be authorised given that its cultivation, and resulting transgene introgression, could unbalance delicate ecological interactions in ecosystems of wild cotton;

Q.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN CBD;

R.

whereas the vote on 11 January 2022 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

S.

whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

T.

whereas, in its eighth term, the European Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, the European Parliament has already adopted 23 objections to placing GMOs on the market; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas the reasons for Member States not supporting authorisations include lack of respect for the precautionary principle in the authorisation process and scientific concerns relating to the risk assessment;

U.

whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

V.

whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee (22);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0365).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0366).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0367).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0368).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0369).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0080).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZIR098 (SYN-ØØØ98-3), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0081).

—

European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 × DAS–44406–6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0334).

—

European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 ×MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0335).

—

European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt 11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0336).

—

European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean GMB151 (BCS-GM151-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0024).

—

European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 (BCS-GHØØ2-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0025).

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 (DP-Ø73496-4) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D077485/02,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 of 3 April 2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (2),

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 11 January 2022, at which no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (3),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 5 May 2021, and published on 17 June 2021 (4),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’) (5) ,

—

having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

A.

whereas on 15 May 2012, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, based in Belgium, submitted, on behalf of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., based in the United States (the ‘applicant’), an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 (the ‘GM oilseed rape’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also concerned the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified oilseed rape 73496 for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 5 May 2021, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion in relation to the authorisation of the GM oilseed rape, which was published on 17 June 2021;

C.

whereas the GM oilseed rape is tolerant to glyphosate (6) through expression of the glyphosate acetyltransferase protein GAT4621;

D.

whereas Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide resistant plants;

E.

whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds (7); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the GM oilseed rape will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues and their breakdown products (‘metabolites’) may be present in the harvest;

F.

whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent scientific peer-reviewed studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate (8);

G.

whereas, according to EFSA, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for the metabolites N-acetyl-glyphosate and N-acetyl-AMPA, which are relevant for uses on GM glyphosate-tolerant plant varieties that are imported into the Union, are missing (9);

H.

whereas assessment of herbicide residues and their breakdown products found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic since the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, and the composition and thus toxicity of the metabolites, can be impacted by the genetic modification itself (10);

I.

whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period (11); whereas those critical comments include that methodological approaches used in the risk assessment of the GM oilseed rape differ in some cases from those recommended by EFSA guidance meaning that the risk assessment has clear deficits and that no strong conclusions regarding safety can be drawn, that the representativeness of the trial locations for the range of environmental conditions occurring during commercial production of oilseed rape materials imported into the Union is not sufficiently demonstrated, that the level of residues from glyphosate treatment and glyphosate metabolites in the GM oilseed rape were not assessed, that the safety of the GM oilseed rape cannot be confirmed without information on concentrations of glyphosate, N-acetyl glyphosate and its metabolites and that there is no evidence of non-toxicity of acetylated glyphosate;

J.

whereas a 2017 report by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health (12); whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (‘SDG’) Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination (13); whereas authorising the import of the GM oilseed rape would increase demand for this crop which is treated with glyphosate, thereby increasing the exposure of workers and the environment in third countries; whereas the risk of increased worker and environmental exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;

K.

whereas, according to a peer-reviewed study published in 2020, Roundup, one of the world’s most widely used glyphosate-based herbicides, can trigger a loss of biodiversity, making ecosystems more vulnerable to pollution and climate change (14);

L.

whereas the Union, as a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’), has the responsibility to ensure that activities within its jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States (15);

M.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the UN SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN CBD;

N.

whereas the vote on 11 January 2022 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

O.

whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

P.

whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, Parliament has already adopted 23 objections to placing GMOs on the market; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas the reasons for Member States not supporting authorisations include lack of respect for the precautionary principle in the authorisation process and scientific concerns relating to the risk assessment;

Q.

whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

R.

whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee (16);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0365).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0366).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0367).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0368).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0369).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0080).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZIR098 (SYN-ØØØ98-3), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0081).

—

European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 × DAS–44406–6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0334).

—

European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 ×MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0335).

—

European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt 11 (SYN-BTØ11-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0336).

—

European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean GMB151 (BCS-GM151-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0024).

—

European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2022 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 (BCS-GHØØ2-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2022)0025).