8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/1

—

having regard to Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union, as well as Articles 67 and 81(2)(g) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission’s consultation paper entitled ‘On the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution as a means to resolve disputes related to commercial transactions and practices in the European Union’ of 18 January 2011 and the document entitled ‘Summary of the responses received’ published in April 2011,

—

having regard to the Commission’s consultation document entitled ‘Alternative dispute resolution in the area of financial services’ of 11 December 2008 and the document entitled ‘Summary of the responses to the public consultation on alternative dispute resolution in the area of financial services’ of 14 September 2009,

—

having regard to the Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law of 19 April 2002 (COM(2002)0196),

—

having regard to the Commission’s recommendations of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (1) and of 4 April 2001 on the principles for out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes (2),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 13 April 2011 entitled ‘Single Market Act – Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence ‘Working together to create new growth’ (COM(2011)0206),

—

having regard to the Council Resolution of 25 May 2000 on a Community-wide network of national bodies for the extra-judicial settlement of consumer disputes (3) and to the European Extra-Judicial Network (EEJ-Net) launched on 16 October 2001,

—

having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding on a Cross-Border Out-of-Court Complaints Network for Financial Services in the European Economic Area of 30 March 1998 and to FIN-NET,

—

having regard to Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (4),

—

having regard to the European Code of Conduct for Mediators (hereinafter: ‘Code of Conduct’) launched in 2004,

—

having regard to Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (5),

—

having regard to the study entitled ‘The Cost of Non ADR – Surveying and Showing the Actual Costs of Intra-Community Commercial Litigation’, dated 9 June 2010, by the ADR Center, Rome, Italy,

—

having regard to the findings of the European Business Test Panel (EBTP) on ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’, covering the period from 17 December 2010 to 17 January 2011,

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2003 on the Commission’s Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law (6),

—

having regard to its recommendation of 19 June 2007 based on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on governance and partnership in the single market (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2011 on the implementation of the directive on mediation in the Member States, its impact on mediation and its take-up by the courts (10),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0343/2011),

A.

whereas access to justice is a fundamental right,

B.

whereas an area of freedom, security and justice, as laid down in the Treaties, must meet the needs of citizens and businesses, for example by creating simpler and clearer procedures, whilst enhancing access to justice,

C.

whereas the objectives of the judicial process and of alternative means of dispute settlement are closely linked and seek to swiftly restore legal peace between parties in dispute, suitably safeguard individuals' substantive rights and settle disputes between parties,

D.

whereas alternative dispute resolution (ADR), which helps parties avoid traditional adjudicative procedures, is capable of constituting a quick and cost-effective alternative to litigation,

E.

whereas ADR is a mechanism for reaching out-of-court settlements by helping consumers and traders to resolve conflicts through the intervention of a third party (mediator or arbitrator),

F.

whereas in many countries the public authorities – including ombudsmen and regulatory authorities – play an important role in encouraging the resolution of disputes,

G.

whereas by strengthening citizens’ confidence in the internal market, trust in the enforcement of rights in cross-border disputes can make a contribution towards stimulating the EU economy,

H.

whereas the EU citizen’s knowledge and understanding of ADR schemes throughout Europe is low and confused, with only a small percentage of citizens knowing how to file a claim with an ADR body,

I.

whereas it is important to assure better publicising of the existence of ADR mechanisms and to do more to encourage consumers and professionals to use them as an alternative to court proceedings, in order to make it possible to avoid a confrontational approach and offer the prospect of a win-win situation,

J.

whereas a balanced approach has to be sought which takes into consideration both the flexibility of ADR systems on the one hand and the need to ensure consumer protection and fair procedures on the other,

K.

whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for further efforts to develop ADR; whereas it has called on the Commission in its resolution of 6 April 2011 on governance and partnership in the single market to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution in the EU by the end of 2011,

L.

whereas the Commission has included a legislative proposal on ADR, in its Work Programme 2011 as a strategic initiative and in its communication of 13 April 2011 on a ‘Single Market Act’, as one of the twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence, with the aim of consumer empowerment,

M.

whereas the deadline for the implementation of Directive 2008/52/EC expired on 21 May 2011,

1.

Welcomes the recent Commission consultation on ADR which, despite its wide-ranging title, is exclusively targeted at consumer transactions;

2.

Believes, however, that ADR forms part of a general ‘justice-for-growth’ agenda across sectors; takes the view that any approach to ADR should go beyond consumer disputes so as to include business-to-business (B2B) civil and commercial transactions, irrespective of whether they are carried out between private or public undertakings, family disputes, defamation cases and other general interest disputes or ones involving parties with different legal statuses;

3.

Welcomes the fact that Directive 2008/52/EC has harmonised some standards for mediation; emphasises that common terms need to be defined and procedural guarantees maintained in all areas of ADR; feels the need to revisit the 1998 and 2001 Commission recommendations and the Code of Conduct;

4.

Considers that, whilst self-regulation remains important, legislative action setting out minimum standards upon which ADR schemes may be based is necessary in order to provide a framework for ADR within Member States' legal orders, as shown by the example of Directive 2008/52/EC; stresses that any such framework should be careful not to limit diversity in the field of ADR as there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution that could tackle the variety of problems that arise in different legal sectors;

5.

Emphasises the need for better understanding of the many different types of mechanisms and processes (including the activities of public authorities such as ombudsmen) that are often collectively referred to as ADR; considers that while there is considerable commonality among the techniques of negotiation and dispute facilitation that are commonly to be found in ADR systems, nevertheless the structure and architecture of ADR differs considerably between Member States;

6.

Considers that legislative measures adopted at EU level will facilitate the implementation of ADR and encourage natural and legal persons to use it more often, especially in relation to cross-border disputes, bearing in mind that judicial procedures for resolving such disputes are more complex, expensive and lengthy;

7.

In this context, calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal on the use of alternative dispute resolution for consumer matters in the EU by the end of 2011 and emphasises the importance of its swift adoption;

8.

Believes that ADR standards should include: adherence to/agreement on ADR; independence, transparency, effectiveness, fairness, impartiality and confidentiality; effects on limitation and prescription; enforceability of agreements resulting from ADR; qualification of third parties;

9.

Takes the view that ADR bodies should be monitored and assessed regularly by independent evaluators;

10.

In order not to prejudice access to justice, rejects any wholesale imposition of a mandatory system of ADR at EU level, but suggests that a mandatory system of referral of the parties to consider possibilities of ADR could be examined;

11.

Notes the example of Italian ‘joint conciliation’ as a possible best practice model based on a protocol agreed and signed by the company and the consumer associations requiring the company to agree in advance to ADR in order to resolve any disputes which arise in the area covered by the protocol;

12.

Stresses that any ADR clause should not hamper access to justice, in particular on the part of the weaker party, which, in certain circumstances, may also be an SME, and therefore considers, to this extent, that ADR decisions may be binding only with the explicit agreement of the parties involved;

13.

Takes the view that an obligation to disclose circumstances that affect the third party’s independence or that give rise to a conflict of interests and a duty to serve all parties equally, as laid down in the Code of Conduct, should apply to ADR in general;

14.

Calls for an obligation for the parties involved and, where appropriate, a third party, as contained in the Code of Conduct, to keep ADR information confidential; is also considering, where applicable, more far-reaching measures, such as creating a professional privilege, in parallel with that provided for in Article 7 of Directive 2008/52/EC;

15.

Notes, however, that whilst respect for the confidentiality of personal data is important, there should also be a level of transparency guaranteed in the ADR process, allowing Member States and ADR bodies to identify and share best practices, and allowing independent regulators the opportunity to scrutinise the procedure in cases where complaints have been made;

16.

Believes that not only mediation but ADR in general (Article 8 of Directive 2008/52/EC) should have an effect on limitation and prescription periods; acknowledges the risk posed by the many forms of ADR and the risk of abusive delay of court proceedings; notes that the feasibility study on European Contract Law (11) provides for a suspension of prescription in the case of arbitration and mediation proceedings, and in certain other ADR situations; calls upon the Commission to continue work on this;

17.

Is convinced that speedy and inexpensive enforcement of agreements resulting from ADR is indispensable, including cross-border; calls for legislative measures to this end;

18.

Recalls that specific training for third-party neutrals is essential; calls on the Commission to assemble data on the required type and extent of training, and to assist the sectors in developing training and quality-control schemes;

19.

Supports the Commission’s intention of encouraging the use of alternative means of dispute resolution that are accessible, swift, effective and cheap and apt to enable the establishment and maintenance of quality and trust-based commercial, economic, social and neighbourhood relations and to contribute to a high level of consumer protection in a ‘win-win’ situation, with benefits for both sides as compared to current judicial practice;

20.

Stresses that, although there are numerous ADR systems operating effectively in Europe at present, one of the main obstacles to their use is the lack of even development of such systems throughout the EU, both in geographical and sectoral terms; suggests, therefore, that existing shortcomings with regard to the geographical coverage of ADR in Europe be rectified rapidly, deplores the major sectoral deficiencies that persist in most Member States, while promoting the improvement of a sector by sector coverage that would involve people who understand the way in which a given sector works; encourages the Member States to consider introducing single points of contact for each sector, to provide information on how to initiate ADR;

21.

Recalls that ADR is of particular interest to SMEs; reiterates its call upon the Commission to consider synergies between ADR and an instrument in EU contract law; would also welcome guidance on ADR clauses in standard contracts;

22.

Acknowledges the achievements of FIN-NET, ECC-Net and SOLVIT, but believes that, as regards information to parties and funding, there is still room for improvement, and calls on the Commission to support, strengthen and enhance the capabilities of, existing bodies such as these that have demonstrated their effectiveness and value;

23.

Sees great potential for online ADR, in particular for smaller claims; notes that traditional ADR procedures exist online alongside others that seek to prevent disputes or to facilitate their resolution; emphasises that, where traditional ADR is carried out online, procedural standards should not be lowered, and that issues such as the enforceability of awards should also be resolved; sees a particular benefit in online trustmark systems; points to the work of the UNICTRAL Working Group on Online Dispute Resolution (12), intended for B2B and business-to-consumer (B2C) transactions;

24.

Believes that a ‘hierarchy’ of settlement – comprising, firstly, an in-house complaint scheme, secondly, ADR and, only as last resort, litigation – will reduce time and cost; calls upon the Commission to assist the sectors in promoting such systems;

25.

Emphasises the crucial role of types of ADR in family disputes, where it may reduce psychological harm, can help the parties to start talking again and thereby, in particular, help ensure the protection of children; sees potential in cross-border ADR in terms of its flexibility in particular; points also to the work of the European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction;

26.

Agrees with the Commission that appropriate access to reparation in the internal market requires both the possibility of easy recourse to ADR and the existence of an effective system for collective claims, the two being complementary and not mutually exclusive;

27.

Sees potential for ADR within the ongoing discussion on collective redress, since ADR provides an effective means for dispute settlement that avoids redress action before the courts;

28.

Sees a need at EU level for ADR in the area of freedom of the press and rights of personality, given that in cases of defamation and breaches of rights of personality in particular, costs of legal proceedings, especially in some Member States, can be ruinous, and that ADR could help to improve the existing situation;

29.

Stresses the need to ensure that European consumers can access ADR systems for transnational as well as national disputes, especially on the on-line market, which is growing rapidly in the EU; notes that the use of ADR systems affords a higher level of consumer rights protection and boosts consumer confidence in the market, businesses and consumer rights protection institutions by making them more attractive, as well as promoting cross-border trade and increasing the prosperity of all operators in the EU market;

30.

Calls for an effective out-of-court dispute settlement system for consumer matters which is operational across the EU;

31.

Suggests that the Commission’s future legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumers in the EU incorporate the guidelines to be followed in relation to ADR systems established in Europe, these being the following:

32.

Calls on the Commission to make provision for coordination in respect of transnational consumer disputes in order to facilitate access to, and the coordination of, national and business-led ADR systems;

33.

Calls on the Commission, in the context of cross-border e-commerce consumer disputes, to make arrangements for the rapid introduction of a multilingual platform enabling consumers to resolve their disputes entirely on line, bearing in mind that this platform must meet quality standards and be based on existing ADR systems in the Member States;

34.

Takes the view that the provision of information to consumers is a responsibility shared by public authorities, information and advisory networks, regulators and consumer groups, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness-raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;

35.

Criticises the confusing nature of the Commission’s current ADR database; suggests that the Commission create a multilingual European internet ADR portal, where any consumer may access information on how ADR works, what it involves and about their rights and obligations, building on existing databases and networks; emphasises that, in the interests of consumers, emphasis must be placed on the user-friendliness and clarity of the on-line portal;

36.

Emphasises that consumers must be able to obtain all relevant on-line information about ADR, properly translated into their own languages, by using readily accessible, user-friendly on-line translation machines;

37.

Emphasises that it is crucial to raise consumer awareness of the existence and benefits of ADR prior to the initiation of a consumer dispute; insists on the necessity to reinforce the sense of responsibility of businesses and business organisations in this regard; considers that businesses and businesses federations have a duty to inform consumers on available ADR mechanisms; proposes that this ‘upstream’ information should include a reference in all contractual documents drawn up by professionals to the possibility of recourse to ADR, along with contact details and referral procedures for the relevant ADR systems; however, this requirement should avoid extra costs and bureaucracy;

38.

Recommends, as a potential incentive for enterprises, that a quality label for mediation be introduced in relation to mediation in consumer disputes, which would be associated with guidelines recognising best practices, so that consumers can rapidly identify businesses that have opted into ADR systems; takes the view that a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out first on this proposal; stresses that the Commission should ensure that the label is properly used and enforced;

39.

Notes that there needs to be an improvement in general information about rights and their enforcement and specific information on ADR schemes, including their existence, functioning and location; takes the view that information programmes should also point to the main advantages of choosing ADR, such as the cost in comparison to litigation, success rates and time efficiency in comparison to litigation; takes the view that such programmes should be targeted in particular at citizens and SMEs; believes that ADR is most effectively provided in a network close to citizens and on the basis of joint work with Member States;

40.

Calls on the Commission, at the same time, to take immediate steps to ensure that consumers and businesses are made more aware of existing legislative instruments, such as Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters and Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims; with that aim in view, proposes that national authorities, courts, bar associations and chambers of commerce, consumer advice bureaux, legal expenses insurers and other competent organisations should be involved in a comprehensive information campaign; calls for financial support to be provided for European and national campaigns of this kind;

41.

Notes that the usage of small claims tribunals in some Member States remains significantly low and that more needs to be done in terms of legal certainty, language barriers and transparency of proceedings; calls on the Commission to devote particular attention to these legal bodies when formulating its legislative proposal on the use of ADR for consumer matters in the EU;

42.

Notes that the conciliatory nature of ADR means that the resolution is more likely to be considered a ‘win-win’ result and points to the fact that compliance with resolutions reached via ADR is generally high; believes, therefore, that up-to-date statistics regarding this should be published alongside public information on ADR;

43.

Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to undertake information campaigns aimed at educating, and raising the awareness of, both consumers and businesses with regard to the benefits of using this institution;

44.

Considers that ADR information campaigns should be run in cooperation with chambers of commerce, consumer groups and offices of fair trading (or equivalent) in order to ensure a well coordinated and effective campaign;

45.

Takes the view that the provision of information to businesses is a responsibility shared by public authorities and representative organisations, and recommends that they each, at their respective level, conduct awareness-raising campaigns and pilot projects on the subject;

46.

Acknowledges that one of the main obstacles to the use of ADR systems is the reluctance of businesses to engage in such mechanisms; proposes that chambers of commerce, umbrella organisations at both national and EU level, and other professional bodies be required to inform enterprises of the existence of ADR and of the potential benefits of its use, not least in terms of: pre-empting lawsuits; corporate image; and, lastly, the possibilities offered by ADR, unlike an arbitration or court ruling, for the re-establishment of trust-based commercial relations between the parties;

47.

Calls on the Commission, on the basis of the data collected and a solid impact assessment in compliance with the better regulation rules, to explore the setting out of minimum standards of ADR across sectors, while developing existing schemes and encouraging Member States and sectors covered by schemes to increase funding, bearing in mind that ADR, while providing parties with a low-cost alternative, must not be ‘justice on the cheap’;

48.

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

8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/9

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights,

—

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

—

having regard to the Community Charter of the Social Fundamental Rights of Workers (2),

—

having regard to Articles 2, 10, 19 and 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426) and Parliament’s position of 2 April 2009 thereon (4),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities (5),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 August 2010 entitled ‘A digital agenda for Europe’ (COM(2010)0245),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 May 2000 entitled ‘Towards a Barrier-Free Europe for People with Disabilities’ (COM(2000)0284),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 25 September 2001 entitled ‘eEurope 2002: Accessibility of public websites and their content’ (COM(2001)0529),

—

having regard to the World Health Organisation’s international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) of 22 May 2001 (World Health Assembly resolution (WHA) 54.21),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 30 November 2003 entitled ‘Equal opportunities for people with disabilities: A European action plan’ (COM(2003)0650),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 24 January 2003 entitled ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’ (COM(2003)0016),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 March 2005 entitled ‘Green Paper on confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations’ (COM(2005)0094),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 November 2007 entitled ‘Situation of disabled people in the European Union: the European Action Plan 2008-2009’ (COM(2007)0738),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 December 2010 entitled ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’ (COM(2010)0758),

—

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

—

having regard to the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘the Optional Protocol’), adopted on 13 December 2006,

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on ‘Promoting labour market inclusion – Recovering from the crisis and preparing for the post-2010 Lisbon Agenda’ of 30 November 2009,

—

having regard to Petition 1454/2010 by Urzula Weber-Król,

—

having regard to the Commission’s report on the functioning and effects of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air (COM(2011)0166),

—

having regard to the ruling of the European Court of Justice (Case C 13/05 regarding Directive 2000/78/EC – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Concept of disability) of 11 July 2006,

—

having regard to Council Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 1988 on sign languages for deaf people (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 May 1989 on women and disability (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 September 1992 on the rights of mentally disabled people (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 December 1995 on the human rights of disabled people (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 May 1996 on the rights of people with autism (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 December 1996 on ‘Parking card for disabled people – rights of disabled people’ (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 April 1997 on equality of opportunity for people with disabilities (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2003 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament ‘Towards a United Nations legally binding instrument to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities’ (14),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 12 January 2011 entitled ‘The Annual Growth Survey: advancing the EU’s comprehensive response to the crisis’ (COM(2011)0011), and the draft joint employment report annexed thereto,

—

having regard to Council decision 2011/308/EU of 19 May 2011 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on reducing health inequalities in the EU (16),

—

having regard to the framework agreement on inclusive labour markets, concluded by the European social partners on 25 March 2010,

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions on common values and principles in European Union health systems (2006/C146/01),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 8 June 2010 on ‘Equity and health in all policies: solidarity in health’,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0263/2011),

A.

whereas as full citizens, people with disabilities (including physical and psycho-social disabilities) have equal rights and are entitled to unquestionable dignity, equal treatment, independent living and full participation in society,

B.

whereas over 80 million people, or around 16 % of the European Union’s total population, are living with disabilities – including people with mental health problems, with special regard to autism – and their rate of unemployment is at least twice as high as that of people without disabilities; whereas people with disabilities constitute a vulnerable group, among whom the rate of poverty is 70 % higher than average; whereas the rate of employment for people with disabilities is only around 45 %, while high-quality jobs ensure economic independence and foster personal achievement; whereas unemployment increases the risk of poverty and social exclusion, since at least a quarter of the population suffer once during their lifetime from a mental health problem and whereas for 10 % of them this can lead to chronic mental health problems, underlining the need for active and targeted policies to combat this persistent situation; whereas the higher risk of poverty is often the result of limited access not only to employment and training but also to healthcare and appropriate treatment,

C.

whereas the most marginalised groups in society are those hardest hit by crisis, and whereas people with disabilities are one of the groups most affected by the impact of the financial crisis in Europe,

D.

whereas the fact that gaps in the implementation of the existing principle of equal treatment of people with disabilities are regularly brought to the attention of the Committee on Petitions by the citizens concerned,

E.

whereas people with disabilities in need of high levels of support are among the most excluded in society, and whereas women with disabilities are generally amongst the more vulnerable and marginalised members of society and experience discrimination and exclusion from participation in education, employment and social life,

F.

whereas the success of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the objective of which is to develop European growth which is smart (based on innovation and research), sustainable and inclusive, will necessarily require structural improvements as regards the mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities,

G.

whereas this figure will rise substantially in the coming years in view of the inevitable reversal of the population pyramid, as more than one third of people aged over 75 have disabilities that restrict them to some extent and over 20 % are considerably restricted,

H.

whereas the European Union formally ratified the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and whereas this has also been signed by all 27 EU Member States and ratified by 17 of them,

I.

whereas the European Union’s competence in the area of protection against discrimination on the ground of disability is currently limited to employment, occupation and vocational training (2000/78/EC), and whereas the UN CRPD is a mixed agreement whereby the EU institutions and the Member States have obligations regarding its implementation and the proposals and approaches within this report to be considered and addressed in the upcoming Commission proposal on a European Accessibility Act,

J.

whereas social policies aimed at people with disabilities often fall within the competence of Member States and are therefore based on national traditions and heritage, social customs, economic development and the very important role played by families and associations in helping people with disabilities to achieve autonomy and integrate into society,

K.

whereas disability is an evolving concept that results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others and with the same dignity,

L.

whereas there is a strong relationship between mobility, disability and social inclusion, especially with regard to freedom and access to communication (including Braille and sign languages and other alternative forms of communication), freedom of movement in all fields of life and access to services; whereas full participation in all aspects of society needs to be promoted, bearing in mind the importance of Community policies regarding information and communications technologies, as well as home robotics and online communication solutions, and the need to move towards full accessibility by promoting compatible standards in the single market and facilitating their dissemination,

M.

whereas access to information (Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and culture, as laid down in the Council Resolution of 6 May 2003 on accessibility of cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities, plays a vital role in the intellectual development of people, including people with disabilities, and therefore has a direct impact on their employment opportunities,

N.

whereas people with disabilities have the right to community-based services favouring independent living, to personal assistance, to economic and social independence and full participation in society and to the labour market; whereas if support activities were remunerated, they would account for nearly 50 % of GDP (the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, 21 April 2010),

O.

whereas accessibility barriers to using services and goods offered to all are significant obstacles to people with disabilities,

P.

whereas people with disabilities in some Member States and in some sectors suffer from discrimination throughout their lives and in particular during the period of education and training, owing to a lack of early recognition and intervention for children and pupils with disabilities, which restricts their future employment opportunities,

Q.

whereas in the 16-19 age group the rate of non-participation in education is 37 % for people with disabilities and 25 % for people with a certain degree of disability, as against 17 % for people without disabilities,

R.

whereas Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on Persons with Disabilities, ratified by the EU in December 2010, prohibits exclusion from the education system on the basis of disability, and whereas inclusive education represents the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, building an integrationist society and achieving education for all,

S.

whereas women with disabilities often suffer double discrimination, and whereas governments can counter this phenomenon by implementing gender mainstreaming in all relevant areas of disability policy,

T.

whereas the economic crisis represents a challenge for employment in general and for people with disabilities in particular, with the rise in the unemployment rate being considerably greater for people with some kind of disability and a growing fear that disability benefits may be used to control labour supply,

U.

whereas the family members of persons with disabilities suffer from discrimination by association and measures supporting families will in turn have a positive impact on the full and equal realisation of the rights of persons with disabilities,

V.

whereas in 2007 a petition with 1 364 984 signatures was submitted to the Commission calling for people with disabilities to be given extensive protection in all European Union policies, and whereas the Commission has so far failed to take due account of this legitimate initiative,

1.

Emphasises that the Europe 2020 Strategy target of 75 % of the population aged 20-64 in employment cannot possibly be achieved unless this includes the population with some form of disability;

2.

Stresses that financial expenditure for the benefit of, and economic investment in, people with disabilities is a long-term return investment in the well-being of all in a sustainable society where people can live longer and work more efficiently under better conditions; in this connection, stresses that it is unacceptable in the context of public austerity measures for unjustified cuts to be made to services for persons with disabilities or to projects for their social inclusion, since this would mean failing to guarantee certain basic and inalienable rights of people with disabilities; believes that, on the contrary, investment in this area should be increased substantially; reiterates that all health services in the European Union should be based on the fundamental values of universality, access to high-quality care and solidarity;

3.

Observes that throughout the financial crisis, from which there are now signs of recovery, there has remained an intrinsic solidarity in European societies; fully acknowledges and stresses the need for individualised measures for persons with disabilities who require, on the basis of different levels and features of disabilities, even more intensive support based on human rights and dignity as well as the risk of discrimination, which is frequently not respected and therefore needs to be highlighted through European public awareness campaigns; points out that the needs of people with disabilities should therefore be taken into account on the basis of their specific requirements so that suitable arrangements can be made at all stages of education and training and professional life;

4.

Stresses the importance of the objectives of the new European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (EDS) and calls especially for the framing of more detailed actions at all levels of governance based on reliable data; considers that the basic principle of ‘nothing about persons with disabilities without persons with disabilities’ should be observed, i.e. people with disabilities must be involved in all measures and decisions which affect them;

5.

Regrets that the Commission Communication on the European Disability Strategy does not include an integrated gender perspective or a separate chapter on gender-specific disability policies, despite the fact that women with disabilities are often in a more disadvantaged position than men with disabilities and are more often victims of poverty and social exclusion; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take gender aspects into account throughout the European Disability Strategy (EDS) 2010-2020;

6.

Stresses the need for an efficient new approach to disability starting with the creation of a European Disability Board, which would meet on a regular basis and with the active involvement of the European Parliament and the participation of representative organisations of persons with disabilities, as well as national task forces, in order to ensure more effective mechanisms to coordinate and monitor – as well as to evaluate – the implementation of the EDS within the Commission and Member States’ programmes and strategies, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity;

7.

Recalls that a sustainable society where people live longer and in better health should also imply improvements in the planning of urban and common areas and in the accessibility of available goods and services, including equal access to new information and communication technologies, so as to improve the quality of life of people with disabilities and prevent social exclusion;

8.

Calls for full respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and support for the principles of Design for All and Universal Design; acknowledges the efforts made by the European Union and the United Nations with respect to legislation aimed at strengthening the full integration of people with disabilities in society but takes the view that more should be done;

9.

Stresses in particular the need to ensure full respect for the rights laid down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the case of children with disabilities, including the right to engage in play, the right to education, the right to participate in community life (including cultural life and the arts), the right to the medical care required by their personal circumstances, and the freedom to seek and receive information and ideas; points out in particular that Article 23 of the above convention recognises that children with disabilities should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community, and calls for children with disabilities to have effective access to education, training, healthcare services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development;

10.

Calls for effective mainstreaming of disability throughout the EU 2020 Strategy and its flagship initiatives, including Innovation Union, in which reference to disability is lacking;

11.

Calls attention to the fact that many people with disabilities continue to suffer discrimination with regard to the lack of equal recognition before the law and justice, and calls on the Member States to correct and remedy these shortcomings, including effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff, and stresses the importance of guaranteeing and ensuring equal participation in political and public life, including the right to vote, to stand for election and to hold office, in accordance with Article 29 of the UN CRPD, because according to estimations made by relevant NGOs and election experts, only a small percentage of people with disabilities are able to participate in elections;

12.

Takes the view that purchasing goods and services, including the relevant and accessible information about them, should include suitable (on-line) shopping solutions as well as goods and services designed to be accessible in the long term; draws attention to the need for products for people with disabilities to be approved under both European and global standards; calls on the Commission to take further appropriate measures to promote the development of, and access to, universally-designed goods and services as enshrined in Article 29 of the UN CRPD, including the exchange of best practices;

13.

Highlights the fact that, in the light of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, numerous studies have shown that women with disabilities suffer double discrimination on grounds both of their gender and their disability; calls on the Commission, in view of the almost total lack of mechanisms in this regard, to make special provision in the social protection systems for women with disabilities;

14.

Stresses that people with mental disabilities and intellectual impairments are particularly exposed to the risk of abuse and violence; calls on the Member States to establish a developed control mechanism to provide social services and legal protection for victims and to guarantee respect for the human rights and freedoms of people in residential institutions, with special regard to women and children with disabilities; calls on the European Institute for Gender Equality to carry out studies on the situation of girls and women with disabilities in relation to violence; stresses the need for measures and actions to fight the double discrimination of women and promote full equality of rights and opportunities; calls on the European Commission and the Member States to take active and effective steps to support and promote the transition from institutional to community-based care, making efficient use of possibilities of EU funding such as PROGRESS for measures to heighten public awareness of the situation of people with disabilities resident in institutions; calls on the Member States to guarantee priority access to social housing for women with disabilities who fall victim to violence, grants for adapting the home environment, home support and public services attending to cases of gender violence;

15.

Stresses that the Member States should be encouraged to pay considerably more attention to the social aspects of disability; considers that a necessary precondition for the individual’s ability to exercise civil rights could be the establishment of a legal background for a supported decision-making mechanism; calls on the Member States to encourage as much as possible forms of support such as personal assistance and other services which support independent living in order to reduce institutional care in general in favour of other forms of support; calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth study of these phenomena and to heighten society’s awareness thereof; highlights the role of voluntary work as a vital support for people with disabilities and calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue and to improve the initiatives and support programmes devoted to such work;

16.

Stresses the importance of guaranteeing and ensuring equal access to public information with special regard to the public management of natural and man-made disasters, in accordance with Article 21 of the UN CRPD;

17.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary steps to prepare for natural disasters and those caused by human negligence, with particular regard to providing people with disabilities with appropriate, useful information, inter alia through the presentation of useful and suitable international examples;

18.

Stresses the need for action at both national and European level to promote the transition from institutional to local community care, making use of the Structural Funds accompanied by measures to heighten public awareness of the situation of people with disabilities resident in institutions;

19.

Stresses that consistent gender-specific data on disability issues and disability-related services in the Member States, including specific indicators and information regarding the number and quality of residential institutions and homes, are currently lacking or limited, and that Eurostat should provide more annual gender-specific data on persons with disabilities and their carers;

20.

Expresses disappointment at the lack of transparency and the limited involvement of persons with disabilities in data collection and consultation and considers that the European Commission should encourage the participation of persons with disabilities in consultation procedures that must be fully accessible according to the experience of NGOs, designed in order to allow specific comments and supported by effective information campaigns; stresses that only 336 replies by civil society to the Commission’s on-line consultation, which was held on the Commission’s central consultation website in 2009, show that the information campaigns did not reach targeted groups and the online tool was not accessible for blind people using screen readers; calls on the Member States to ensure that in all implementation processes at all levels, people with disabilities and their organisations are included in the process (as set out in Article 33 UN CRPD);

21.

Calls on the Commission to speed up the process of monitoring, cooperation and exchange of good practice between Member States, especially with respect to the gathering of comparable gender-specific data and progress indicators, in order to achieve the aims set at both national and Community level; stresses that measurements should be based on the needs of people with disabilities and should include not only medical but also social, employment and environmental aspects; at the same time, stresses the importance of coordinating efforts to combat abuse of the system and the feigning of disability;

22.

Recalls that registration of people with disabilities for services and public-budget-based support must not lead to violation of their human rights and privacy or the creation of stigmas;

23.

Stresses that demographic change will also lead to a growing number of elderly people with disabilities, as more people will experience the onset of a disability because people are living longer, so that there will be a growing need for the development and design of services and solutions that are of benefit both for persons with disabilities regardless of their age and elderly people with or without disabilities;

24.

Encourages alliances between the two groups in society, in order to contribute to innovative growth, based also on employment and social development in the Member States and in order to meet the new demands arising from the ageing society and demographic change;

25.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen both sanctions and positive incentives for Member States to implement Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 and to respect its legally binding requirements; calls on the Commission to reinforce anti-discrimination and accessibility provisions in the future Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 and to monitor and assess the correct implementation of the European funding programmes and the use of European Funds;

26.

Calls on the Commission to promote the use of European Structural Funds, especially the European Regional Development Fund, to improve the accessibility of goods and services and the built environment through the use of European funds;

27.

Acknowledges that free movement is a fundamental right within the European Union; stresses that it positively influences the quality of life and participation in society and the labour market of people with disabilities and their families in society, with special regard to better access to health services, paying more attention to people with chronic disabling diseases in order to decrease health inequalities throughout the European Union;

28.

Points out that, in a Europe that promotes equality and freedom of movement within its territory for its citizens, the rights of people with disabilities vary from one Member State to another;

29.

Stresses that accessible transportation enables people with disabilities to participate in the labour market more easily and therefore helps in the fight against poverty and social exclusion;

30.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to bring about accessibility of services more speedily via various strategies to remove barriers to access to these technologies, including lower prices, as well as EU2020 flagships initiatives designed to achieve the EU2020 objectives;

31.

Recalls that mobility is a core issue for the European Employment Strategy and that the specific obstacles to a life of dignity and independence for people with disabilities in the EU remain extremely significant, particularly in terms of the portability of benefits and aid as well as of access to the necessary facilities or personal assistance;

32.

Stresses that people with disabilities, under the Directive on application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (2011/24/EU), are entitled to cross-border health care and should be granted equal access to health care in any EU Member State, all the more so if they need highly specialised care;

33.

Calls for better, mutual recognition of disability status across the Member States; calls on the Member States to exchange good practice in order to close the gaps between national systems for assessing degree(s) of disability across the EU, with the aim of ensuring better mobility for people with disabilities;

34.

Underlines the need to encourage recognition by the Member States, in their social security systems and when people retire, of the involvement and unpaid work of carers, generally women, of people with disabilities; stresses that particular attention should be paid to these women;

35.

Recognises the importance of Council Recommendation 98/376/EC of 4 June 1998 on a parking card for people with disabilities, which states that this card should exist in a standard format and should be recognised by all Member States in order to facilitate the bearers’ car use, and observes that a unified EU charter for travellers’ rights and obtaining and renewing driving licences and any other permits or documents which may be required to facilitate mobility between Member States are essential for the inclusion of people with disabilities in society across Member States; recognises that innovative forms of free communication tools for the blind and the deaf, such as accessible information services with special regard to online services, are also essential for the full enjoyment of their rights; this includes ‘easy to read’ versions for people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities; calls for the reduction of barriers to the freedom of movement of people with disabilities, via the adoption of a European Mobility Card, based on mutual recognition by Member States of disability cards and disability benefits and entitlements so as to make it easier for people with disabilities to study, work and travel, also using the Open Method of Coordination framework; calls for the creation by the Commission of a more informative website targeting people with disabilities, explaining their rights and providing additional specific information on travelling;

36.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to promote access without physical barriers to workplaces and homes for people with disabilities as a means of helping them integrate into working life;

37.

Stresses that innovative and knowledge-based economies cannot develop without accessible content and forms for people with disabilities governed by binding legislation, such as accessible web pages for the blind and subtitled contents for the hard of hearing, including mass media services, online services for people using sign languages, smart phone applications and tactile and vocal aids in public media;

38.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce a twin-track approach, whereby binding legislation and standards are seen as complementary instruments necessary to achieving accessibility; stresses that the legislation should lay down a framework which is sustainable, given the rapid developments in the ICT sector; notes that the standards should concern evolving tools that can ensure implementation of the legislation;

39.

Is aware of the lack of equal access to health care, including access to health and health-care information, and calls on the European Commission to speed up its work on recommendations that will support equal access to health services and to information on health and health care;

40.

Stresses that in order to achieve the active involvement of people with disabilities in all fields of social life, efforts have to be made to provide communication solutions for people with mental disabilities (e.g. easy-to-read websites) and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for people with complex communication needs;

41.

Calls on the Member States, with the help of the Commission, to encourage the integration and acceptance in society of people with disabilities by improving access for them to sports, leisure and cultural facilities and activities, including the promotion and exchange between Member States of cultural material accessible to the visually impaired in accordance with the Council Resolution of 6 May 2003 on accessibility of cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities (17);

42.

Calls on the Member States to remedy shortcomings in accessibility legislation, especially as regards public transport and passenger rights legislation, including damage to mobility equipment, the services of electronic information communication systems and rules on public-built environments and services;

43.

Takes the view that ‘equal opportunities’ cannot be interpreted as meaning the same conditions and circumstances for people with different needs, and therefore believes that people with different disabilities should have access to appropriate means of purchasing goods and services, creating real equal opportunities;

44.

Reaffirms the need to guarantee universal, effective, non-discriminatory access for persons with disabilities to social protection, social advantages, health care and education, and to the supply of the goods and services which are available to the public, including housing, telecommunications and electronic communications, information – including information provided in accessible formats – financial services, culture and leisure, buildings open to the public, modes of transport and other public areas and facilities;

45.

Stresses that integration into working life and economic independence are extremely important factors for the social integration of people with disabilities;

46.

Reaffirms that products, goods and services, including their modified versions, should not be discriminatory and therefore must not cost more for people with disabilities;

47.

Maintains that SMEs play a crucial role in giving people with disabilities access to employment, insofar as they can provide a working environment conducive to enhancing the personal and professional potential of people with disabilities; stresses, therefore, that SMEs should be provided not only with comprehensive information on facilitation and support measures for the hiring of protected persons but also with all relevant information on technologies and courses of study which enable people with disabilities to lead autonomous and active professional lives;

48.

Stresses the exceptional importance of employing people with disabilities on the ordinary labour market; is aware of the great need for more flexible legal forms of employment relations with an emphasis on modern forms of employer-employee relations, and calls on the Commission and Member State governments to adopt legal and financial measures that will effectively support the employment of people with disabilities;

49.

Calls on the Member States to improve and adapt their active employment policies to enable people with disabilities both to join the labour market and to remain on it; advocates the introduction of initiatives aligned with the needs of each type of disability, including plans and vocational guidance that operate from the moment individuals in need register with the services set up for this purpose;

50.

Stresses that sheltered workshops and integrated workplaces, though not on an equal footing with participation in the open labour market, are valuable ways of accompanying and supporting all people with different disabilities and at different stages of life, including by means of reasonable accommodation in the transition towards an open labour market, and takes the view that unjustified denial of reasonable accommodation (Article 5 of Directive 2000/78/EC) should be seen as a form of discrimination, in accordance with Article 2 of the UNCRP; notes that in some Member States, sheltered workshops and quotas can be used as a transition to the open labour market, with the provision of specific facilities for people with disabilities and of staff trained to meet their needs; stresses that, in large undertakings, the appointment of representatives from among people with disabilities, allowing them to speak for themselves, should be welcomed, as should a strengthening of closer cooperation between relevant local NGOs and SMEs; stresses that personal assistants should supported if necessary, since this would significantly improve the opportunities for people with disabilities to gain a foothold in the labour market;

51.

Stresses the importance of transition programmes which, firstly, offer opportunities for work, beginning with sheltered workshops and progressing to the open labour market, and, secondly, create a more flexible framework for the transition from professional rehabilitation to other forms of employment in the course of implementing the Europe 2020 Strategy;

52.

Calls on the Member States to consolidate and improve active employment policies adopted with a view to integrating people with disabilities at the workplace, and to increase the effectiveness of the national bodies responsible;

53.

Notes that the Member States should, as a priority, agree and adopt as soon as possible the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426); calls on the Commission to continue to support the overcoming of technical difficulties within the Council in order to ensure that a swift agreement is reached; notes that anti-discrimination policy plays a key role in promoting social inclusion and employment for people with disabilities;

54.

Calls for the European public procurement legislation to be reviewed in order to make the accessibility criteria mandatory for enforcing selection criteria aimed at promoting social inclusion, innovation and accessibility for people with disabilities;

55.

Stresses that, despite the differences between the Member States, the overwhelming majority of social security systems are not flexible enough for individuals to receive benefits in a manner enabling them to remain on the labour market; calls for these systems to be revised in order to make them more proactive so that individuals who receive benefits or who are partially disabled can remain on the labour market;

56.

Recalls that the Commission itself, in its Communication on a European Disability Strategy, expresses concerns as to the low availability of subtitles in television and audio-description on television in the European Union; underlines especially the fact that a pan-European campaign to ensure wider access to subtitling on television in the European Union has been conducted for several years by organisations of deaf and hard of hearing people with the support of the European Parliament; calls for more diligent implementation of the Member States’ obligation under Directive 2007/65/EC to encourage broadcasters to ensure greater accessibility of media services to people with hearing or visual disability; calls on the Commission to provide for specific funding possibilities for public broadcasters in order to help them introduce the framework of services of subtitles and audio-description in their programmes;

57.

Finds that the employment level of people with disabilities across Europe is woefully low and reminds the European institutions that the aims of the EU2020 Strategy cannot be achieved unless the situation of such people improves; society must therefore be familiarised with disability and must accept it, including at pre-school and primary school level;

58.

States that the present education and training systems are not sufficient to prevent a high drop-out rate of people with disabilities without additional public policies offering specific learning support, since the figure relating to the Europe2020 objective represents a reduction to less than 10 %; stresses that this leads to significant social and employment disadvantages, and resulting poverty, among people with disabilities, especially during the present economic crisis; stresses, given the high drop-out rate of persons with disabilities and in the light of the Council Conclusions of 11 May 2010 on the social dimension of education and training, the need to invest in and promote effective (including alternative) educational and (vocational) training programmes that are tailored to the needs, attributes and abilities of persons with disabilities, and notes that this calls for the availability of an adequate number of qualified and motivated professionals with sound and suitable programmes, as well as the availability of such programmes in the curricula of all vocational education and training and higher education establishments, including in extra-curricular programmes for people with disabilities, in order to combat negative attitudes towards children with disabilities and for them to obtain adequate qualifications for the modern and open labour market; calls on the Member States and the Commission to enable persons with disabilities to have better access to information about existing mobility and education programmes as well as equal access to Lifelong Learning programmes; notes, this being the case, that mainstreaming of anti-discrimination in Europe2020 and its flagship initiatives is needed in order to fulfil Article 24 of the UN CRPD;

59.

Confirms that inclusive education should be the focus, in particular in the context of the accreditation of prior experiential learning, and that this should therefore be emphasised within the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’) as well as the New Skills and Jobs Flagship of EU2020; notes, in addition, the need for new and suitable guidelines and proper use of IT in schools and at home to provide personal, tailored assistance;

60.

Stresses that all children, including those with disabilities, need to be guaranteed the right to universal access to all sectors and levels of education in all institutions; calls on the Commission and Member States to increase the general information provided for families with children with disabilities in order to include early recognition and support and open up possible solutions for their specific needs; highlights the importance of state support for the families of people with disabilities, in terms of funding, assistance (including childcare services), healthcare provision, psychological support and the sharing of expertise, as well as more flexible working hours for (one of) the parents with children with disabilities; therefore urges the Member States to establish dedicated and accessible offices where information and administrative advice can be obtained; calls on the Member States to support the families of people with disabilities and professionals working in the national health systems by means of targeted information and training measures and by involving patients’ associations in decision-making and monitoring processes;

61.

Underlines that employers should allow people with disabilities to take up a position of work, if qualified, and to advance in it, and should support them with training;

62.

Emphasises the need to foster the promotion of integrated work-linked training projects which enable young people with disabilities to make an immediate practical transition from education to working life;

63.

Emphasises that efforts must also be made to address the issue of non-formal education and learning for young people with disabilities, including in areas such as social relations, the mass media (which should be subject to ever more stringent accessibility requirements, including in relation to subtitling and audio description systems), sport, leisure and outdoor pursuits, according to the specific needs of each child or young person; emphasises that these are not merely crucial tools for the healthy development of each individual, but also inalienable rights recognised by the UN;

64.

Stresses that lifelong learning is a crucial way of supporting and increasing adaptability and continuance of employment for people with disabilities, and that it is particularly relevant for people who acquire a disability during the course of employment, especially for people who have an evolving disabling disease;

65.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support or set up rehabilitation services in the fields of health, education, training, employment, tools for independent living, transport, etc. which are more effective and overlapping; these must not only be monitored and individually tailored but also help long-term budgetary and development planning;

66.

Believes that suitable funding needs to be channelled to organisations of people with disabilities; insists that for such organisations the cofinancing rate should be no less than 10 % of the value of the projects presented by them, in view of their known financial difficulties;

67.

Stresses that voluntary social corporate responsibility could also be an important impetus to the situation of people with disabilities; calls for the introduction of aid and subsidies with special regard to EU funds and programming, which would vary according to the type of contract, for companies and individuals hiring workers with disabilities; calls on actors and stakeholders to support and apply good practice in this field, with special regard to women who have children with disabilities;

68.

Reaffirms that training of public officials in the EU Institutions and the Member States in receiving and informing people with disabilities should be the rule, and that access to public legal documents and procedures should be supported by concrete actions; calls on the EU institutions to set an example as regards the employment of people with disabilities and urges the Member States also to pursue this strategy;

69.

Stresses that policies to foster and support independent entrepreneurship should pay due attention to the integration of people with disabilities into the labour market and into the sphere of economic activity, as this integration is a source of flexibility that enables them, in many cases, to overcome limits and barriers in the workplace; calls on the Member States to introduce more suitable and effective aid for independent entrepreneurship policies concerning this group;

70.

Calls on the Commission to present more effectively the advantages of accessibility and to mainstream the costs and expenditure of creating a barrier-free environment for all with special regard to an ageing society;

71.

Encourages the creation of special forms of leave so that parents can take care of their children with disabilities; urges, further, that the commitment shown and the work performed by parents of children with disabilities should be recognised by being counted as professional experience and by being specifically taken into account when old-age pension entitlements are calculated;

72.

Stresses that barrier-free access to health services and complex rehabilitation services does not stop the deterioration of health completely, particularly in an ageing society, which is why everyone has a responsibility in terms of everyday activities and consumer habits if a sustainable society in which ever greater value must be placed on health, from prevention to rehabilitation, is to be achieved;

73.

Calls on the Commission to secure adequate financial support for the EU umbrella organisation representing people with disabilities, as well as other European impairment-specific organisations, in order to enable full participation in policy making and implementation of legislation which builds on the commitments in the EDS and the UN CRPD and in other decision-making processes concerning issues relating to people with disabilities;

74.

Deplores the fact that people with disabilities must assume an additional financial burden – the extra expenditure in the short term incurred seemingly because of their disability – in their daily lives, which has a considerable impact on their quality of life;

75.

Calls on the Commission, in the light of its targets on poverty reduction, to disaggregate poverty figures in order to calculate the numbers of persons with a disability who are experiencing poverty so that comparable targets for poverty reduction of persons with a disability can be achieved within the framework of the EU 2020 strategy;

76.

Points out that eliminating or seriously alleviating this poverty would entail having more people with disabilities in work, which would increase net tax revenue for the state and would reduce the number of people needing benefits for reasons of extreme poverty;

77.

Confirms that, recalling the impetus of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion as well as the new European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, decreasing poverty cannot be achieved without integrating people with disabilities, starting with the field of education and later in the labour market, and adjusting income policies regarding invalidity and disability pensions systems in accordance with point 12 of the EPSCO Council conclusions adopted at its meeting of 30 November 2009, bearing in mind that this process may also lead to stigmatisation;

78.

Recognises that early detection and help are vital and fundamental in the case of children with disabilities and must be regarded as long-term investments in an ageing society; observes that families of people with disabilities are more exposed to the risk of poverty and social exclusion, and that special attention should be paid to them;

79.

Calls on the Member States to avoid unjustified cuts in social protection for people with disabilities under the austerity policies introduced in response to the economic crisis, since it is necessary to ensure an acceptable standard of living for them as an inalienable right;

80.

States that persons with disabilities are particularly at risk of social exclusion and poverty and highlights the fact that the poverty rate of persons with disabilities is 70 % higher than that of people without disabilities; emphasises that persons with severe or multiple disabilities and single parents with children with disabilities are in the most vulnerable position; calls on the Commission and the Member States to guarantee their rights and take measures to improve their quality of life by providing, inter alia, access to practical information on everyday issues, including by familiarising them with skills-building procedures and services which have an impact on family life;

81.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to take further steps and produce regular reports concerning rare diseases and provide real assistance with developing contacts between parents and the specialists living closest to their homes; takes the view that this must be taken into account and assessed in the work of the INSERM organisation; calls on the Commission to promote the establishment of a European network of accredited centres for the diagnosis and treatment of specific forms of rare diseases, in order to coordinate and monitor their activities and the benefits they offer patients;

82.

Confirms that, based on the new rights enacted in the EU Charter, the Commission has the correct approach to equal opportunity: strengthening anti-discrimination, supporting active inclusion politics and raising awareness of disability, including notions of Design for All and Universal Design, and stressing the importance of reasonable accommodation;

83.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission swiftly to ratify and implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well as its Optional Protocols and welcomes the Commission’s initiative to accede to the Convention’s Optional Protocol;

84.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to consider concluding an interinstitutional agreement with the European Parliament and to draw up within one year a specific recommendation for Parliament to be involved in monitoring the implementation of the UN CRPD;

85.

Calls on the Council to adopt the Commission proposal for a decision on the conclusion by the EU of the Optional Protocol, stressing the fact that the mechanism set up by this Protocol could, with the involvement of the European Parliament, lead to implementation of the UN CRPD by the EU;

86.

Calls on the Commission to develop concrete, appropriate, more detailed measures and to set up a monitoring mechanism for all levels of governance in respect of the implementation of the EDS in line with the list of actions of EDS, in close cooperation with the European Parliament;

87.

Calls on the Member States to give as much support as possible to suitable measures and tools tailored (apart from the medical aspect) to a higher level of independent life in order to ensure equal opportunities and active life for persons with disabilities and their families;

88.

Emphasises the need to help those who can work and want to remain in the labour force, even if they have lost part of their functional capacities; calls on the Member States to promote a culture of inclusiveness and help integrate people with partial work capacity into the labour market;

89.

Calls on the Member States to (re)consider their disability-related actions and national programmes or strategies within the time span and framework of the EDS in accordance with the EU2020 Strategy and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

90.

Calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal for a European Accessibility Act as announced in the EDS, stressing the need for strong, binding measures at EU level to improve the accessibility of goods and services for people with disabilities, with a clear roadmap;

91.

Calls on the Member States to adopt, with the support of the Commission, specific social measures to ensure equal access to health care, including high-quality health and rehabilitation services for people with mental and physical disabilities;

92.

Stresses the importance of research into new therapeutic methods which further facilitate the integration of people with disabilities into society; points out, in this regard, that drama and pet therapy, for instance, are proving to be effective in promoting socialisation and interpersonal communication;

93.

Urges the Commission to take the necessary measures to help the visually impaired to carry out business transactions;

94.

Calls on the Commission to have stronger disability-related references in the planned revision of the public procurement reform;

95.

Calls on the Commission, as per the outcome of the debate following publication of the Green Paper on Pensions, to argue in favour of a cross-cutting policy on disability in the forthcoming white paper, due to be published in the second half of 2011;

96.

Calls on the Commission to assess whether further measures taken in the context of the European Structural Funds with special regard to the Rural Development Fund help people with disabilities to be active citizens living in rural areas in Europe;

97.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to make every effort to draw up rules on personal screening when using transport services which will guarantee passengers’ fundamental rights and dignity and serve the purpose of their journeys, with particular regard to the medical devices, aids and accessories which can be taken on board, and to achieve a clear, common interpretation of the existing security requirements in order to ensure that people with disabilities are not denied the opportunity to travel – in the absence of proper justification and to a disproportionate degree – simply to prevent inconvenience to the service provider;

98.

Calls on the Commission to increase efforts to achieve individually-tailored navigation-based services for the blind and those with serious visual impairments and to report on these annually and make specific recommendations – taking into account dynamic technological development – ensuring that progress is made and continuous, multimodal door-to-door transport is possible, as set out in the White Paper entitled ‘Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’;

99.

Calls on the Member States to review their provision of health services for people with disabilities, such as encompassing measures relating to physical accessibility to services, training and medical staff, awareness-raising, information provided in accessible formats, customised counselling services, including translation into various languages, and health services customised to the needs of people with disabilities;

100.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in giving support to sport and recreation for people with disabilities, to avoid making distinctions when identifying disabilities, and urges the Council to continue its efforts, recalling that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe promised, in 1986, to support sport for people with disabilities;

101.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to improve access for people with disabilities in the field of copyright, including the increased exchange of best practices, to support the development of optimum forms of cooperation, and to ensure service providers are governed by appropriate, common and compulsory requirements concerning people with disabilities, with particular emphasis on those with visual impairments;

102.

Stresses that, in accordance with the spirit of the UN CRPD, Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices – particularly the provision on misleading omissions – is also relevant to people with disabilities;

103.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to take action on the basis of the practice and experience of the European Parliament to make ICT barrier-free for deaf people, in accordance with Parliament’s 1988 and 1998 decisions, and to report on this annually to the MEP(s) concerned;

104.

Calls on the Commission to prepare a study with people with visual impairments in mind analysing the characteristics of the digital displays (interfaces) of industrial and domestic products and alternative, equivalent information solutions for blind people and making specific legislative proposals;

105.

Calls on the Member States and Commission to recognise sign language as an official language in the Member States; notes that the Member States should therefore work towards the possibility of such a recognition, in accordance with the Brussels Declaration of 19 November 2010;

106.

Calls on the Commission to pay attention to the inclusion of the interests of people with disabilities, in accordance with the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, when handling assistance for international relations and development;

107.

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

8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/25

—

having regard to Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC on procedures for the award of public contracts (1) and Directive 2007/66/EC on review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (2),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2010/48/EC on the Conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (3), which entered into force on 22 January 2011 and which identifies public procurement directives as ‘Community acts which refer to matters governed by the Convention’,

—

having regard to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement of 15 April 1994,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and especially Article 26 thereof (integration of persons with disabilities),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on equal access to public sector markets in the EU and in third countries (4),

—

having regard to the Commission Green Paper on the modernisation of EU public procurement policy (COM(2011)0015),

—

having regard to the Commission Green Paper on expanding the use of e-procurement in the EU (COM(2010)0571),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on a single market for enterprises and growth (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2010 on new developments in public procurement (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 February 2009 entitled ‘Pre-commercial procurement: driving innovation to ensure sustainable high-quality public services in Europe’ (7),

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to Professor Mario Monti’s report of 9 May 2010 on ‘A new strategy for the single market’,

—

having regard to Commission staff working document SEC(2010)1214,

—

having regard to the report on ‘Evaluation of SMEs’ access to public procurement markets in the EU’ (8),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Public procurement for a better environment’ (COM(2008)0400),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Think Small First – a “Small Business Act” for Europe’ (COM(2008)0394),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative. Innovation Union’ (COM(2010)0546),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 11-12 May 2011 on the Green Paper on ‘The modernisation of EU public procurement policy – towards a more efficient European market’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 July 2011 on the Green Paper on ‘The modernisation of EU public procurement policy – towards a more efficient European market’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 13 July 2011 on the Green Paper on expanding the use of e-procurement in the EU,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0326/2011),

A.

whereas a properly functioning EU public procurement market is a key driver of growth and a cornerstone of the single market, and is, furthermore, fundamental to stimulating competition and innovation and to addressing fast-emerging environmental and social public-policy challenges, as well as quality-of-work issues including adequate pay, equality, social cohesion and inclusion, while achieving optimal value for citizens, businesses and taxpayers;

B.

whereas European public procurement rules have contributed substantially to increased transparency and equal treatment, to combating corruption and to professionalising the procurement process;

C.

whereas the current economic climate makes it more important than ever to ensure optimal efficiency in public spending, whilst limiting costs borne by businesses as much as possible, and a better functioning procurement market would help achieve these two objectives;

1.

Welcomes the Commission Green Paper and the broad consultation process as a starting point for the revision of the Public Procurement Directives, in compliance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon and the case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and in line with the revised state aid rules;

2.

Points out that, although the revision of the EU procurement directives in 2004 led to useful further development of the single market for public procurement, there is a need –some years after the transposition of Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC into national law – to assess whether optimisation and clarification of the directives will be necessary in order to address shortcomings that have become evident in practice; emphasises that many stakeholders see public procurement rules as highly complex, leading to costly and burdensome administrative compliance procedures; deplores the frequent cases of inadequate transposition of the rules into national legislation, and the insufficiency of training measures; calls on the Commission to propose a significant simplification and consolidation of the rules, while further clarifying them where necessary; stresses furthermore that the increased use of ICT must now play a major role in reducing administration and costs, and that the various European initiatives on e-procurement and e-commerce should accordingly be aligned with the reform of the procurement rules;

3.

Calls for an explicit statement in the directives that they do not prevent any country from complying with ILO Convention C94; calls on the Commission to encourage all Member States to comply with that Convention; stresses that the effective functioning of sustainable public procurement requires clear and unambiguous EU rules precisely defining the framework of Member States’ legislation and implementation;

4.

Asks for clarification of the scope of the directives; notes that the main purpose of public procurement is the purchase of goods, works and services by public authorities to accommodate the needs of their citizens and ensure effective use of public funds; points out that there must be a direct benefit for the contracting authority in order for a procedure to qualify as public procurement;

5.

Calls for clarification of the definitions in the directives – for example the definition of a ‘body governed by public law’ – in line with the case-law of the ECJ and without reducing the scope of EU public procurement rules;

6.

Recalls its resolution of May 2010 on recent developments in public procurement, which took note of the ECJ case-law and took the view that public-public cooperation was not subject to public procurement rules as long as the following criteria were met: that the purpose of the partnership was the provision of a public-service task conferred on all the public authorities concerned; that the task was carried out solely by the public authorities concerned, i.e. without the involvement of private capital; and the activity involved was essentially performed on behalf of the public authorities concerned; underlines the fact that transferring tasks between public sector organisations is a matter for the Member States’ internal administrative organisation and is not subject to procurement rules; takes the view that these clarifications should be codified in the procurement directives;

7.

Emphasises the exclusion of service concessions from the scope of European procurement rules; reiterates that due account must be taken both of the complexity of the procedures and of the differences between Member States in terms of legal culture and practice with regard to service concessions; takes the view that the process of defining the term ‘service concession’ and establishing the legal framework governing such concessions has evolved as a result of the 2004 public procurement directives and the CJEU’s supplementary case-law; insists that any proposal for a legal act dealing with service concessions would be justified only with a view to remedying distortions in the functioning of the internal market; points out that such distortions have not hitherto been identified, and that a legal act on service concessions is therefore unnecessary if it is not geared to an identifiable improvement in the functioning of the internal market;

8.

Emphasises that the current classification of A and B service categories should be maintained in so far as ‘lighter’ provisions for B services have their justification in the characteristics of that category as mainly locally or regionally provided services; calls on the Commission to develop tools that make it easier for local and regional authorities to decide to which category specific contract tasks belong;

9.

Observes, in this context, that the application of procurement law to the provision of personal social services is often not the best way of ensuring optimum results for the users of the services in question; calls for recognition under European law of tried and tested Member State procedures based on the principle that all providers able to comply with the conditions previously laid down by law should, irrespective of their legal form, be permitted to provide services, provided that account is taken of the general principles of equal treatment, transparency and non-discrimination;

10.

Emphasises that the introduction of new rules for public procurement markets below the EU thresholds should be avoided, as it may jeopardise legal certainty established at national level;

11.

Calls on the Commission to align the Remedies Directive with the new public procurement framework which will emerge following the current review, and to carry out this exercise in parallel to the main legislative proposal, in order to ensure consistency;

12.

Stresses the Commission’s responsibility for monitoring the correct transposition of EU directives in the Member States;

13.

Takes the view that, in order to develop the full potential of public procurement, the criterion of lowest price should no longer be the determining one for the award of contracts, and that it should, in general, be replaced by the criterion of most economically advantageous tender, in terms of economic, social and environmental benefits – taking into account the entire life-cycle costs of the relevant goods, services or works; stresses that this would not exclude the lowest price as a decisive criterion in the case of highly standardised goods or services; asks the Commission to develop, in close cooperation with the Member States, a methodology for the calculation of life-cycle costs on a broad and non-obligatory basis; stresses that supporting the criterion of ‘maximum economic benefit’ would foster innovation and efforts to achieve the best quality and value, i.e. to comply with the requirements of the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses that this is particularly relevant in relation to public procurement of goods that have an impact on consumers’ health – in the food sector, for example – where quality and production methods play an important role; emphasises that public procurement rules should be flexible enough to ensure that passive consumers, for example in hospitals, care facilities for the elderly, schools and kindergartens, have equal access to healthy, value-for-money food, rather than merely the cheapest available option;

14.

Recognises that public procurement, if used effectively, could be a real driver in promoting quality jobs, wages and conditions as well as equality, in developing skills and training, in promoting environmental policies, and in providing incentives for research and innovation; calls on the Commission to encourage governments and contracting authorities to increase the use of sustainable public procurement, supporting and promoting high-quality employment and providing quality services and goods in Europe; invites the Commission to scrutinise how public procurement has contributed to achieving the EU’s wider goals and to outline what should be done to improve these objectives in the future;

15.

Recalls that pre-commercial procurement is an underused tool, which can drive innovation in public procurement and make a significant contribution to identifying and establishing lead markets and improving SME access to public procurement; considers furthermore that the proposed model of risk and benefit (IPR) sharing in pre-commercial procurement requires both legal clarification and simplification in order to enable regular and effective use of this tool by procurement practitioners; accordingly, calls on the Commission to propose an adaptation of the relevant procurement or state aid rules as part of the overall revision exercise, in order to boost the take-up of pre-commercial procurement;

16.

Notes the importance of standards for public procurement, in that they can help public procurers to meet their policy objectives in an effective and transparent way; calls, in that regard, for the development of a regularly updated database of standards, especially in relation to environmental and social criteria, to be made available to public authorities, in order to ensure that procurers, when drawing up tenders, have access to appropriate guidance and a clear set of rules so that they can easily verify their compliance with relevant standards;

17.

Calls for increased reliance on non-discriminatory and open standards in public procurement, in the interests of the simplification and innovation objectives, particularly in the areas of accessibility, ICT, and the environment;

18.

Underlines the fact that whether or not a product or service has been sustainably produced is rightly considered to be a characteristic of the product, which can be used as a criterion for comparison with products or services that have not been sustainably produced, so as to enable contracting authorities to control the environmental and social impact of contracts awarded by them in a transparent way but at the same time not to weaken the necessary link to the subject matter of the contract; points out the need to clarify the scope for including requirements relating to the production process in the technical specifications for all types of contract, where relevant and proportionate; points to the Wienstrom case, which has become the classic example of how and why production characteristics can be categorised as technical specifications;

19.

Underlines the need to strengthen the sustainability dimension of public procurement by allowing it to be integrated at each stage of the procurement process (i.e. ability test, technical specifications, contract performance clauses);

20.

Points out that, in response to increased awareness of the environmental and climate impact of goods, works and services, procurement authorities should include environmental costs in their assessment of the ‘most economically advantageous offer’ and their calculation of life-cycle costs;

21.

Notes that the text of the directives needs to be more specific in terms of improving access for people with disabilities;

22.

Considers that the current provisions on subcontracting should be strengthened, as the use of several levels of subcontracting can cause problems in terms of compliance with collective agreements, working conditions and health and safety standards; suggests therefore that the public authorities be informed of all details relating to the use of subcontractors before a contract is concluded; asks the Commission to assess, with an eye to the future review of the directives, whether further rules on the award of subcontracts are needed, for example on the establishment of a chain of responsibility, specifically to avoid SME subcontractors being subject to conditions worse than those applicable to the main contractor awarded the public contract;

23.

Recognises the role the EU can play in facilitating the development of successful public-private partnerships (PPPs) by promoting fair competition and sharing best practice across Member States in relation to social and employment policies; notes, however, that major disparities exist between Member States in terms of the legal and procedural requirements applying in this area; calls, accordingly, on the Commission to clarify the concept of PPPs, in particular as regards how the parties will bear shared risks and meet their financial obligations;

24.

Calls on the Commission to reassess the appropriate level of thresholds for supply and services contracts, and if necessary raise them, so as facilitate access to public procurement by, amongst others, not-for-profit and social-economy operators and SMEs; asks that very careful consideration be given to the legally binding requirements of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement; emphasises that, given the difficulties which already exist in negotiations on the issue of access to public procurement, it should also be borne in mind that raising thresholds in Europe could easily lead to further complications for EU trade policy;

25.

Emphasises that any extension of the EU procurement rules into the area of ‘what to buy’ would represent a significant change to the current regime and should be carefully assessed; doubts that this would contribute to simplifying and streamlining, and fears rather that it would lead to more complicated rules, with many exemptions, which would be difficult to administer in practice – procurement directives being procedural (‘how to buy’) guidelines that should not be supplemented with provisions on ‘what to buy’;

26.

Points out that the directives are often perceived as too detailed and that they have become increasingly technical and complex, while at the same time the legal risk of non-compliance has increased considerably for contracting authorities and suppliers alike; notes that the fear of challenge leads to a risk-averse approach, which stifles innovation and sustainable development, resulting far too often in contracting authorities opting for the cheapest price rather than the best value; asks for more space for negotiation and communication, combined with measures to assure transparency and to prevent abuse and discrimination, and urges that market consultation be explicitly allowed as a possible first step;

27.

Notes that public procurement policy should, in the first instance, ensure the effective use of funds by the Member States, achieve optimum results in terms of public procurement through the application of clear, transparent and flexible procedures, and allow European businesses to compete on an equal footing throughout the Union;

28.

Advocates, when European public procurement law is being revised, clear, simple and flexible rules, reducing the level of detail and making procurement procedures simpler, less cumbersome, cheaper, more open to SMEs and more conducive to investment; sees a need, therefore, for greater reliance on the general principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination; considers that simplification of the rules on public procurement would make it possible to reduce the risk of error and to pay greater heed to the needs of small contracting authorities;

29.

Advocates assessing whether wider use of the negotiated procedure with prior EU-wide publication might be allowed, beyond that provided for in the current directives, so that contracting authorities and economic operators can communicate better, and supply and demand can be coordinated effectively; takes the view that, if any extension of the scope of the negotiated procedure is envisaged, further safeguards against abuse should be introduced – e.g. an obligation on contracting authorities to establish, for any bidder at the outset, at least some minimum conditions regarding the performance of the procedure, in line with what is sound practice in private procurement – as well as requirements for written documentation;

30.

Calls on the Commission to review the current approaches to the qualification of suppliers (particularly framework agreements, dynamic purchasing systems and the use of qualification systems by utilities procurers), so that any new approaches to qualification reduce costs and timescales, are attractive for both contracting authorities and economic operators and lead to the best possible outcomes;

31.

Reiterates its insistence on the systematic admission of alternative bids (or variants), as they are crucial to promoting and disseminating innovative solutions; stresses that specifications referring to performance and functional requirements and the express admission of variants give tenderers the opportunity to propose innovative solutions, particularly in highly innovative sectors such as ICT; asks also that all avenues – both legislative and non-legislative – be explored to ensure that public procurement is more engaged in promoting innovation in Europe;

32.

Calls on the Commission to introduce clarifications into the regulatory framework on public procurement, particularly in relation to the contract execution phase (e.g. on ‘substantial modification’ of a contract in force, on changes concerning the contractor and on the termination of contracts);

33.

Considers it regrettable that tenderers have only limited opportunities to rectify omissions in their bids; asks the Commission, therefore, to elaborate on what omissions may be rectified by bidders, what additional adjustments are allowed and how to guarantee transparency and equal treatment;

34.

Points out the contracting authorities should be able to benefit from previous experience with a tenderer on the basis of an official evaluation report; recommends setting a time limit for exclusions, which should guarantee transparency and objectivity; points out the need for legislative clarification in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC stating that a bidder found guilty of a misconduct in a previous procurement procedure can regain reliability after having substantially proved that he has undergone an effective ‘self-cleaning’ procedure; considers that such a clarification would foster anti-corruption mechanisms by underpinning incentives to accelerate the elimination of corrupt practices, and would remove serious legal uncertainties;

35.

Regrets the Green Paper’s failure to mention shortcomings, the lack of expertise and knowledge about procurement and the inadequacy of public procurement strategies; stresses the importance of promoting professionalism and guaranteeing objectivity on the part of both contracting authorities and market operators, particularly by supporting the development of targeted training programmes; recommends setting up a network of centres of excellence within the existing national frameworks, and promoting exchanges of information and good practices between Member States; also encourages umbrella organisations, at both national and EU level, to take shared responsibility for making relevant information available and to facilitate exchanges of information between their members throughout Europe; stresses the importance of clear and readily comprehensible manuals for both contracting authorities and tenderers; finds it regrettable that the documents ‘Buying green! A handbook on environmental public procurement’ and ‘Buying Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social Considerations in Public Procurement’, published in 2005 and 2010 respectively, are not sufficiently useful in this respect;

36.

Observes that only 1.4 % of contracts are awarded to undertakings from another Member State; stresses that professionalisation and better training of those who award contracts, and of tenderers, would foster EU-wide competition and exploit more fully the advantages of an internal market for public contracts;

37.

Emphasises that ready access to public procurement for SMEs, which are the driving force of the European economy, is crucial to maintaining employment and to sustainable development, innovation and growth; stresses that simplifying the procedures and administrative formalities, as well as creating SME-friendly strategies and implementing the code of good practice, will facilitate SMEs’ access to public contracts and enable them to participate on a more equal and fairer footing; believes that providing simplified, equal and fair access to public procurement for all economic operators would result in a better use of taxpayers’ money; points out that SMEs do not generally have significant specialised administrative capacity, and that it is thus essential to minimise the administrative burden imposed on them;

38.

Points out that selection criteria on financial standing, e.g. in relation to company turnover, should be proportional to the character of a given contract; warns the Commission and the Member States, when adopting flexible and user-friendly instruments, not to create any new barriers for SMEs and to take account of their interests as a matter of priority; asks the Commission, with the aim of improving access to public procurement procedures and improving their transparency, particularly for the benefit of smaller contracting authorities and tenderers, to modernise the Tenders Electronic Daily (TED) website to make it more accessible by improving its appeal and user-friendliness, with particular attention to search criteria and the quality and detail of the summary translations for each tender; recommends that TED should offer an alert service for users, to inform them when new tenders of interest are published;

39.

Asks the Commission to increase awareness of the importance of splitting contracts into lots, and to consider the implementation of the ‘apply or explain’ principle, whereby rules on matters such as division into lots must be complied with, or the failure to comply explained;

40.

Points out that contracting authorities should take greater advantage of the possibilities of dividing public contracts into lots, thus giving SMEs a better chance, in qualitative and quantitative terms, of participating in public procurement, and improving the level of competition; encourages SMEs to make use of joint procurement and contract pooling, which would allow them to make economies of scale in areas such as logistics and transport; encourages public authorities to be flexible when considering these modern and voluntary forms of arrangement; calls on the Commission to investigate all the possibilities for encouraging the temporary or permanent grouping of SMEs and small businesses in order to enable them to take part in invitations to tender that are not split into lots, without having to operate as subcontractors; asks the Commission, in this regard, to examine in particular the current practice of subcontracting to SMEs – often on conditions inferior to those applicable to the main contractor – of parts of contracts not split into lots, which are too big to enable SMEs to participate in the procurement procedure;

41.

Proposes that self-declarations be allowed where feasible, and that original documents be requested only from the shortlisted candidates or the successful tenderer, whilst avoiding any delays or market distortions caused by incorrect declarations; asks the Commission to promote the option of an ‘electronic procurement passport’ accepted by all Member States and proving that the economic operator fulfils the conditions required under EU legislation on public contracts; underlines the point that a European pre-qualification system should be a helpful instrument if it is kept simple, cheap and easily accessible for SMEs;

42.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to fighting corruption in public procurement, to promote more efficient reporting practices, including exchanges of information between Member States on the exclusion of unsound bidders; invites the Commission to provide for clear rules on protection of whistleblowers, following the recommendations in Resolution 1729(2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (9), to enhance the transparency of contracts funded with EU money and to promote educational action both at institutional level and among the general public;

43.

Notes that certain Member States already apply efficient public procurement award procedures that ensure transparency and the proper use of taxpayers’ money; asks the Commission to study Member States’ good practices in this field and identify the most effective principles for public procurement in the EU;

44.

Points out that combating corruption and favouritism is one objective of the directives; underlines the fact that Member States face different challenges in this area and that a more elaborate European approach carries the risk of undermining efforts to streamline and simplify the rules, and of creating new bureaucracy; points out that the principles of transparency and competition are key in combating corruption; asks for a common approach on ‘self-cleaning’ measures to avoid market distortion and ensure legal certainty for economic operators and contracting authorities alike;

45.

Takes the view that, since public contracts concern public funds, they should be transparent and open to public scrutiny; asks the Commission for clarification with a view to ensuring legal certainty for local and other public authorities and enabling them to inform citizens of their contractual obligations;

46.

Calls on the Commission to assess the problems associated with exceptionally low bids and to propose appropriate solutions; recommends that contracting authorities provide, in the event of abnormally low bids being received, for early and sufficient information to other bidders, in order to allow them to assess whether there is ground for initiating a review procedure; asks for greater consistency between the EU’s common external trade policy and the practices in Member States where exceptionally low bids are accepted;

47.

Welcomes the Commission Green Paper on expanding the use of e-procurement; points out that the e-procurement action plan has failed to achieve its goal and that more political leadership at all levels of government – including EU level – is needed in order to maintain and accelerate the transition to e-procurement; wants to ensure that at least 50 % of both the EU institutions’ and the Member States’ public procurement operations are carried out electronically, in line with the commitment made by the Member State governments at the ministerial conference on e-government in Manchester in 2005;

48.

Underlines the fact that the Commission has a unique role to play in promoting progress on standardisation and infrastructure issues – e-signatures and time-stamps, for example, need a commonly agreed format for security purposes; asks the Commission to develop the common standards in question; emphasises that onerous technical requirements for bidder authentication can act as barriers to operators; stresses, in this context, the need to develop a standardised system for e-signature; calls on the Member States to make available a validation service for certificates issued by certification service providers under their supervision;

49.

Underlines the fact that, to ensure interoperability of different systems and avoid vendor lock-in, open standards and technology neutrality must be observed; asks the Commission to assure real interoperability between the different e-procurement platforms that already exist in Member States, making more use of results obtained by EU initiatives such as PEPPOL and e-CERTIS;

50.

Points out that any legislative proposals to expand and simplify the use of e-procurement should be integrated into the review of the main public procurement directives and should be in line with the scope and with general public procurement rules such as obligations linked to thresholds;

51.

Underlines the point that e-procurement can drive simplification of the entire procurement process, introducing efficiencies that will lead to significant cost and time savings for both businesses and public administrations, and increasing transparency and accessibility; notes that the electronic awarding of contracts, in particular, opens up new avenues for modernising administration in the field of public contracts; reiterates that e-procurement should be less costly, more expedient and more transparent than conventional public procurement procedures; believes, however, that there is still room for improvement and that more should be done in terms of access to reliable, comparable and objective information and statistical data; calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage cross-border use of e-procurement;

52.

Points out that legislation is not the only key to promoting change; asks the Commission, therefore, to explore new ways to exchange experiences, share best practices and transfer knowledge across borders among local and regional actors; highlights the strong need to further enhance the capacity and understanding of staff dealing with e-procurement and – through national and/or EU incentives to secure a ‘level playing field’ between SMEs and large enterprises – to assist SMEs in building their knowledge and capacity; welcomes the Connecting Europe Facility as a new instrument to boost cross border e-procurement, thus allowing the digital single market to develop;

53.

Welcomes the announcement in the Commission’s ‘eGovernment Action Plan 2011-2015’ that the epractice.eu platform is to be developed into an effective tool for the exchange of experience and information among Member States and e-government practitioners, and urges that its scope be extended to local and regional practitioners;

54.

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

8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/35

—

having regard to Articles 21, 45 and 47 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 15, 21, 29, 34 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to Article 151 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1),

—

having regard to Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer’s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (2),

—

having regard to the International Labour Organisation's Core Labour Standards,

—

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 (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (4), the 2008 report on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC (COM(2008)0840) and the Council resolutions of November 2007 and April 2009 regarding Directive 2004/38/EC,

—

having regard to the Commission follow-up document on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (COM(2009)0313),

—

having regard to the draft interim report entitled "Comparative study on the application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States" requested by its Committee on Legal Affairs and delivered by the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on guidance for better transposition and application of Directive 2004/38/EC, as well as its intention to publish simplified guides for EU citizens and making the best use of the Internet,

—

having regard to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 6 December 2007 on ‘Mobility, an instrument for more and better jobs: The European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010)’ (COM(2007)0773),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 November 2008 on the impact of free movement of workers in the context of EU enlargement (COM(2008)0765),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 16 December 2008 on ‘New skills for new jobs; Anticipating and matching labour market and skill needs’ (COM(2008)0868),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 13 July 2010 on ‘Reaffirming the free movement of workers: rights and major developments’ (COM(2010)0373),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 13 April 2011, ‘Single Market Act - Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence "Working together to create new growth" ’ (COM(2011)0206), which includes workers’ mobility as one of its twelve key instruments,

—

having regard to the European 2020 Strategy and in particular to its flagship initiatives ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’ and ‘Youth on the Move’,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 27 November 2008 on ‘Free movement of persons: abuses and misuses of the right to free movement’,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council of 9 March 2009 on ‘The professional and geographical mobility of the work force and the free movement of workers within the European Union’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 April 2009 on problems and prospects concerning European Citizenship (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on the European Job Mobility Action Plan (2007-2010) (7),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the identification of outstanding barriers to mobility in the internal labour market (8),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0258/2011),

A.

whereas living and working in a different Member State is one of the Union's fundamental freedoms - irrespective of one's ethnic origin -, a basic component of Union citizenship and recognised by the Treaties, yet statistics show that still too few people take advantage of this right despite the specific initiatives taken to support workers' mobility,

B.

whereas mobility of EU workers should be encouraged throughout the European Union where there is an employment need,

C.

whereas EU workers can face difficulties and challenges when seeking employment in a host Member State,

D.

whereas the right to live and work in another country of the Union is one of the Union's fundamental freedoms, a basic component of Union citizenship recognized by the Treaties, yet according to statistics and notwithstanding specific initiatives to support workers' mobility, there are still too few people taking advantage of this right,

E.

whereas current workers mobility rate is not sufficient to enhance labour markets efficiency in the European Union; whereas only 2.3 % of people in the EU reside in a Member State other than the state of which they are citizens, but 17 % intend to take advantage of the free movement in the future and 48 % would consider seeking jobs in another country or region in the event of redundancies,

F.

whereas the free movement of workers represents a positive socio-economic example for both the EU and the Member States, being a milestone for EU integration, economic development, social cohesion, individual upgrading at professional level, fighting against prejudices, racism and xenophobia and can counteract the negative effects of economic crisis and better prepare for the challenges of global change, by engaging all stakeholders at decisional level together with the civil society into dialog,

G.

whereas promoting mobility of workers is a positive contribution to reaching the employment objectives set in the Europe 2020 Strategy; invites the Commission to include labour mobility in the flagship initiatives and the Member States to include labour and geographical mobility dimensions when designing their National strategies and reform programs,

H.

whereas insufficiently flexible labour laws impair workers' mobility in Europe,

I.

whereas, according to the Commission communication of 18 November 2008, mobile workers from the countries that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 have had a positive impact on the economies of Member States which host mobile workers,

J.

whereas the recent evolution of our societies notably due to industrial change, globalization, new work patterns, demographic change and the development of means of transport, call for a higher degree of mobility among workers,

K.

whereas no negative effects have been reported in those Member States which have not applied the transitional measures concerning free movement of workers originating from Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 and 2007, but a number of Member States have decided to continue applying restrictions in their labour markets with respect to nationals of Romania and Bulgaria,

L.

whereas, despite EU legal acts and programmes aimed at promoting free movement of workers, there are barriers to the full implementation of this fundamental freedom (e.g. social, linguistic, cultural, legal and administrative barriers, poor return policies that do not meet the needs of migrant workers, lack of recognition of mobility experience, difficulties concerning the employment of spouses or partners, and a delayed process for the recognition of diplomas and professional qualifications),

M.

whereas in times of economic crisis professional and geographical mobility of workers can help reduce unemployment by matching labour supply with demand, contributing to job creation opportunities, to adapting the economy, the society and the demography to structural changes and to promoting economic growth and EU's competitiveness; to this aim, considers that current procedures for recognition of professional qualifications represent a big obstacle to workers' mobility in the European Union;

N.

whereas these barriers and restrictions infringe a fundamental right of workers, make the recovery of the EU economies more difficult and can lead to counterproductive effects, such as more illegal work, an expansion of the black economy and worker exploitation,

O.

whereas discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is forbidden under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

P.

whereas the current economic crisis has had negative effects on mobility and has hit temporary workers and part-time workers hardest, women being one of the most affected categories,

Q.

whereas strong gender differences are visible as regards workers’ mobility within the EU (men report moving because of a new job or job transfers far more often than women do, respectively 44 % as against 27 % (9)); whereas there is a need for better monitoring of the mobility phenomenon, based on data disaggregated by gender,

1.

Points out that Commission report COM(2008)0840 identifies persistent infringement by Member States in the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC, which affects the exercise of free movement of workers, and this situation has given rise to numerous individual complaints, petitions, and more than 40 questions from the Parliament, as a result of which the Commission has brought five infringement proceedings for incorrect application of the Directive;

2.

Welcomes Commission communication COM(2010)0373, which describes and explains the current state of play regarding free movement of workers, but regrets the lack of concrete measures or solutions to the problems of mobility;

3.

Welcomes initiatives undertaken by the Commission such as the ‘WO.M.EN Mobility Enhancement Mechanism’ and invites it to extend and improve the scope of projects aiming at increasing women’s labour mobility;

4.

Calls upon the Commission, to further promote labour mobility by presenting a long-term, comprehensive, multidisciplinary, mobility strategy to ban all existing legal, administrative and practical barriers to free movement of workers; requests a consistent, efficient and transparent policy focused on the requirements of the labour market and economic trends;

5.

Calls on the Commission to enhance the mobility of the workforce by planning and promoting further strategies to provide simplified information concerning the rights of migrant workers and the benefits of mobility for the overall process of development and for the economies of both the EU and its Member States. Raising the awareness of employees, members of their families and interested parties about their rights and opportunities and the tools available as regards freedom of movement is a key factor for effectively implementing EU legislation;

6.

Takes the view that mobility can only be effectively promoted through substantial improvements in respect of solidarity and shared responsibility on the part of the Member States and through the formulation of a clear regulatory framework governing legal migration;

7.

Calls on the Member States to remove obstacles to workers’ mobility by offering persons (the majority of whom are women) who follow their spouses or partners to another Member State appropriate services such as courses to facilitate their integration into their new social and cultural environment, for example language courses and vocational courses;

8.

Notes, however, that mobility should remain voluntary; stresses that negative side effects of increased mobility, leading to brain drain and youth drain, as well as negative impacts on family cohesion and children when one or both parents are working abroad, should be better mitigated at EU level;

9.

Calls on the Member States to create mechanisms of cooperation aimed at preventing the devastating effects on families, especially on children, caused by the separation from their parents and the distance between them;

10.

Given the provisions of the Treaties and the existing legislation, recalls that Member States have a responsibility to simplify the administrative procedures regarding the exercise of free movement of workers with a view to an optimal implementation of this right and to avoiding unjustified, unnecessary or cumbersome administrative procedures restricting the application of this right;

11.

Urges the Commission to promote the streamlining of administrative practices and administrative cooperation so as to allow synergies between national authorities;

12.

Encourages Member States to create more effective channels of communication between migrant workers and the corresponding State services, so that workers have full access to information regarding their rights and obligations;

13.

Stresses that ‘workers’ rights’ can be better implemented if and when an EU migrant is employed in a legally paid activity in a host Member State;

14.

Underlines that women workers moving abroad for jobs involving child or elderly care, such as babysitters, au-pairs, nannies or nurses, are often employed by private entities such as families or family members and thus end up working without a contract or illegally, and consequently have no rights and benefits linked to social security, healthcare etc. available to them;

15.

Is concerned by the poor transposition and implementation of current directives on free movement of workers, especially Directive 2004/38/EC with respect to the right of entry and residence for third-country family members, and cumbersome administrative procedures and additional residence documents (work permits, evidence of satisfactory accommodation) inconsistent with Directive 2004/38/EC;

16.

Calls on the Commission to fully exercise its prerogatives under the Treaties, by continuous and comprehensive monitoring of the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC, including, if necessary, the exercise of its right to initiate infringement procedures against non-compliant Member States;

17.

Calls on the Member States to review their provisions regulating the transitional periods for access to their labour markets, which, in the long term, can have negative effects on the fundamental values and rights enshrined in the EU Treaties, such as freedom of movement, non-discrimination and solidarity and equal rights; therefore welcomes the recent decision of some Member States to fully open their labour markets to some of the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and deplores the recent legislative proposals in other Member States intended to undermine the rights of workers from the Member States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007; calls on the Commission to investigate whether such policies infringe EU law;

18.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen the current legal framework on recognition of professional qualifications set out in the directive 2005/36/EC;

19.

Calls on the Commission to revise Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (10) in order to take into account the proposals made by the European Parliament in this resolution;

20.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that member states apply the 'Brussels I'-regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001) regarding jurisdiction recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters; stresses the importance of the 'Brussels I'-regulation in regard to sanctions and fines for exploitation of workers;

21.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States implement Directive 2004/38/EC without any discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation; reminds the Commission of previous calls to ensure freedom of movement for all EU citizens and their families, regardless of their sexual orientation;

22.

Notes that the right of free movement of workers cannot be viewed in isolation from other rights and basic principles of the EU and that respect for the European social model and the rights guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights, as reflected in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, will offer the possibility of decent jobs, adequate working conditions, including protection and safety at work, social security rights, equal treatment, reconciliation of family and working life and the freedom to provide services; stresses that the right to vote in local, regional and European elections is an essential element of these rights and calls for better implementation; notes that the right to vote in national elections of the Member States of origin may be lost, believes consideration should be given to this issue;

23.

Calls on the Commission to produce a scoreboard presenting the obstacles faced by Union workers wishing to make use of their right to free movement and how they are being tackled in the Member States, so as to assess whether such obstacles are dealt with thoroughly and effectively;

24.

Calls on the Commission to thoroughly evaluate the current economic situation in the Member States with regard to labour markets; calls on the Member States to better integrate migration policies with respect to labour in order to address labour shortages and with the view to boost in-house production;

25.

Congratulates the Commission to linking workers' mobility with the Europe 2020 Strategy and takes the view that this is of crucial importance to boost welfare within the EU through sound and sustainable job creation;

26.

Stresses the importance of equal treatment of workers, combined with the adequate protection of labour rights, to be in accordance with the rules in force laid down in national legislation and collective agreements in the Member State concerned. Believes that the principle of ‧equal pay for the same work in the same place‧ in conjunction with gender equality should apply throughout the EU in order to prevent wage and social dumping; Stresses that rights will only be beneficial for all if properly implemented and enforced; To these aims, calls on the Commission and the Member States to make sure that free movement is never exploited with a view to unequal treatment, wage and social dumping;

27.

Considers that both EU and Member State legislation should be coordinated more closely in order to prevent any types of barriers to implementation and use of the right of free movement of workers;

28.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to guarantee, taking into account subsidiarity, the correct implementation of the existing legislation on non-discrimination, to take practical measures to enforce the principle of equal treatment of mobile workers, and to fight prejudice, racism and xenophobia;

29.

Urges the Member States and the Commission to strengthen EU policy on fighting direct and indirect discrimination, exploitation of EU migrant workers in the European Union and abuse of their rights due to their insufficient knowledge of languages and laws applicable to their employment in the host Member State;

30.

Encourages Member States to increase the attention which authorities responsible for monitoring the labour market devote to protecting the rights of mobile workers, particularly by improving education and raising of awareness in the field of labour law;

31.

Considers that amendments to the legislation of Member States relating to social security, the care system and taxation should be examined in advance to ascertain what impact they will have on the free movement of workers; calls therefore for the introduction of a requirement to perform a frontier impact assessment providing detailed information about obstacles to freedom of movement;

32.

Points out that the increased cross border mobility also demands the active involvement of the social partners in order to provide the workers concerned, especially those temporarily working abroad, with adequate and effective information, support and protection regarding their social and labour rights;

33.

Considers that, for the efficient implementation of all policies tackled by the free movement of workers, action must be coordinated, especially in the fields of completion of the internal market, coordination of social security systems, supplementary pension rights, protection of workers, cross-border health care, education and vocational training, tax measures such as those designed to avoid double taxation, and anti-discrimination;

34.

Underlines that labour restrictions constitute an obstacle to the functioning of the internal market and that the economic crisis demonstrates the need to promote free labour mobility;

35.

Reiterates that, in order to avoid inconsistencies in the area of the EU internal market, for the purpose of employment Member States must give preference to Union citizens and may give preference to third-country nationals who apply for highly qualified employment, as set out in Council Directive 2009/50/EC of 25 May 2009 on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of highly qualified employment (11); stresses the importance of rejecting applications for an EU Blue Card in labour market sectors for which the access to workers from other Member States is restricted on the basis of transitional arrangements;

36.

Calls on a greater coordination between the European Institutions and the national ones to better inform and provide assistance to the citizens and monitor how the right of free movement of workers is being transposed into practice and used by individuals in order to accelerate the implementation of labour mobility;

37.

Takes the view that adequate social protection systems greatly facilitate the geographical and occupational mobility of workers and that the social inclusion of mobile workers and the social reintegration of returned workers must be included in the policy on labour mobility; underlines that, to this end, the recognition of previously acquired rights and a greater understanding of the differences between the systems of the individual Member States are indispensable and must be promoted;

38.

Calls on Member States to tackle the issue of false self-employment among mobile workers; stresses the need to give these workers access to rights and protection;

39.

Calls on Commission and Member States to combat xenophobia against all EU workers by providing the means for integration and information and promoting understanding, cultural diversity and respect in Member States hosting EU mobile workers;

40.

Stresses that an efficient implementation of the free movement of workers calls for coordinated action by the European and national authorities to facilitate and simplify administrative procedures on issues indirectly linked to this right, such as the transfer of vehicle registrations and the guarantee of accessibility of medical records, provision of a comprehensive database on current healthcare practitioner performance competence, avoidance of double taxation, clear rules on the reimbursement of medical expenses, etc.;

41.

Considers that enabling migrant workers to enjoy portable social security rights is essential in ensuring that they effectively benefit from the prerogatives they have acquired;

42.

Considers that the SMEs can act as a trigger for economic recovery and development, being the primary source for job creation; therefore, reiterates the need for an EU commitment to supporting and developing the SMEs (e.g. by the Progress Microfinance Facility), particularly through active labour policies and vocational education and training programmes;

43.

Invites border regions to consider agreements for promoting cross-border labour mobility in order to gain mutual (beneficial) advantages for these regions;

44.

Calls on the Member States to eradicate the existing transitional barriers regarding free movement of workers for the Member States who joined in 2007; takes the view that these barriers impose double standards, are counterproductive and represent discriminatory measures against European citizens, calling for the preference clause to be effectively enforced for the whole Union;

45.

Takes the view that the mobility of the workforce within the European Union is essential for economic recovery and achievement of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives; urges accordingly those Member States that still impose labour market restrictions in respect of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals to remove them by the end of 2011 in accordance with the deadline laid down in the Treaty of Accession;

46.

Calls for closer and more efficient cooperation between the competent national authorities in checking the compliance of labour contracts with national and EU law; points out that mutual assistance and information exchange have to be guaranteed between the Member States in case of breaches; asks the Commission to supervise this process;

47.

Calls on public authorities and all stakeholders to do their utmost to increase the level of awareness among workers of their rights and the various instruments (labour law, collective agreements, codes of conduct, social security provisions) that regulate their employment relationship as well as their working and living conditions;

48.

Deplores the decrease in labour inspection across the EU; stresses that efficient controls are an essential element to guarantee equal treatment and a level playing field; calls on the Member States to increase labour inspection and give labour inspections sufficient resources; calls on the Commission to improve cooperation and coordination of labour inspections;

49.

Considers that Member States should ensure that the children of EU mobile workers do not face difficulties regarding their nationality or citizenship due to the working choices of their parents, and that the particular needs of the children of mobile workers should be adequately studied to ensure effective policy responses;

50.

Underlines that the Member States should improve the situation of children left behind by their parents and to help them develop normally and benefit from education and appropriate social life;

51.

Expresses its concern for the growing amount of forced labour in the EU which in some areas has close links to organized crime; stresses the need to make forced labour a key priority in the activities of EUROPOL and EUROJUST; urges Member States to increase their joint efforts to control, prosecute and sanction forced labour and make sure that this is covered under criminal sanctions; stresses the need for measures that ensure the protection of victims of forced labour;

52.

Calls on the Commission to explore and publish both positive effects and drawbacks derived from labour mobility for the host and home countries and the EU, from a socio-economic and geographical cohesion point of view, highlighting consequences such as: economical losses, increased undeclared work and abusive working conditions due to unclear legal situation when transitionary measures are in place, lack of awareness of rights among EU citizens and the outcomes due to delayed actions by Member States to integrate EU workers from the 2004 and 2007 integration wave; calls on both the Commission and Member States to avoid the implementation of transitional measures that restrict the free movement of workers and negatively affect the competitiveness of the EU labour markets, for any current member state or upcoming candidate country;

53.

Encourages the Commission to pursue its initiatives aimed at promoting the geographical mobility of young people through learning mobility schemes, using all the designated programs related to the topic;

54.

Welcomes the Commission’s plan to establish a regular systematic assessment of long-term supply and demand in the EU labour markets up to 2020, broken down by sectors, occupations, levels of qualification and countries, and strongly advises the coordination of labour and educational policies between Member States with a view to meeting the targets set in the EU 2020 Strategy regarding job creation and avoiding future indirect barriers that may hinder the exercise of the right of free movement, such as non-recognition of diplomas from other EU countries; The plan should clearly identify labour shortages in the EU in the short, medium and long term;

55.

Calls for appropriate measures to be drawn up and implemented in order to break down continuing discrimination and negative stereotypes such as those affecting workers from eastern and southern Europe and to promote the integration of workers exercising their right to freedom of movement in the society of their host country;

56.

Calls on authorities at all levels to ensure policy support and raise awareness about the possibilities and advantages of mobility, especially among job-starters, stressing the Commission's coordinating role;

57.

Considers that the Member States should facilitate and establish general criteria for the recognition of diplomas and qualifications, as this is very often a source of difficulty for people seeking work in a Member State other than their country of origin;

58.

Deplores Member State policies that actively encourage other EU citizens to leave that Member State; asks the Commission to verify whether such policies are infringing on the right to free movement;

59.

Acknowledges and stresses the importance of public employment services, and in particular the EURES system and network, for promoting labour mobility across the EU especially in cross-border regions by providing information on job vacancies, on rights and obligations attendant on migration, including immigration, and attendant on frontier work, as well as information on education and vocational training opportunities, working and living conditions; emphasises the special role played by social partners in advising employees in cross-border partnerships; stresses that EURES should remain a means of promoting fair mobility and therefore calls on the Commission to continue to provide financial resources to support the work of the social partners in border regions;

60.

Calls for developing EURES' institutional capabilities and its reinforcement of the one-stop instrument to facilitate mobility of workers and their families;

61.

Is concerned about the reduction of the funds for EURES councillors; calls for the commitment to a long term strategy that allows EURES and its staff to efficiently perform its tasks and notes that this is only possible when funds are increased;

62.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary steps to make cooperation between EURES and the corresponding national public authorities more productive and effective;

63.

Encourages Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, to promote EURES among citizens, by providing relevant documentation and advice on using it through public job centres, but also by organizing meetings to promote mobility in the framework of higher education;

64.

Considers that information to EU workers about the benefits, rights and obligations deriving from labour mobility should be further improved; calls on the Commission to coordinate its action with national authorities and develop links between EURES and the SOLVIT online problem-solving network, in order to enhance the quality of the service provided to citizens exercising their right to mobility; calls on the Commission and the Member States to set up multilingual advisory agencies for EU migrant workers particularly in places where many of these workers are employed;

65.

Stresses that, when promoting active employment policies, information about learning and training programmes available across the EU they should be given a high priority;

66.

Urges to strengthen the implementation of the Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship (so-called "Information Directive") (12) about the minimum information that workers should receive from their employer regarding their employment relationship, including all relevant provisions concerning their employment situation in the host country;

67.

Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to promote the active involvement of the social partners so as to ensure the practical implementation and strengthening of the rights of migrant workers;

68.

Emphasises the need for cooperation between employees and employers in the EURES network;

69.

Calls for greater dialog and coordination among national and regional authorities as they are usually the first source of information for many citizens due to their proximity and knowledge of citizens needs and greater involvement of the social partners;

70.

Calls on Member States to monitor the activities of recruitment agencies more strictly in order to ensure that the rights of mobile workers are not violated or their expectations disappointed, which could hamper the free movement of workers and their social security;

71.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to monitor the situation of agencies and organisations offering jobs to workers from other Member States and to detect potential illegal or black market employment, or agencies or organisations providing fictitious jobs;

72.

Emphasises that, in the context of implementing freedom of movement, employers should be obliged to provide foreign workers with information on workers’ rights in the relevant country of employment. In addition, multilingual advisory agencies must be set up for migrant workers in the Member States;

73.

Calls on the Commission to launch a communication regarding taxation effects on the workers comprised in the scope of this directive, for providing a better understanding and possible solutions to crucial matters that can impede or deter workers mobility;

74.

In order to ensure and improve Europe’s competitiveness, the highest priority must be given to investing in formal and informal education, vocational training, exchanges of working experience and coordinated actions to speed up the process of labour mobility;

75.

Takes the view that active labour market policies and in particular vocational training and life-long learning, must be reinforced as they can contribute to increasing labour mobility, facilitate transitions in times of structural unemployment, and allowing workers to adapt to labour market changes;

76.

Congratulates the Commission on its flagship initiative Youth on the Move and on the launch of the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs and welcomes in particular the pilot project ‘Your first EURES job’ and proposed action for the creation of a European skills passport;

77.

In welcoming the training of youth in the skills necessary for working and living in other countries; takes the view that people have a right to live and work in a country of their choice;

78.

Considers that skills and knowledge corresponding to specific national, regional or local market needs will foster workers’ mobility and requests the Commission to develop a roadmap for demands for skills and a mid- and long-term assessment regarding future jobs, where a match between demand and supply of skills can be provided, as well as mid- and long-term forecasts for labour shortages in selected occupations which may arise as a result of demographic change and the ageing of the population;

79.

Considers that labour mobility is a two-way process; On the one hand, it leads to gathering skills and knowledge through all types of education in order to prepare the active population facing competition when searching for a new job and on the other hand, mobile workers can upgrade their skills and knowledge through labour mobility as they gather more practical experience and knowledge on the new site;

80.

Believes that mobility in particular must be promoted in professional training, as there are still shortcomings in this area; underlines the importance of programmes such as Leonardo and calls on the Member States and enterprises involved in professional training to make more use of these and also to facilitate their use;

81.

Hopes too that the new competences acquired by mobile workers as they move around will be validated so that their increased individual potential will be recognised and their chances of long-term professional inclusion improved;

82.

Takes the view that young workers should not be the only focus and that targeted strategies promoting and facilitating the free movement of different categories of workers, based on their specific characteristics (age, gender, skills, belonging to vulnerable and minority groups) and needs are desired so that mobility can become an option for all categories of workers;

83.

Calls upon Member States to tailor their life-long learning and vocational training strategies according to developments in the labour markets and to provide transferable skills that have a wider coverage in terms of geographical area and knowledge, with a view to properly matching them with the supply of jobs;

84.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate on achieving higher comparability of school and University curricula and education systems in the EU, through simplified mutual recognition of diplomas, with a view also to promoting mutual recognition of educational qualifications, which is vital; stresses, however, that this is different from the recognition of qualifications for the regulated professions, although it would like to see more liberalised access in general to these professions; welcomes in this context the fact that increasing numbers of cross-border cooperation agreements are being concluded between colleges and universities and calls on Member States to support this development;

85.

Encourages Member States to boost the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in lifelong learning by providing incentives for their respective employees and employers, with particular emphasis on learning languages and the new technologies, in line also with labour market requirements, as most of Europe's workforce is employed in SMEs and in this way it will become more competitive, but this will also strengthen mobility in order to address the failure to fill job vacancies in a number of Member States;

86.

Takes the view that a better synergy must be found between programmes aimed at encouraging the free movement of students, persons undergoing vocational training and trainees and programmes specifically aimed at fostering the free movement of workers;

87.

Encourages Member States, with the assistance of the Commission and the social partners, to create structures for language learning support and also for teaching the cultural traditions of the host Member States for the families of migrant workers, especially since these factors continue to hinder the mobility of European citizens;

88.

Takes the view that an insufficient knowledge of languages (in particular in the case of adults) remains an important obstacle for labour mobility and could lead to increased undeclared work; calls on the Member States to actively promote foreign language teaching and expand it in all categories of schools and on the Commission to pursue its efforts in this area;

89.

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

8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/46

—

having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 9, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Towards a better functioning Single Market for services – building on the results of the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive’ (COM(2011)0020) and the accompanying Commission staff working document ‘On the process of mutual evaluation of the Services Directive’ (SEC(2011)0102),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on ‘Single Market Act. Twelve levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence’ (COM(2011)0206),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Towards a Single Market Act’ (COM(2010)0608),

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 10 March 2011 on a better functioning Single Market for services – mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive,

—

having regard to Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on Governance and Partnership in the Single Market (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2011 on implementation of the Services Directive 2006/123/EC (4),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs(A7-0324/2011),

A.

whereas services still represent only around one-fifth of total intra-EU trade while accounting for over two thirds of the EU GDP and employment,

B.

whereas activities covered by the Services Directive account for 40 % of EU GDP and jobs, but whereas these activities also represent some of the most important untapped potential for economic growth and job creation in the EU, since many obstacles to trade in services still exist in the Internal Market,

C.

whereas services drive the economies of the Member States by creating jobs, growth and innovation, and whereas a well-functioning and integrated internal market in services is therefore all the more necessary in the light of the current economic and financial crisis and as a condition for recovery;

D.

whereas the Services Directive is a lever for the growth of the European Union and whereas its full and correct implementation is included in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy and the Single Market Act,

E.

whereas, while timely and correct transposition of the Services Directive has been a challenge for the Member States' administrations, it is necessary and it is also a strong basis for the development of administrative cooperation between the Member States,

F.

whereas close to 34 000 requirements have been notified to the European Commission in the context of the screening process,

1.

Welcomes the Commission's Communication on the mutual evaluation process of the Services Directive and acknowledges the considerable amount of work accomplished by the Commission and, above all, Member States’ national administrations, including local and regional administrations;

2.

Highlights the fact that a functioning Single Market in services is a prerequisite for generating growth, decent employment and innovation in Europe and for maintaining Europe's competitive role on the world stage;

3.

Notes that the overall potential of the common market in services has not been fully exploited, since owing in particular to market restrictions in the Member States only a small proportion of SMEs are providing cross-border services;

4.

Considers that the first priority for the creation of a Single Market in Services is the full and complete implementation of the Services Directive in all Member States and setting up fully operational Points of Single Contact;

5.

Calls therefore for consideration to be given to supplying the information at the Points of Single Contact in English as well as in the local language for the benefit of service providers and service users from other Member States, and whether an electronic signature could be used by service providers and users;

6.

Stresses that mutual evaluation exercise have allowed for the assessment of the internal market for services after implementation of the Directive, especially in relation to the requirements of art. 9, 15, and 16;

7.

Notes the vagueness of article 39 of the Services Directive in establishing the precise objectives of the mutual evaluation process; notes that different perceptions and expectations existed among stakeholders as regards to its purposes and results;

8.

Points out that the mutual evaluation was organised after the deadline for transposition of the Services Directive provisions; underlines that the implementation of Services Directive should not be confused with the mutual evaluation exercise;

9.

Deplores the delays in the implementation of the Services Directive in some Member States and considers that these have had an impact on the process of mutual evaluation;

10.

Takes the view that, while the timing of the mutual evaluation process was challenging, it helped to maintain momentum after the implementation of the Directive;

11.

Considers that the mutual evaluation process has proved to be a worthwhile exercise in enabling a better understanding of the remaining barriers and the situation in each Member State on the part of the European Commission and the Member States; notes that the process has enabled the Member States to get feedback on their policy choices and facilitated the promotion of best practices and increased transparency of implementation results;

12.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to initiate a dialogue on which barriers are permitted and which are not;

13.

Takes the view that the mutual evaluation process was key in clarifying certain ambiguous situations still prevalent in the provision of services both at national and cross-border level, such as the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and insurance obligations imposed on cross-border service providers; highlights the fact that ultimately it helped to gauge whether or not the implementation measures adopted in each Member State are carried out according to the spirit of the Services Directive;

14.

Highlights ‘cluster discussions’ as the core element of the mutual evaluation; welcomes the spirit of cooperation and mutual trust which has prevailed during discussions;

15.

Takes the view that the mutual evaluation exercise has contributed to the development of a ‘European spirit’ among national administrations and enabled Member States' administrations to get to know each other better; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the knowledge and experience gained through the mutual evaluation is maintained and used for the improvement of the Single Market in services;

16.

Notes that the involvement of stakeholders in the process of mutual evaluation was limited; acknowledges that a certain degree of confidentiality was an important condition to create a mutual trust between Members States; Nevertheless, regrets that the regular feedback of the process has not been provided to the stakeholders;

17.

Is conscious of the administrative costs related to the mutual evaluation, especially in Member States where regional level administration was involved in the process;

18.

Takes the view that the mutual evaluation process in the Services Directive is an important instrument for identifying further initiatives aimed at improving the functioning of the internal market in services; welcomes the fact that the Commission is proposing a set of actions to build on the momentum gathered during the implementation and mutual evaluation phases;

19.

Urges the Commission to keep Parliament informed about the progress and outcomes of the dialogue held with Member States on the implementation of the Services Directive; Calls on the Commission to take further enforcement measures when deemed necessary;

20.

Looks forward to the announced economic assessment of the implementation of the Services Directive and its impact on the functioning of the services market; hopes that this evaluation will make it possible to measure the real impact of the directive on economic activity and employment; calls on the Commission to ensure maximum transparency when carrying out this assessment and invites the Commission to present to Parliament its findings as soon as they are available;

21.

Welcomes the internal market performance check initiative and hopes that this exercise will significantly improve the practical understanding of how different pieces of EU legislation are applied and interact on the ground; Considers that the performance check exercise should be performed by taking into account the perspective of the Single Market users;

22.

Calls on the Commission to involve the European Parliament closely in the performance check initiative;

23.

Calls for the remaining regulatory barriers, such as the rules on reserved activities, insurance obligations, legal form and capital ownership requirements, to be tackled; calls on the Commission to concentrate its efforts on unjustified or disproportionate requirements which should be abolished in order to guarantee the smooth functioning of the Single Market;

24.

Deplores the fact that no earlier action had been taken in areas where problems had long been known;

25.

Regrets that the Commission has not provided criteria for choosing specific types of requirement for targeted actions; calls on the Commission to clarify the reasons why the other types of requirement mentioned in Article 15 of the Services Directive, such as the minimum number of employees and fixed minimum or maximum tariffs, were considered less important than those singled out in its Communication;

26.

Calls on the Commission to collect and present data quantifying the impact of the various remaining requirements which, if removed, would improve the functioning of the Single Market for services; calls on the Commission to prioritise its targeted actions on removing those requirements which would bring the highest level of added value to the functioning of the Single Market in services in full compliance with Article 1 of the Services Directive; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to focus its action on the sectors and professions with a high growth potential for the cross-border provision of services;

27.

Calls on the Commission to continue and step up work with Member States on an individual basis so as to achieve a complete and correct transposition and implementation of the Services Directive in all Member States;

28.

Takes the view that many national barriers still remain in place, slowing in particular growth in professional business-to-business services; calls on the Member States to ensure that new and remaining requirements are non-discriminatory, necessary and proportionate; calls on the Commission to engage more actively with Member States to monitor closely and ensure due notification of the relevant national legislative measures relating to implementation of Article 15 of the Services Directive;

29.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to work more closely together to ensure the proper application in Member States of the freedom to provide services clause in Article 16 of the Services Directive; calls on the Commission to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the state of play on the provision of cross-border services in the EU including the reasons explaining the moderate growth rate in this sector, and a detailed overview of the effectiveness of Member State implementation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Services Directive;

30.

Stresses the need to ensure coherence of the implementation of the different pieces of legislation of central relevance to service activities;

31.

Urges the Members States to ensure complete and proper implementation of the provisions of the Services Directive which were not included in the mutual evaluation process, such as the Points of Single Contact, and calls on the Commission to ensure strict enforcement of the relevant provisions;

32.

Calls on the Commission to pay careful attention to the regular checks and evaluations of the work of the Points of Single Contact in Member States, which play a key role in making necessary information available to service-providers in an up-to-date and user-friendly manner;

33.

Notes the important role of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and problem solving tools such as SOLVIT in ensuring that service providers, and in particular SMEs, can fully exploit their Single Market rights; welcomes the Commission’s announcement that it will assess the effectiveness of these tools and report on the need for further specific initiatives;

34.

Shares the Commission's view that service providers, but also service recipients, should be helped to enforce their rights, and recommends to build on the existing tools such as SOLVIT;

35.

Reiterates its support for the use of mutual evaluation in other policy areas, where appropriate; believes that mutual evaluation has proven innovative and useful and should be seen as a tool to improve the functioning of the Single Market;

36.

Suggests, therefore, that a ‘light-touch’ mutual evaluation to be considered and where appropriate introduced for the mutual evaluation of policy areas covered by ‘horizontal’ directives under which Member States have retained significant scope for manoeuvre, with a view to obtaining more uniform legislation, creating better relations and mutual understanding between the Member States, and preventing ‘gold plating’;

37.

Recommends that mutual evaluation should be used as a ‘flexible instrument’ on a case-by-case basis; suggests that the tool should be proposed in a targeted manner for inclusion in selected Directives of a ‘horizontal’ nature which imply numerous transposition measures and provide for a wide margin of discretion for the Member States; suggests furthermore a targeted use of mutual evaluation whereby only a key provisions of a Directive are subject to the procedure;

38.

Calls on the Commission, however, to clearly define the aims and deliverables of mutual evaluation before proposing mutual evaluation on other Directives, in order to ensure that the process does not impose unnecessary burdens on the evaluating authorities;

39.

Believes that ‘cluster discussions’ should remain the central element of the mutual evaluation process; considers that a well targeted but limited number of expert participants in cluster discussions creates the conditions for efficiency and delivering outcomes; takes the view that mutual evaluation should be developed further as a procedure for exchanging best practices and policy development experiences between Member States and that the Commission’s role could be clarified in terms of providing guidance and steering the process, particularly during these cluster discussions; is of the opinion that the clusters’ composition should always reflect Member States’ expectations and the potential impact on the Single Market;

40.

Asks the Commission to increase transparency by informing the European Parliament on the contents and progress of discussions between Member States and by presenting regular reports throughout the different stages of mutual evaluation to keep all stakeholders updated; calls on the Commission to make the main conclusions of the cluster and plenary meetings public;

41.

Points out that correlation tables and mutual evaluation have different purposes and therefore should be regarded as separate and not interchangeable policy tools, and that the correlation tables are therefore indispensable in the transposition of European legislation;

42.

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

8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/51

—

having regard to the conclusions and agreements of the G20 summits of London, Pittsburgh, Toronto and Seoul,

—

having regard to the Palais-Royal Initiative report ‘Reform of the Monetary System: a cooperative approach for the twenty-first century’ published on 8 February 2011,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 October 2010 on ‘Improving the economic governance and stability framework of the Union, in particular in the euro area’ (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on ‘the EU as a global actor: its role in multilateral organisations’ (2),

—

having regard to the continuous, relevant work of the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue (TLD) and the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0323/2011),

A.

whereas the development of the world economy during the last decades generally has entailed increased growth and prosperity, although unevenly distributed, lifting millions of people out of poverty; meanwhile, the number of people still living in poverty and despair is unacceptably high; whereas social and economic inequalities between and within countries must be reduced; whereas Europe’s fight against poverty must be one of the top priorities for the EU 2020 strategy;

B.

whereas the US and Europe are currently still dealing with the worst effects of the worst international economic recession experienced since the Great Depression;

C.

whereas the development of the global economy in recent decades has suffered from unsustainable imbalances;

D.

whereas effective global economic governance would make it possible to minimise the negative impacts and correct the dangerous effects of globalisation, such as the rise in inequality or destruction of the environment;

E.

whereas the emergence of new major players, in terms both of world trade and of economic growth, with China and India as frontrunners, in the world economy has had a profound impact and changed the economic landscape fundamentally, calling for trade reforms and convertible exchange rates;

F.

whereas the imbalances of today are still caused primarily by a lack of competitiveness and private and public saving in the deficit countries, and high saving coupled with a lack of demand in the surplus countries, which today are greater in magnitude and whereas, in view of the high degree of globalisation and scale of capital flows, these imbalances make new demands on global governance and challenge the structures of existing institutional arrangements;

G.

whereas the main element for rebalancing the global economy in broad terms is twofold: enhanced competitiveness and wide-ranging reforms fostering growth in deficit countries and the opening of markets and sound monetary policy in surplus countries;

H.

whereas the first decade of functioning of the EMU has shown that responsible budgetary policy is one of the preconditions for minimising the impact of global financial and economic shocks;

I.

whereas there is a multitude of international organisations designed to govern the world economy such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD and the IFC, alongside the inter-governmental fora of the G7 and G20, of which the IMF and G20 are the most effective bodies, although both still need to be improved;

J.

whereas global markets require global rules;

K.

whereas the prevailing monetary arrangements led to substantial accumulation of foreign exchange reserves, particularly the US dollar, in some surplus countries, which in turn increased the supply of capital in deficit countries and exerted downward pressure on interest rates, helping to spur the bubble in asset prices that played a central role in the last financial crisis;

L.

whereas the global economic crisis, which started in the financial sector, has now led to high levels of indebtedness in some of the leading world economic players including the US, Japan and the EU;

M.

whereas the G20 has agreed in its Pittsburgh final declaration on a Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth that a new multilateral approach as a response to the crisis is urgently required;

N.

whereas there has been global recognition of the role that some sectors of the financial industry played in contributing to the global financial crisis, demonstrating weaknesses in financial regulation, deepening of the sovereign debt crisis and a common understanding that the responsibility and transparency of the financial sector needs to be enhanced, including bearing a fair share of the costs caused by the crisis;

O.

whereas the much mentioned current-account imbalances are a result of underlying structural imbalances in the domestic economies;

P.

whereas the lack of coordinated and effective regulation and supervision of the global financial system led to weaknesses in the financial sector which subsequently exacerbated the vulnerabilities in the global economy;

Q.

whereas the increased role and prominence of the G20 as a forum for informal political discussions at the highest global level is welcome; whereas the G20 as an institution lacks a legal basis and a permanent secretariat and has a weak governing structure especially in comparison with other international institutions such as the IMF and WTO;

R.

whereas the current international monetary system has enabled several countries to proceed with competitive devaluation strategies which, together with the growing speculative transactions undertaken by powerful market stakeholders on exchange markets, have severely contributed to excess rate volatility and created significant risks for the exchange markets as well as international trade;

S.

whereas the EU is not perceived as a strong actor in reshaping the international monetary and financial system because it does not speak with one voice, and because of the fragmentation of its external representation in international economic affairs;

T.

whereas it is essential to ensure that economic and financial systems do not harm the real economy;

U.

whereas, in accordance with the recommendations of the G20, the IMF has been assigned greater powers of supervision and surveillance of the global financial system, its financial resources have been increased and a thorough reform of its governance structure is under way;

V.

whereas financial markets have evolved over the past decades to operate globally through IT-intensive processes and networks, and data standardisation has lagged behind, hindering market – and often even firm-wide – data aggregation, analysis and operations, and reducing the transparency of financial transactions;

1.

Stresses that global imbalances constitute a potential threat to financial and macro-economic stability, especially when excessive, in the leading economies and may have repercussions on other economies; taking this into account, notes that imbalances stemming from structural misalignments and a lack of competitiveness in the domestic economy should be addressed by both surplus and deficit countries, as these could also be a source of fundamental problems;

2.

Stresses that the financial and economic crisis demonstrated that the inflow of capital as a result of global imbalances should be accompanied by responsible monetary policy and strong financial regulation and supervision;

3.

Recognises the need for policy-makers around the world to continue working on solutions to reform global economic governance to help rebalance the world economy and avoid another slump; stresses that the reform of global governance should ensure that markets are embedded in a comprehensive institutional framework for them to function properly; estimates furthermore that one of the priority objectives of worldwide economic governance must be the creation of a favourable environment for long-term investment;.

4.

Stresses the importance of responsible monetary policies; urges central banks of major economies to consider potential negative externalities, such as asset bubbles, carry-trade dynamics and financial destabilisation in other countries, when implementing conventional or non-conventional measures;

5.

Is aware that, ultimately, confidence in the strength of the underlying economy and the depth, transparency, sophistication and stability of its financial markets are the main determinants for which currencies are kept as reserves by third countries’ central banks; stresses in regard to this that any currency that seeks to become a part of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket must be subject to full convertibility, and acknowledges that the composition of the IMF’s SDR basket should reflect the relative importance of currencies in the world’s trading and financial systems;

6.

States that exchange rates should reflect underlying market fundamentals in order to enhance openness and flexibility and to facilitate economic adjustment, and therefore should not be managed or manipulated by national monetary authorities;

7.

Urges members of the IMF to adhere to the Articles of Agreement, especially the commitment to refrain from manipulating the exchange rate, and the relevant provisions of the GATT and WTO Agreements;

8.

Urges reconsideration of the use of ‘Special Drawing Rights’ (SDRs) as a possible replacement for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which could help stabilise the global financial system; asks the IMF to explore further allocation as well as a broader use of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) in particular for the purpose of enhancing the multilateral exchange rate system;

9.

Supports the work and commitments of G20 States to implement properly phased growth-friendly fiscal consolidation plans in the medium term while supporting domestic demand at a pace determined by each country’s circumstances, pursuing appropriate monetary policies, enhancing exchange rate flexibility to better reflect underlying economic fundamentals, and undertaking structural reforms to foster job creation and contribute to global rebalancing;

10.

Notes, however, that, otherwise, prospects at G20 level of correcting global imbalances so far seem limited;

11.

Urges the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take an active role in identifying and addressing possible trade distortions in financial services caused by differing regulatory regimes;

12.

Calls on the Commission to design a comprehensive mechanism, largely based on and strongly interlinked with WTO regulations, that would prevent the use of trade as a foreign-policy tool in a way contrary to internationally recognised democratic values, as reflected in the Charter of the United Nations;

13.

Calls on the Commission to raise at the next EU-USA meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) the issue of mutual cooperation on supervision of commodity derivatives in line with existing transparency and market abuse regulation;

14.

Calls on the EU to implement declarations by the G8/G20 summits, in particular with regard to subsidies for fossil fuels and agriculture, taking into account the OECD guidelines in this domain, and to food price volatility and commodities markets;

15.

Calls on the Commission to revise its trade strategy with regard to strengthening south-south trade and intra-regional trade in other parts of the world in order to decrease the vulnerability of many small economies and to contribute to the development of strengthened economic partners in the future;

16.

Supports the establishment of a timetable for an action plan that will implement the G20 Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth;

17.

Welcomes all initiatives for further discussion and cooperation on common global challenges but notes that many of the current fora, like the G20, are only for informal discussion, without legal basis or the attributes of international organisations in their decision-making processes or in the implementation and supervision of their decisions, and will as such remain weak as governing structures;

18.

Notes that the consensus method of decision-making which characterises many of the global cooperation bodies does not encourage bold decisions to be taken and often leads to vague non-binding agreements; urges the global forum to emulate the EU’s move away from exclusive reliance on unanimity;

19.

Takes the view that the commitments given in the G20 need to be more concrete and that progress needs to be monitored by an independent, more formal and inclusive body with statutes and a secretariat, such as the IMF;

20.

Welcomes steps agreed by the Summit meeting of G20 Finance Ministers in Paris on 19 February 2011 to measure imbalances by a set of indicators; underlines that these indicators should cover internal imbalances, such as public debt and deficits and private savings and debt, as well as external imbalances from trade and investment flows and transfers;

21.

Calls on the G20 to carry out on a regular basis a Mutual Assessment Process based on a G20 framework and the above indicators in order to provide policy options which will achieve strong, sustainable and balanced growth;

22.

Underlines that financial actors operate on a global level and, from now on, considers that the coordination gaps in financial regulations need to be addressed to avoid allowing certain financial actors to take advantage of regulatory arbitrage;

23.

Stresses that the European Union must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions more legitimate, transparent and accountable and that, to an ever greater extent, the European Union should act as one party in international economic affairs;

24.

Calls for an EU seat in the IMF and the World Bank; calls for a more democratic IMF, including an open and merit-based election of its managing director, and a substantial increase in voting rights for developing and transitional nations;

25.

Maintains that global economic governance must be sufficiently responsive, flexible and pragmatic to make it possible to establish which arrangements are the most suitable, depending on the circumstances and in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

26.

Stresses that the European Union must play a leading role in global economic reform to make international institutions and informal forums more legitimate, transparent and accountable;

27.

Notes that these institutions and forums, in particular the G20, lack a certain parliamentary legitimacy at the global level, and consequently calls on them to involve parliaments in their decision-making processes; deplores the democratic shortcomings of some partners;

28.

Notes the problems that may arise if the policies pursued by the various informal forums and international economic and financial institutions lack coherence; maintains that measures to promote global institutional coordination should be adopted via the IMF;

29.

Underlines the need for a global understanding and a common approach regarding monetary policy, international trade, sustainable public finances and flexible currencies based on economic fundamentals; considers that the global economy should be characterised by open markets for the mutual benefit of all participants; underlines that high social and environmental standards are vital and must be developed in all regards; stresses that the IMF and WTO should be the core of such a process;

30.

Urges members of the WTO to accede to multilateral trade agreements and to negotiate further international trade rounds aimed at a significant reduction of obstacles to international trade while ensuring a level playing field in all sectors, thus contributing to economic growth and development;

31.

Believes that, in order to allow developing countries to obtain more benefits from trade and to ensure decent working conditions and decent wages for all workers, the EU has a strong interest in strengthening the ILO and in encouraging its participation in the work of the WTO and the monitoring of sustainability chapters linked to the GSP;

32.

Calls on the Commission to redefine the EU trade and investment strategy to include the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as future major trading partners with their own interest in a common global network of interlocked interests of socially and ecologically sustainable development;

33.

Is of the opinion that Multilateral Development Banks should provide additional resources more effectively in order to target specific local needs, support long-term investments and consolidate local economies;

34.

Recommends a strong and independent IMF with sufficient tools and resources enabling it to increase its attention to cross-country linkages by not only strengthening multilateral surveillance but also focussing on economies of systemic importance and developing indicators to assess durable large imbalances; calls for the IMF’s intervention mandate also to be extended to risks arising from capital accounts;

35.

Stresses the need to ensure that multilateral tax information exchange agreements incorporate automatic information exchange provisions and calls for action to strengthen the legal basis for OECD black-listing of non-cooperative jurisdictions, with a view to improving fiscal transparency and combating fraud and tax evasion; urges the Commission to propose by the end of 2011 a robust Country-by-Country Reporting Standard for cross-border companies, with the aim of enhancing transparency and access to relevant data by tax administrations;

36.

Emphasises the importance of the international initiatives undertaken in the areas of accounting and audit standards;

37.

Calls on the G20 leaders to without further ado conclude the discussions on the minimum common elements of a global financial transaction tax;

38.

Considers the G20 to be a key forum for global consultation, notwithstanding the importance of other bodies, but notes that the G20 has a number of shortcomings as a global institution, including a lack of representation of small nations, a lack of transparency and democratic accountability, as well as a lack of a legal basis to make its decisions legally binding;

39.

Encourages the IMF and G20 to seek, and act on, input and advice from global economies with low budget deficits and disciplined government expenditure;

40.

Stresses that the euro area, in the context of debates on global monetary arrangements, needs to be considered as a single entity given its single currency and single exchange rate policy;

41.

Urges the EU and its Member States to seek solutions to further improve coordination between the G formations and the UN system;

42.

Calls for the establishment of an international board of central banks – comprised in the first place of the central banks of the EU, Japan, UK and US – with a mandate to coordinate monetary policy, to oversee financial supervision, and to extend and promote the SDRs as a global reserve currency;

43.

Recommends that the IMF be strengthened politically with annual summits of the leaders of the countries represented in the Executive Board of the IMF; against this background, also encourages the Member States of the IMF to appoint persons from the most senior ranks of government to the Executive Board, so that it can take the lead as the forum for discussions and decisions regarding global economic governance;

44.

Considers that it is necessary to increase the transparency of international capital flows, in particular by seeking to bring banking secrecy to an end;

45.

Stresses that the lack of cooperation among financial supervisors facilitated the spread of the financial crisis and worsened its effects; calls in this regard for the Union’s supervisory authorities to take the lead in building international cooperation and establishing best practices in financial regulation; also underlines that convergence towards a common financial regulatory framework between the US and the EU would be beneficial;

46.

Notes that there is a need for the global implementation of reforms that improve the transparency and accountability of financial institutions;

47.

Stresses that, although legislation designed to improve the regulation of some areas of the financial sector has been adopted in the world's financial centres, further reforms of rules and practices in the banking and shadow banking system are warranted;

48.

Stresses the need to give European financial supervisory bodies a clear mandate to work in close cooperation with their non-EU or international counterparts, as the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) does with the Financial Stability Board (FSB);

49.

Stresses the need to combine micro- and macro-prudential supervision as part of a coherent, uniform approach;

50.

Notes that the US and EU together account for almost 40 % of global trade and almost 50 % of global GDP and recommends an enhanced macro-prudential dialogue, with a focus on the Atlantic dialogue, thorough and even-handed implementation of the Basel III package and further discussions on widening the scope of supervision to non-bank financial institutions; calls for continued momentum behind reform of financial sector regulation to ensure that finance effectively supports stability and growth in the real global economy;

51.

Respects the approach of the G20, WTO, Basel III and other multinational bodies whilst recognising the potential perils of over-regulation and regulatory competition;

52.

Welcomes the establishment of the Global Economy Meeting of central bank governors under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as a reference group for the organisation of cooperation among central banks;

53.

Is concerned about the risk of fragmentation as a result of the variety of regulations affecting the activities of global financial players; calls, therefore, for a greater degree of integration between the mechanisms put in place in different sectors;

54.

Recognises the role of the EIB in fostering growth through long-term investment;

55.

Stresses the need to develop adequate criteria for identifying systemically important financial institutions, with the aim of avoiding ‘too big or too interconnected to fail’ institutions, and therefore to reduce systemic risk through the use of additional reserve and capital requirements as well as antitrust laws;

56.

Calls on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to propose measures to ring-fence the retail banking activities of systemically important institutions and require them to be capitalised on a standalone basis;

57.

Urges the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to develop a standard model approach for calculating risk-weighted assets (RWAs) in order to accurately assess and compare banks’ exposures to credit and market risks;

58.

Recommends the development of a suitable international infrastructure under the aegis of the IMF offering authorities and industry alike a unique source for standardised basic financial data as a technical enabler for international prudential tasks and safer and more efficient industry processes alike;

59.

Stresses the positive effects of a stronger economic governance framework in the EU and the euro area for global cooperation and coordination;

60.

Notes the great importance of strengthening and deepening the European Single Market not only as an internal objective but also as a leading example for other trading blocs around the world;

61.

Stresses the need for EU policies both in the agricultural and financial fields that help to avoid global shocks in the food supply and prices;

62.

Stresses the positive effects of a stronger economic governance framework reinforcing the Stability and Growth Pact in the EU and the euro area for global cooperation and coordination;

63.

States that the EU should play an active role in reshaping the international monetary and financial system via more powerful external representation based on more efficient and transparent internal decision-making in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty;

64.

Welcomes the creation of the four new European financial regulatory bodies, the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, the European Securities and Markets Authority, and the European Systemic Risk Board, and hopes that they will grow strong and effective;

65.

Deems that the need to favour an international level playing field should not prevent the EU or other regional blocks and countries from strengthening regional arrangements aiming at fully using flexibility provided by WTO and other international standards in order to rebalance macroeconomic fundamentals and increase prosperity;

66.

Calls on the EU to focus on decreasing its energy dependency in order to curb imported inflation and regain commercial balance with oil-producing countries;

67.

Underlines the fact that the production of global public goods such as climate protection and the fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals could be favoured by an EU qualified market access framework;

68.

Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal on how to improve the EU’s internal decision-making procedure to improve its coherence as regards external representation in the area of economic and financial affairs to ensure that the EU’s representation is democratically accountable to the European Parliament, Member States and national parliaments;

69.

Urges the G20 or WTO to explore the possibility of a global agreement for a carbon tax on imported products and services;

70.

Recalls that, under Article 138 of the Lisbon Treaty, the euro area is supposed to introduce unified external representation; urges the Commission to put forward a legislative proposal to that effect;

71.

Underlines that full participation in the global economy is crucial for Europe in order to take advantage of all its opportunities, and the best opportunity to do so as one unit;

72.

Calls on the EU always to promote fair trade, democracy, human rights, decent working conditions and sustainable development in its trade policies, in accordance with the Lisbon Treaty, its internal agenda and the Millennium Development Goals;

73.

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

8.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 131/60

—

having regard to Articles 14(3), 23, 24 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

—

having regard to Articles 7, 8, 16, 17, 27 and 30 of the European Social Charter (revised) of the Council of Europe,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 October 2008 entitled ‘A better work-life balance: stronger support for reconciling professional, private and family life’, (COM(2008)0635),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 September 2010 entitled ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’ (COM(2010)0491),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 3 October 2008 on the implementation of the Barcelona objectives concerning childcare facilities for pre-school-age children (COM(2008)0638),

—

having regard to the Commission report on equality between women and men 2010 (COM(2009)0694),

—

having regard to Commission Recommendation 2008/867/EC of 3 October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market,

—

having regard to the European Pact for Equality between women and men for the period 2011-2020,

—

having regard to the EU Platform against Social Exclusion,

—

having regard to the Eurofound report of 24 March 2010 entitled ‘Second European Quality of Life Survey: Family life and work’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 October 2005 on women and poverty in the European Union (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 February 2009 on non-discrimination based on sex and intergenerational solidarity (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on gender aspects of the economic downturn and financial crisis (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on assessment of the results of the 2006-2010 Roadmap for Equality between women and men, and forward-looking recommendations (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2011 on towards adequate, sustainable and safe European pensions systems (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on equality between women and men in the European Union – 2010 (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on the face of female poverty in the European Union (7),

—

having regard to its position at first reading of 20 October 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (8),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0317/2011),

A.

whereas owing to socio-cultural changes which have been accompanied by access to the job market and greater financial independence for women, the two-parent family model and the notion of motherhood only after marriage have become eroded and single mothers are becoming increasingly significant as a group in all advanced and industrialised countries; whereas an increasing number of women are freely opting for motherhood while remaining unattached;

B.

whereas disproportionate attention is paid to teenage parenthood as a route into parenting alone, painting an inaccurate picture of who single parents are; whereas damaging and inaccurate stereotypes erode single parents’ confidence and self-esteem and that of their children;

C.

whereas single-parent families do not form a homogeneous group, but cover a very wide range of family, financial and social situations;

D.

whereas the living conditions of certain categories of single mother nevertheless make them vulnerable, something which might have consequences for their offspring;

E.

whereas single mothers are becoming increasingly significant as a group in all advanced and industrialised countries, whether as a result of divorce, separation or never having been married, and whereas there is therefore a need to respond to this new reality by adapting policies;

F.

whereas the Member States have a responsibility to ensure reasonable conditions for single mothers and their children;

G.

whereas public policies in many Member States are still not adapted to different family models and situations, and whereas single parents are often still socially and economically disadvantaged;

H.

whereas in many societies the choice to become an unmarried mother is not discredited or stigmatised as in societies dominated for various reasons by patriarchal models;

I.

whereas the vast majority of single parents in Europe are women; whereas in 2001 an average of 85 % of single parents were mothers aged 25 to 64, meaning that 5 % of the overall female population were single mothers and that in some Member States single mothers accounted for 6 to 7.5 % (the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovenia) and in others even for 9 % (Estonia, Latvia);

J.

whereas attitudes to single mothers and the policies pursued in this area vary from one region to the next throughout Europe, creating a geographical imbalance whereby northern regions have stronger welfare systems, southern regions depend on the role of the extended family and eastern regions are marked by a mixture of the two;

K.

whereas, as a result of different public policies and legal statuses (divorced, separated, unmarried or widowed), single mothers experience different situations and benefit, depending on the country in which they live, from different types of allocation, including health services for themselves and their children;

L.

whereas single mothers often interrupt their education and acquisition of professional skills, because their limited time and resources are spent on bringing up their children, so that they also face the risk of social exclusion and poverty;

M.

whereas education and information about the sexual and reproductive rights of women, in particular younger women, are essential to avoid unwanted pregnancies;

N.

whereas women who have lost their partner as a result of violence, including gender violence, terrorism and organised crime, are more vulnerable to isolation from society and therefore need special attention in order to stimulate their reintegration in society and guidance in continuing their parental role in a way which is best for the child;

O.

whereas at European level the responsible authorities are introducing measures and programmes to assist these categories;