18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/1

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/2

—

having regard to Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which specifies the purposes of the EU sport policy,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 January 2011 entitled ‘Developing the European Dimension in Sport’ (COM(2011)0012),

—

having regard to the Report of the EU Expert Group on Good Governance on ‘the Principles for Good Governance of Sport in the EU of October 2013’,

—

having regard to the Report of the High Level group on Grassroots Sport on ‘Grassroots Sport — Shaping Europe’ of June 2016,

—

having regard to the Report of the High Level group on Sport Diplomacy of June 2016,

—

having regard to the Erasmus+ programme, which aims to tackle cross-border threats to the integrity of sport, promote and support good governance in sport, dual careers of sportspeople and voluntary activities in sport, together with social inclusion and equal opportunities,

—

having regard to the Commission White Paper on Sport (COM(2007)0391),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 June 2015 on recent revelations on high-level corruption cases in FIFA (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 September 2013 on online gambling in the internal market (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2013 on match-fixing and corruption in sport (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 February 2012 on the European dimension in sport (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 May 2008 on the White Paper on Sport (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 March 2007 on the future of professional football in Europe (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on players’ agents in sports (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 November 2013 on Qatar: situation of migrant workers (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2016 on the role of intercultural dialogue, cultural diversity and education in promoting EU fundamental values (10),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 31 May 2016 on enhancing integrity, transparency and good governance in major sport events,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 May 2015 on maximising the role of grassroots sport in developing transversal skills, especially among young people,

—

having regard to the Council resolution of 21 May 2014 on the European Union Work Plan for Sport (2014-2017),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 26 November 2013 on the contribution of sport to the EU economy, and in particular to addressing youth unemployment and social inclusion,

—

having regard to the Council recommendation of 25 November 2013 on promoting health-enhancing physical activity across sectors,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 18 November 2010 on the role of sport as a source of and a driver for active social inclusion (11),

—

having regard to the Council of Europe convention of 3 July 2016 on an integrated safety, security and service approach at football matches and other sport events,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe convention of 18 September 2014 on the manipulation of sport competitions,

—

having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and General Court of the European Union and the Commission’s decisions on sport matters, betting and gambling,

—

having regard to the Global Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development Goals,

—

having regard to Article 6 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A8-0381/2016),

A.

whereas with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the European Union acquired a specific competence for sport to build up and implement an EU-coordinated sport policy supported by a specific budget line, and to develop cooperation with international bodies in the area of sport, whilst taking into account the specific nature of sport and respecting the autonomy of sport’s governing structures;

B.

whereas sport plays a prominent role in the life of millions of EU citizens; whereas amateur and professional sport is not merely a matter of athletic abilities, sporting achievements and competitions, but also brings a significant social, educational, economic, cultural and unifying contribution to the EU’s economy and society, as well as to the EU’s strategic objectives and social values;

C.

whereas sport represents a significant and fast-growing sector of the EU economy and makes a valuable contribution to growth, jobs and society, including at local level, with value added and employment effects exceeding average growth rates; whereas sport-related employment has been estimated at equivalent to 3,51 % of total EU employment, and the share of sport-related gross value added at EUR 294 billion (2,98 % of total EU gross value added);

D.

whereas sport is not only a growing economic reality, but also a social phenomenon which makes an important contribution to the European Union’s strategic objectives, and to social values such as tolerance, solidarity, prosperity, peace, respect for human rights and understanding among nations and cultures;

E.

whereas practicing sports contributes to a better quality of life, prevents diseases and plays a fundamental role in strengthening personal development and health condition;

F.

whereas compliance with basic labour rights is essential for professional athletes;

G.

whereas sport also contributes to the integration of people and transcends race, religion and ethnicity;

H.

whereas the integrity of sport is of paramount importance if its credibility and its attractiveness is to be promoted;

I.

whereas sport has a specific nature that is based on voluntary structures and that is a prerequisite of its educational and societal functions;

J.

whereas recent corruption scandals in sport, and within sports organisations at European and international levels, have tarnished the image of sport, raising voices and questions about the need for genuine and structural reforms of sport governing bodies and organisations while taking into account the great diversity of sport structures in different European countries and the fact that sports organisations are by their nature largely self-regulated;

K.

whereas both professional and grassroots sports play a key role in the global promotion of peace, respect for human rights and solidarity, carry health and economic benefits for societies and have an essential role in highlighting fundamental educational and cultural values, as well as in promoting social inclusion;

L.

whereas good governance in sport should respect the appropriate regulation of sport through principles of effective, transparent, ethical and democratic management, participatory governance, processes and structures with the participation of stakeholders;

M.

whereas sports organisations are responsible for ensuring high governance and integrity standards and should raise these further, and adhere them it in all circumstances, in order to restore citizens’ confidence and increase public trust in the positive value of sport;

N.

whereas balanced policies that aim to increase financial transparency, stability and credibility in sport are key to improving financial and governance standards;

O.

whereas the European organised sport model is based on the principles of territoriality and nationality, with one federation per discipline, and on solidarity mechanisms between elite and grassroots sports, as well as on promotion-relegation, open competitions and financial redistribution;

P.

whereas the recognition of the principle of a single federation per sport is of particular relevance and is rooted in the social importance of sport as the best means of safeguarding the interests of sport and the benefits that it delivers to society;

Q.

whereas it is legitimate and necessary for all stakeholders to require that any sport competition be played and decided in accordance with the internationally recognised rules of the game;

R.

whereas sport tribunals have a central role to play in guaranteeing the universality of the rules of the game, the right to a fair trial in sport-related disputes and good governance, since they constitute the most appropriate means of settling disputes in sport in compliance with fundamental EU procedural rights;

S.

whereas the increasing amounts of money circulating in the sport sector and in the organisations involved have prompted demands for better governance and transparency; whereas sport, as an economic activity, is confronted with a series of match-fixing scandals involving various other crimes and illegal activities such as money laundering, corruption and bribery;

T.

whereas increasing practices of doping remains a threat to the integrity and reputation of sport in that it violates sport’s ethical values and principles such as fair play, and whereas the use of doping seriously jeopardises the health of the athletes concerned, often causing serious and permanent damage, and whereas the fight against doping is a matter of public interest and public health;

U.

whereas any act of violence, hooliganism and discrimination directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group, whether in an amateur or a professional sport, tarnishes its image and discourages spectators from attending sport events;

V.

whereas promoting sport for people with intellectual or physical disabilities should be a key priority at European, national and local level;

W.

whereas women’s participation and visibility in sport and sport competitions needs to be improved;

X.

whereas athletes, in particular minors, face increasing economic pressures, and are treated as commodities, and have therefore to be protected against any form of abuse, violence or discrimination that may occur in the course of their participation in sport;

Y.

whereas there is a growing, worrying trend of third-party ownership in team sports in Europe whereby players, who are often very young, are partially or integrally owned by private investors and can no longer determine the future paths of their careers;

Z.

whereas bad practices linked to agents and players’ transfers have led to cases of money laundering, fraud and exploitation of minors;

AA.

whereas grassroots sports offer opportunities to tackle discrimination, foster social inclusion, cohesion and integration, and make a strong contribution to the development of transversal skills;

AB.

whereas an increasing number of clubs rely mainly on the transfer market to compose their teams when they should pay more attention to local training;

AC.

whereas sport is perceived as a fundamental right of everyone, and whereas everyone should have equal right to engage in physical activity and sport;

AD.

whereas, overall, physical activity is stagnating despite hard evidence that it improves personal health, including mental health, and well-being, as a result of which Member States make significant savings in terms of public expenditures on health, and despite a growing trend for recreational sports, such as jogging, which are also practised outside of any organised structures;

AE.

whereas sport events and activities, and in particular major international competitions, showcase the benefits of sport and have a positive social, economic and environmental impact;

AF.

whereas national teams play an essential role not only in terms of fostering national identity and inspiring young athletes to reach the highest level of sporting performance, but also by promoting solidarity with grassroots sports;

AG.

whereas the further education and vocational training of athletes is a crucial part of preparing them for their careers at the end of their sporting careers;

AH.

whereas investment in and promotion of the training and education of talented young athletes at local level is crucial for the long-term development and societal role of sports;

AI.

whereas volunteers are the backbone of organised sport, providing for the development and accessibility of sport activities, especially at grassroots level; whereas, in addition, it offers a further excellent training and non-formal education opportunity for young people, also internationally and in association with cooperation and development programmes in non-EU areas in which dialogue needs to be strengthened and EU external policy supported;

AJ.

whereas sport, in its broadest sense, represents a value system for a community, and whereas these values form the basis of a shared language that goes beyond all cultural and linguistic barriers; whereas it can help, and should be considered an opportunity, to strengthen dialogue and solidarity with third countries, to promote the protection of basic human rights and freedoms worldwide and to support EU external policy;

AK.

whereas infringements of sports organisations’ intellectual property rights, including in the form of digital piracy, especially the unlicensed live transmission of sporting events, raise serious concerns for the long-term funding of sport, at all levels;

AL.

whereas the freedom of press must be ensured at all sport events;

AM.

whereas sport can contribute to fulfilling the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/14

—

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

—

having regard to Articles 67(4) and 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, and in particular Articles 7, 21 and 35 thereof,

—

having regard to Article 2 of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography of 25 May 2000,

—

having regard to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963,

—

having regard to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption,

—

having regard to the Issue Paper of the Commissioner for Human Rights on Adoption and Children: a Human Rights Perspective, published on 28 April 2011,

—

having regard to Rules 46 and 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Petitions (A8-0370/2016),

A.

whereas in the area of adoption, it is essential that any decision should be taken in accordance with the principle of the best interests of the child, non-discrimination, and with respect for his or her fundamental rights;

B.

whereas the purpose of adoption is not to give adults the right to a child, but to give the child a stable, loving and caring environment to grow up and develop in harmoniously;

C.

whereas the adoption procedure concerns children who, at the time adoption is applied for, have not yet attained 18 years of age or the age of majority in their country of origin;

D.

whereas a good balance needs to be struck between the right of the adopted child to know its true identity and the right of the biological parents to protect theirs;

E.

whereas the relevant authorities should not consider the economic circumstances of the biological parents as the only basis and justification for the withdrawal of parental authority and giving a child up for adoption;

F.

whereas adoption proceedings should not commence before any decision withdrawing parental authority from the biological parents is final, and the latter have been given the opportunity to exhaust all legal avenues of appeal against that decision; whereas the recognition of an adoption order taken in the absence of such procedural guarantees can be refused by other Member States;

G.

whereas greater efficiency and transparency will enable improvements to be made to domestic adoption procedures and could make international adoptions easier, which could increase the number of children being adopted; whereas, in this respect, compliance with Article 21 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which all Member States have ratified, should be the primary benchmark for all procedures, measures and strategies regarding adoptions in a cross-border context, while respecting the best interests of the child;

H.

whereas more work should be done in a determined manner in order to prevent prospective parents interested in adoption from being exploited by unscrupulous intermediary organisations, and whereas cooperation in combating crime and corruption within the EU therefore needs to be stepped up in this area as well;

I.

whereas the placement of siblings in the same adoptive family should be encouraged as far as possible, in order to spare them further trauma arising from their separation;

J.

whereas the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Hague Convention), which all Member States have ratified, provides a system of administrative cooperation and recognition for intercountry adoptions, i.e. adoptions where the adopters and the child or children do not have their habitual residence in the same country;

K.

whereas the Hague Convention stipulates that recognition of intercountry adoptions is automatic in all signatory states, without the need for any specific procedure for recognition to be effective;

L.

whereas, under the Hague Convention, recognition may be refused only if the adoption is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the state concerned, taking into account the best interests of the child;

M.

whereas judicial training in the widest sense is key to mutual trust in all areas of law, including that of adoption; whereas existing EU programmes covering judicial training and support for the European judicial network therefore need to include a stronger focus on specialised courts, such as family courts and juvenile courts;

N.

whereas citizens should be given better access to comprehensive information on the legal and procedural aspects of domestic adoption in Member States; whereas the e-Justice portal could be expanded in this connection;

O.

whereas cooperation within the European Network of Ombudspersons for Children was established in 1997, and Europe's ombudspersons on children's matters should be encouraged to cooperate and coordinate more closely in that forum; whereas efforts to do so could include involving them in existing EU-funded judicial training schemes;

P.

whereas an in-depth analysis should be conducted, as more needs to be done to prevent and combat the cross-border trafficking of children for the purpose of adoption and to improve the proper and efficient implementation of existing rules and guidelines to combat child trafficking; whereas cooperation in combating crime and corruption within the EU therefore needs to be stepped up in this area to prevent the abduction, sale, or trafficking of children;

Q.

whereas the principle of mutual trust between the Member States is of fundamental importance in Union law as it allows an area without internal borders to be created and maintained; whereas the principle of mutual recognition, which is based on mutual trust, obliges Member States to give effect to a judgment or decision originating in another Member State;

R.

whereas, despite the international rules that exist in this field, opinions still differ in the Member States as regards the principles that should govern the adoption process, just as differences exist in respect of adoption procedures and the legal effects of the adoption process;

S.

whereas the European Union has competence to take measures aimed at enhancing judicial cooperation between the Member States without affecting national family law, including in the field of adoptions;

T.

whereas public policy exemptions serve to safeguard the identity of the Member States, which is reflected in the substantive family law of the Member States;

U.

whereas there is currently no European provision for the recognition — whether automatic or otherwise — of domestic adoption orders, i.e. concerning adoptions which are carried out within a single Member State;

V.

whereas the absence of such provisions causes significant problems for European families who move to another Member State after adopting a child, as the adoption may not be recognised, meaning that the parents may have trouble legally exercising their parental authority, and may encounter financial difficulties regarding the different fees applicable in this field;

W.

whereas the lack of such provisions thus puts at risk the rights of children to a stable and permanent family;

X.

whereas currently, when moving to another Member State, parents may be obliged to go through specific national recognition procedures, or even re-adopt the child, creating significant legal uncertainty;

Y.

whereas the current situation can cause serious problems and prevent families from fully exercising free movement;

Z.

whereas there may be a need to review and assess the overall situation through consultation among Member States' competent authorities;

AA.

whereas the Brussels II Regulation does not address the question of the recognition of adoption orders, as it exclusively covers parental responsibility;

AB.

whereas it is therefore of the utmost importance to adopt legislation providing for the automatic recognition in a Member State of a domestic adoption order granted in another Member State, on condition that full respect for national provisions on public policy and for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality is ensured;

AC.

whereas such legislation would complement Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) (Brussels IIa) on issues of jurisdiction and parental responsibility and fill the existing gap on recognition of adoptions as provided under international law (the Hague Convention);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/26

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC),

—

having regard to the statements by the EU Delegation to the DRC on the situation of human rights in the country,

—

having regard to the political agreements reached in the DRC on 18 October 2016 and 31 December 2016,

—

having regard to the statement of 18 December 2016 by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Federica Mogherini, on the failure to reach an agreement in the DRC,

—

having regard to the statement of 23 November 2016 by the spokesperson of the VP/HR on current political efforts in the DRC,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 23 May 2016 and 17 October 2016 on the DRC,

—

having regard to the local EU statements of 2 August 2016 and 24 August 2016 on the electoral process in the DRC following the launch of the national dialogue in the DRC,

—

having regard to the UN Security Council resolutions on the DRC, in particular resolutions 2293 (2016) on renewing the DRC sanctions regime and the mandate of the Group of Experts and 2277 (2016), which renewed the mandate of the UN Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO),

—

having regard to the UN Security Council press statements of 15 July 2016 and 21 September 2016 on the situation in the DRC,

—

having regard to the annual report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, published on 27 July 2015, on the situation of human rights in the DRC,

—

having regard to the UN Secretary-General’s reports of 9 March 2016 on the UN Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the DRC, and on the implementation of the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the Region,

—

having regard to the joint press releases of 16 February 2016 and of 5 June 2016 by the African Union, the United Nations, the European Union and the International Organisation of La Francophonie on the need for an inclusive political dialogue in the DRC and their commitment to supporting Congolese actors in their efforts towards the consolidation of democracy in the country,

—

having regard to the Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework Agreement for the DRC and the Region, signed in Addis Ababa in February 2013,

—

having regard to the final report of the European Union electoral observation mission (EOM),

—

having regard to the joint statement issued on 24 September 2016 by the VP/HR and the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, Neven Mimica, following the announcement by the Gabonese Constitutional Court of the official results of the presidential election,

—

having regard to the statement on Gabon issued by the VP/HR’s spokesperson on 11 September 2016,

—

having regard to the press release issued by the African Union on 1 September 2016 condemning the violence of the post-electoral conflict in Gabon and calling for its peaceful resolution,

—

having regard to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World in 2014, adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22 June 2015,

—

having regard to the 11th European Development Fund 2014-2020 National Indicative Programme, which prioritises strengthening democracy, governance and the rule of law,

—

having regard to the resolutions adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of 18 May 2011 on challenges for the future of democracy and respecting constitutional order in ACP and EU countries, and of 27 November 2013 on the respect for the rule of law and the role of an impartial and independent judiciary,

—

having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Republic of Gabon and the European Union concerning the EU’s election observation mission (EOM),

—

having regard to the Congolese and Gabonese Constitutions,

—

having regard to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of June 1981,

—

having regard to the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance,

—

having regard to the African Union’s Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa (2002),

—

having regard to the UN International Charter of Human Rights,

—

having regard to the Cotonou Agreement,

—

having regard to Rule 123(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the rule of law, accountability, respect for human rights and free and fair elections are essential elements of any functioning democracy; whereas these elements have been challenged in some countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, notably the DRC and Gabon, thereby plunging these countries into a lasting period of political instability and violence;

B.

whereas, most recently, Ali Bongo, the Gabonese outgoing president, in power since the death of his father, Omar Bongo, in 2009, was declared the winner of the 2016 presidential election; whereas international observers, and in particular the EU EOM, identified clear anomalies in the compilation of the results;

C.

whereas Jean Ping, his main contender, immediately challenged and condemned this result; whereas an appeal alleging electoral irregularities and calling for a recount was lodged with the Constitutional Court, who eventually confirmed the result; whereas, however, consideration of the appeal has not dispelled all the doubts surrounding the outcome of the presidential election;

D.

whereas Congolese President Joseph Kabila, in power since 2001, has delayed the election and remained in power beyond the end of his constitutional mandate; whereas this has caused unprecedented political tension, unrest and violence across the country;

E.

whereas violence escalated following the expiry date of President Kabila’s mandate, causing the death of at least 40 people in clashes between protesters and security forces; whereas, according to the UN, 107 people have been injured or ill-treated and there have been at least 460 arrests;

F.

whereas an agreement was signed on 18 October 2016 between President Kabila and a section of the opposition to postpone the presidential election to April 2018; whereas after months of negotiations, the parties to the agreement of 18 October 2016 reached a global and inclusive political agreement on 31 December 2016; whereas this agreement provides for the first peaceful transfer of power in the country since 1960, the putting in place of a transitional government of national unity, the holding of elections by the end of 2017, and the stepping-down of President Kabila;

G.

whereas in both countries street demonstrations broke out and were violently suppressed, leaving a number of people dead; whereas the authorities have clamped down on members of the opposition and of civil society opposing the power in place; whereas human rights groups continuously report on the worsening situation with regard to human rights and freedom of expression and assembly, including the use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and politically motivated trials;

H.

whereas there has been a serious deterioration in the freedom of the media, which is limited by constant threats and attacks against journalists; whereas media outlets and radio stations have been shut down by the authorities, and restrictions have been put on the internet and social networks;

I.

whereas one of the characteristics of democracies is respect for the Constitution, which underlies the state, the institutions and the rule of law; whereas peaceful, free and fair elections in these countries would have contributed greatly to addressing the challenge of democratic progress and alternation of power faced by the Central African region;

J.

whereas the 11th European Development Fund 2014-2020 National Indicative Programme prioritises strengthening democracy, governance and the rule of law; whereas both EU and African partners have a strong common interest in the continued development of democracy and the establishment of properly functioning constitutionalism;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/31

—

having regard to Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 14 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (1),

—

having regard to Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (2),

—

having regard to the Council Resolution of 27 November 2009 on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018) (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2010 on promoting youth access to the labour market, strengthening trainee, internship and apprenticeship status (4),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 19 November 2010 on education for sustainable development,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 January 2011 entitled ‘Developing the European Dimension in Sport’ (COM(2011)0012),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on ‘Youth on the move: a framework for improving Europe’s education and training systems (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 September 2011 entitled ‘Supporting growth and jobs — an agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems’ (COM(2011)0567),

—

having regard to the Council Resolution of 28 November 2011 on a ‘Renewed European agenda on adult learning’ (6),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 28 and 29 November 2011 on a benchmark for learning mobility (7),

—

having regard to the Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (8),

—

having regard to the 2012 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020), ‘Education and Training in a smart, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 October 2013 on ‘Rethinking Education’ (10),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 20 May 2014 on effective teacher education,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 20 May 2014 on quality assurance supporting education and training,

—

having regard to the Declaration on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education (‘Paris Declaration’), adopted at the informal meeting of European Union Education Ministers on 17 March 2015 in Paris,

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 September 2015 on promoting youth entrepreneurship through education and training (11),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 15 September 2015 entitled ‘Draft 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018)’ (COM(2015)0429),

—

having regard to the 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020), ‘New priorities for European cooperation in education and training’ (12),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on the role of early childhood education and primary education in fostering creativity, innovation and digital competence (13),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on reducing early school leaving and promoting success in school (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on Learning EU at school (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on Erasmus+ and other tools to foster mobility in vocational education and training — a lifelong learning approach (16),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 30 May 2016 on developing media literacy and critical thinking through education and training,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 30 May 2016 on the role of the youth sector in an integrated and cross-sectoral approach to preventing and combating violent radicalisation of young people,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 10 June 2016 entitled ‘A new skills agenda for Europe’ (COM(2016)0381),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2016 on follow-up of the Strategic Framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) (17),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0389/2016),

A.

whereas Erasmus+ is one of the most successful Union programmes and the major tool to support activities in the fields of education, training, youth and sport, and is designed to improve the career potential of young people and to offer social links to participants; giving over the period 2014-2020 the opportunity to study, train and volunteer in another country to more than four million Europeans;

B.

whereas the Commission has shown flexibility and taken innovative steps to target new challenges, such as a proposal for refugees, and to foster civic values within the incentives Erasmus+ offers, towards a more active and participative intercultural dialogue;

C.

whereas the programme’s high educational, societal, political and economic relevance is reflected in the budget increase of 40 % for the programme period, and in the commitment rate of the budget provided for, which has reached nearly 100 % because of a high number of applications;

D.

whereas not all relevant data for a full quantitative and qualitative analysis of the implementation are yet available, whereas it is therefore too early to conduct a qualitative assessment of the programme’s impact;

E.

whereas the results of the Erasmus Impact Study of 2014 (18) show that those who have studied or trained abroad are twice as likely to find work compared to others who lack similar experience, that 85 % of Erasmus students study or train abroad in order to enhance their employability abroad, that the unemployment rate for those who have studied or trained abroad is 23 % lower five years after graduating; whereas the Erasmus Impact Study also shows that 64 % of employers think international experience is important for recruitment (as compared to only 37 % in 2006) and that graduates with an international background are given greater professional responsibility; whereas one in three Erasmus trainees is offered a job at the enterprise where they did their traineeship and almost one in 10 Erasmus trainees who did work placements have started their own company and three out of four plan to or can envisage doing the same;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/48

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07592/2016),

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43, Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0431/2016),

—

having regard to its legislative resolution of 14 February 2017 (1) on the draft decision,

—

having regard to the ex ante evaluation report of June 2013 on the fisheries partnership agreement and protocol between the European Union and the Cook Islands,

—

having regard to the strategic guidelines drawn up by the Cook Islands authorities on the development of the local fisheries sector, in particular those contained in the document ‘Cook Islands Offshore Fisheries Policy’,

—

having regard to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) framework, in particular SDGs 1, 2, 9, 10 and 14,

—

having regard to the conclusions and recommendations of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) 12th Scientific Committee meeting for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean,

—

having regard to Rule 99(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0015/2017),

A.

whereas the Commission has negotiated a new ‘Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement’ between the European Union and the Cook Islands (EU-Cook Islands FPA), and the implementation protocol thereto, with the Cook Islands Government, covering a period of eight and four years respectively;

B.

whereas this is the first EU-Cook Islands FPA, which guarantees a European presence in the waters of the eastern Pacific following the non-renewal of the agreement with Kiribati (and the agreements signed but not implemented with Micronesia and the Salomon Islands);

C.

whereas the general objective of the EU-Cook Islands FPA/Protocol is to increase cooperation between the EU and the Cook Islands in the field of fisheries, in the interest of both parties, creating a partnership framework that will promote a sustainable fisheries policy and sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Cook Islands;

D.

whereas our presence in the region should serve to promote a sustainable fisheries policy and sound exploitation of resources, guaranteeing the proper management of Pacific tuna resources;

E.

whereas the EU-Cook Islands FPA is based on the best available scientific advice, respecting the conservation and management measures of the WCPFC within the limits of the available surplus;

F.

whereas problems exist in relation to inspection and control, and whereas illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a problem that is difficult to overcome, bearing in mind the scattered nature of territory and resources;

G.

whereas there are various vessels from EU Member States in the Western and Central Pacific region and the remaining fisheries agreements signed in the region have expired;

H.

whereas a commitment has been given not to grant other non-European fleets more favourable conditions than those provided for in the Agreement, and whereas the Agreement contains the Cotonou clause on human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law;

I.

whereas the EU-Cook Islands FPA is aimed at promoting more effective and sustainable development of the fisheries sector in the islands, as well as that of related industries and activities, in line with the objectives of the Cook Islands national fisheries policy, particularly in terms of supporting scientific research and artisanal fishing, increasing landings at local ports, boosting monitoring, control and surveillance capacity in relation to fishing activities and combating IUU fishing, and in line with the SDG framework;

J.

whereas the contributions intended to support the development of the Cook Islands’ fisheries policy, ranging between 47,6 % and 50 % of the total to be transferred, amount to a major contribution in percentage terms;

K.

whereas stocks of bigeye tuna have been in decline since 2012, whereas, as a consequence of this, the WCPFC introduced a management measure that will be renegotiated in 2017, and whereas purse seine catches fell by 26 % in 2015 by comparison with 2014; whereas, furthermore, the Cook Islands waters are regarded as a ‘shark sanctuary’, even though it should be stressed that this is not a target species for the European fleet fishing in those waters under the new agreement;

L.

whereas EU longliner catches have tended to be located in the warmer waters to the south of the Cook Islands; bearing in mind the requirements imposed by the Cook Islands’ shark conservation regulation; whereas the ex ante assessment found that there would be no interest in the future for EU longliners to fish in the Cook Islands EEZ;

M.

whereas the Cook Islands are highly dependent on food imports;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/52

—

having regard to the Commission Decision of 30 May 2016 establishing horizontal rules on the creation and operation of Commission expert groups (C(2016)3301),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication to the Commission — Framework for Commission expert groups: horizontal rules and public register (C(2016)3300),

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 28 April 2016 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2014, Section III — Commission and executive agencies (2),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Budgets (A8-0002/2017),

A.

whereas it has expressed its concerns with regard to the functioning of the previous framework for Commission expert groups (EGs) of November 2010 (3), which had been set up with the aim of introducing significant operational innovations to strengthen the transparency and coordination of interinstitutional work;

B.

whereas, in particular, its Committee on Budgets, in light of the lack of transparency and the imbalanced composition of a certain number of EGs, and given the need to make sure that the composition of EGs strikes the right balance in terms of expertise and of views represented, adopted budgetary reserves in 2011 and 2014, and has formulated demands which have not yet been accepted for their reform;

C.

whereas a recent study commissioned by it has identified a widespread lack of transparency in, and an imbalance in the composition of, a certain number of EGs (4);

D.

whereas balanced composition and transparency are critical preconditions for the expertise to adequately reflect the needs for regulatory action and for fostering the legitimacy of this expertise and regulatory action in the eyes of European citizens;

E.

whereas the European Ombudsman has in her strategic inquiry (5) put forward a recommendation concerning the composition of Commission EGs, in particular emphasising the need for greater transparency within the EGs;

F.

whereas before adopting the Decision, the Commission engaged with representatives of Parliament and with the European Ombudsman;

G.

whereas the Commission has presented to Parliament a working document of the Commission’s services, responding to the recommendations contained in a working document of the Rapporteur for the Committee on Budgetary Control;

H.

whereas unfortunately, this notwithstanding, neither the working document of the Commission’s services, nor the Commission Decision, provides solutions to all concerns raised by Parliament;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

18.7.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/56

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 325 thereof,

—

having regard to Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (1),

—

having regard to the Decision of the European Ombudsman closing her own-initiative inquiry OI/1/2014/PMC concerning whistleblowing,

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (2),

—

having regard to Article 9 of the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption,

—

having regard to Article 22(a) of the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption,

—

having regard to Council of Europe recommendation CM/Rec(2014)7 on the protection of whistleblowers,

—

having regard to Articles 8, 13 and 33 of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption,

—

having regard to Principle 4 of the OECD Recommendation on Improving Ethical Conduct in the Public Service,

—

having regard to the inquiry of the office of the European Ombudsman of 2 March 2015 and to its call for the EU institutions to adopt the required rules on whistleblowing,

—

having regard to the OECD publication on ‘Committing to effective whistleblower protection’,

—

having regard to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Guja v. Moldova, Application No 14277/04 of 12 February 2008,

—

having regard to Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A8-0004/2017),

A.

whereas in the context of the discharge procedure, Parliament needs as much information as possible relating to any such irregularities; whereas in cases concerning irregularities internal to the institutions, Parliament should be entitled to full access to information so that it can conduct the discharge procedure in full knowledge of the facts;

B.

whereas the European Court of Auditors provides Parliament with an excellent basis for its examinations, but cannot itself cover all individual expenditures;

C.

whereas the Commission and other EU institutions similarly provide Parliament with informative reports on their spending, but also rely on official reporting mechanisms;

D.

whereas the Union’s many funds are subject to shared management by the Commission and the Member States, which makes it difficult for the Commission to report on irregularities concerning individual projects;

E.

whereas Parliament regularly receives information from individual citizens or non-governmental organisations in respect of irregularities concerning individual projects funded entirely or in part from the Union budget;

F.

whereas whistleblowers therefore play an important role in preventing, detecting and reporting irregularities in respect of the expenditures relating to the EU budget, as well as in identifying and publicising cases of corruption; whereas a culture of trust fostering the European public good needs to be established and promoted in which EU officials and other staff, as well as the general public, feel safeguarded by sound management practices, and which shows that the EU institutions support, protect and encourage potential whistleblowers;

G.

whereas it is vital for a horizontal legal framework to be established as a matter of urgency, which, by laying down rights and obligations, protects whistleblowers throughout the EU, as well as in the EU institutions (the protection of anonymity, provision of legal, psychological and, where necessary, financial assistance, access to various information channels, rapid response schemes, etc.);

H.

whereas most EU Member States have ratified the UN Convention against Corruption, which makes it obligatory to provide appropriate and effective protection to whistleblowers;

I.

whereas whistleblowing is an essential source of information in the fight against organised crime and in the investigation of corruption in the public sector;

J.

whereas whistleblowers play a particularly important role when it comes to the detection and reporting of corruption and fraud, as the parties directly involved in these criminal practices will actively try to conceal them from any official reporting mechanisms;

K.

whereas whistleblowing, based on the principles of transparency and integrity, is essential; the protection of whistleblowers should therefore be guaranteed by law and reinforced throughout the EU, but only if the purpose of their action is to protect the public interest by acting in good faith in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights;

L.

whereas the authorities should not limit or reduce the ability of whistleblowers and journalists to document and disclose illegal, unlawful or harmful practices, when revealing this information in good faith and the public interest is a priority;

M.

whereas all the EU institutions have been obliged since 1 January 2014 to introduce internal rules protecting whistleblowers who are officials of the EU institutions, in accordance with Articles 22a, 22b and 22c of the Staff Regulations, and the working group of the interinstitutional Preparatory Committee for Matters relating to the Staff Regulations, dealing with the protection of whistleblowers, has not yet finished its work; whereas part of the work done by that working group should be to assess the situation of whistleblowers who have suffered negative consequences in the institutions, so as to establish best practices based on past experience; whereas those internal rules must take account of the management structure and of the specific characteristics of the various categories under the Staff Regulations;

N.

whereas protection of whistleblowers at Member State level has neither been implemented in all Member States, nor harmonised, which means that even when the financial interests of the European Union are at stake, it may be personally and professionally risky for whistleblowers to provide Parliament with information on irregularities; whereas it is precisely because people are afraid of what might happen to them owing to the lack of protection, and because they believe that no action will be taken, that irregularities are not reported, and the EU’s financial interests are undermined as a result;

O.

whereas there is a need to ensure that any kind of retaliation against whistleblowers will be suitably punished;

P.

whereas in its resolution of 23 October 2013, Parliament called on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal by the end of 2013 establishing an effective and comprehensive European whistleblower protection programme in the public and private sectors, to protect those who detect inefficient management and irregularities and report cases of national and cross-border corruption relating to the EU’s financial interests; whereas, in addition, it called on the Member States to put in place appropriate and effective protection for whistleblowers;

Q.

whereas, the EU legislator has already provided for the protection of whistleblowers in sectorial instruments including Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations, Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 on market abuse, Directive (EU) 2015/849 on money laundering and terrorist financing and Regulation (EU) No 376/2014 on occurrence reporting;

R.

whereas the protection of whistleblowers in the Union has become even more urgent, as the Trade Secrets Directive limits the rights of whistleblowers and may thus have an unintended discouraging effect on those who want to report irregularities in the context of Union funding from which individual companies have benefitted;

S.

whereas important work has already been undertaken by international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Council of Europe, who have developed recommendations in regard to the protection of whistleblowers;

T.

whereas according to the OECD more than one third of organisations with a reporting mechanism did not have, or did not know of, a written policy on protecting those who report from reprisals;

U.

whereas non-governmental organisations such as Transparency International, Whistleblowing International Network, etc., have similarly developed international principles for whistleblower legislation which should serve as a source of inspiration for EU initiatives in this regard;

V.

whereas the office of the European Ombudsman has a clear competence in relation to the investigation of complaints of EU citizens about maladministration in the EU institutions, but in itself plays no role in the protection of whistleblowers in the Member States;

W.

whereas the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union introduced in its most recent version, in force since 1 January 2014, several provisions on whistleblowing;

X.

whereas the protection of whistleblowers is essential for safeguarding the public good and the financial interests of the Union and for promoting a culture of public accountability and integrity in both public and private institutions;

Y.

whereas in many jurisdictions, and particularly in the private sector, employees are subject to duties of confidentiality with respect to certain information, which means that whistleblowers might encounter disciplinary actions for reporting outside their organisation;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.