—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 5 April 2011 entitled ‘An EU Framework for Roma integration strategies up to 2020’ (COM(2011)0173) and to the subsequent implementation and evaluation reports,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

—

having regard to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the recognition of Roma as a group needing special protection against discrimination,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 2153 (2017) on ‘Promoting the inclusion of Roma and Travellers’,

—

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

—

having regard to the Council recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (2), and to the Council conclusions of 8 December 2016 on accelerating the process of Roma integration and of 13 October 2016 on the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 14/2016,

—

having regard to the Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2017 on fundamental rights aspects in Roma integration in the EU: fighting anti-Gypsyism (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 April 2015 on International Roma Day — anti-Gypsyism in Europe and EU recognition of the memorial day of the Roma genocide during World War II (5),

—

having regard to the Fundamental Rights Report 2016 by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), and to the FRA’s EU-MIDIS I and II surveys and various other surveys and reports on Roma,

—

having regard to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack’, registered on 3 April 2017,

—

having regard to the relevant reports and recommendations of Roma civil society, NGOs and research institutions,

—

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

A.

whereas anti-Gypsyism (6) is a specific form of racism, an ideology founded on racial superiority, a form of dehumanisation and institutional racism nurtured by historical discrimination, which is expressed, among others, by violence, hate speech, exploitation, stigmatisation and the most blatant kind of discrimination (7);

B.

whereas Roma (8) are still being deprived of their basic human rights in Europe;

C.

whereas the findings of the Commission Report on the evaluation of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (COM(2018)0785) underline that ‘the framework has been key for the development of EU and national instruments and structures aiming to promote Roma inclusion, but the ambition of putting an end to the exclusion of Roma has not been achieved’;

D.

whereas the evaluation carried out by the Commission shows that inclusion strategies must address the different goals simultaneously and in a comprehensive approach with a stronger focus on the fight against anti-Gypsyism; whereas a specific non-discrimination goal along with goals on inclusion of Roma should be added alongside the four Roma inclusion goals (education, housing, employment and health);

E.

whereas the progress achieved in the inclusion of Roma is limited overall; whereas improvements were observed in early school-leaving and early childhood education, but there was deterioration in school segregation; whereas there was an improvement in the self-perceived health status of Roma but they continue to have limited medical coverage; whereas in most Member States no improvement was observed in access to employment, and the share of young Roma not in employment, education or training even increased; whereas there are serious concerns relating to housing and only little progress has been made regarding poverty; whereas anti-Gypsyism and its manifestations, such as hate crime and hate speech — online and offline — continue to raise serious concerns; whereas EU action was considered to provide important added value to national Roma policies and their implementation through political, governance and financial areas;

F.

whereas the evaluation reports the shortcomings in the initial design of the framework and its limited effectiveness during implementation;

G.

whereas the evaluation sheds light on the fact that there is a need to ensure Roma empowerment and participation through dedicated measures; whereas that empowerment and capacity-building of Roma and NGOs are key;

H.

whereas the evaluation shows that the EU framework did not pay sufficient attention to targeting specific groups among Roma, that multiple and intersectional discrimination have to be addressed and that there is a need for a strong gender dimension and a child-centered approach in the strategies;

I.

whereas the current EU framework lacks clear objectives and measurable targets; whereas there are insufficient qualitative and quantitative monitoring procedures, while country-specific recommendations are not binding; whereas insufficient effort is being made to address the limited participation of Roma individuals and communities in the framework’s design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of measures, programmes and projects regarding Roma;

J.

whereas most mainstream programmes are not inclusive of Roma, and whereas targeted actions covered by the Structural Funds failed to make sustainable positive changes in the lives of the most disadvantaged Roma;

K.

whereas Member States have a clear responsibility to take corrective measures against practices that discriminate against Roma;

L.

whereas the issue of building trust between Roma and non-Roma is vital for improving the lives and life chances of Roma; whereas trust is essential for society as a whole;

1.

2.

3.

4.

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 23 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and to Articles 8, 9, 10, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 45, 46, 47, 48, 153, 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 10 and 11 TEU, and to the statement in Article 10(3) that ‘every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union’,

—

having regard to Article 3(2) TEU enshrining the right of free movement of persons,

—

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

—

having regard to the Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2020-2027,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1),

—

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 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (2),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014 establishing the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme (3) for the period 2014-2020,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/589 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2016 on a European network of employment services (EURES), workers’ access to mobility services and the further integration of labour markets, and amending Regulations (EU) No 492/2011 and (EU) No 1296/2013 (5),

—

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 (6),

—

having regard to Directive 2013/55/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (7),

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council Directive establishing an EU Emergency Travel Document and repealing Decision 96/409/CFSP (COM(2018)0358),

—

having regard to Council Directive (EU) 2015/637 of 20 April 2015 on the coordination and cooperation measures to facilitate consular protection for unrepresented citizens of the Union in third countries and repealing Decision 95/553/EC (8),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Rights and Values programme (COM(2018)0383),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2009 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 Commission report of 24 January 2017 entitled ‘Strengthening Citizens’ Rights in a Union of Democratic Change — EU Citizenship Report 2017’ (COM(2017)0030),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 12 September 2018 on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents and fighting disinformation campaigns in the context of elections to the European Parliament (C(2018)5949),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 28 October 2015 on the European Citizens’ Initiative (10) and to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Citizens’ Initiative (COM(2017)0482),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2014 on EU citizenship for sale (11),

—

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

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 March 2017 on the implementation of Council Regulation (EU) No 390/2014 of 14 April 2014 establishing the ‘Europe for Citizens’ programme for the period 2014-2020 (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2017 on obstacles to EU citizens’ freedom to move and work in the internal market (14),

—

having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 31 January 2013 on ‘Strengthening EU citizenship promotion of EU citizens’ electoral rights’,

—

having regard to the studies published in 2016 by Parliament’s Policy Department C, entitled ‘Obstacles to the right of free movement and residence for EU citizens and their families’,

—

having regard to the report of 2018 by the Fundamental Rights Agency entitled ‘Making EU citizens’ rights a reality: national courts enforcing freedom of movement and related rights’,

—

having regard to the results of Eurobarometer 89/2018,

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 February 2018 on the composition of the European Parliament (15),

—

having regard to its position of 4 July 2018 on the draft Council decision amending the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 20 September 1976 (the ‘Electoral Act’) (16),

—

having regard to its decision of 7 February 2018 on the revision of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (17),

—

having regard to its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the 2021-2027 multiannual financial framework and own resources (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2018 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 — Parliament's position with a view to an agreement (19),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 September 2018 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Securing free and fair European elections’ (COM(2018)0637),

—

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 Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and of the Committee on Petitions (A8-0041/2019),

A.

whereas EU citizenship and its related rights were initially introduced in 1992 by the Treaty of Maastricht and were further enhanced by the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in December 2009, but have been only partially implemented;

B.

whereas the rights, values and principles on which the Union is based, which are highlighted in Articles 2 and 6 TEU, put the citizen at the very centre of the European project; whereas the debate on the future of Europe therefore also implies a reflection on the strength of our common identity;

C.

whereas the principles of transparency, integrity and accountability of the EU institutions and of the decision-making processes, as derived from Articles 10 and 11 TEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, are substantive elements of the concept of citizenship and are essential for building and strengthening credibility and trust in the Union as a whole; whereas the recourse to ad hoc and intergovernmental arrangements and instruments in several EU policy areas, as well as to informal decision-making bodies, circumventing and de-institutionalising the ordinary legislative procedure, risks severely undermining such principles;

D.

whereas the EU has had difficulties in facing numerous crises with important socio-economic consequences which have led to the emergence of populist and nationalist ideologies based on exclusive identities and supremacist criteria which contradict European values;

E.

whereas the unsatisfactory management of the various crises has increased citizens’ disappointment in some of the results of the EU integration project; whereas it is crucial to ensure that EU citizenship is regarded as a cherished privilege among citizens, including by restoring confidence in the EU project, giving primacy to the promotion of all citizens’ rights, including civil, political and social rights among others, improving the quality of democracy within the Union, the practical enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms and the opportunity for every citizen to participate in the democratic life of the Union, while providing for a greater involvement of civil society in decision-making and implementation processes;

F.

whereas the current revision of the ECI aims to improve its effectiveness and enhance participative democracy and active citizenship;

G.

whereas access to EU citizenship is gained through possession of the nationality of a Member State, which is regulated by national laws; whereas at the same time, the rights and duties deriving from EU citizenship are laid down by EU law and do not depend on Member States, hence cannot be limited in an unjustified manner by them;

H.

whereas in the context of access to national citizenship, Member States should be subject to the principles of EU law, such as proportionality, the rule of law and non-discrimination, which have been thoroughly elaborated in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

I.

whereas the prospect of Brexit has highlighted the importance of EU citizenship rights, especially among young Europeans, and their role in the lives of millions of EU citizens, and has also raised awareness in the EU concerning the potential loss of such rights on both sides;

J.

whereas the average turnout in the elections to the European Parliament in 2014 was 42,6 %; whereas according to the most recent Eurobarometer poll published in May 2018, only19 % of Europeans interviewed knew the date of the next European elections;

K.

whereas EU citizens are almost completely unaware of the Europe Direct offices despite their main role being to provide information;

L.

whereas there are over 400 Europe Direct Information Centres across the EU which contribute to the Commission’s communication on European Union policies of direct interest to citizens with the objective of engaging with citizens at local and regional level;

M.

whereas the concept of citizenship defines the relationship of citizens with a political community, including their rights, duties, and responsibilities; whereas Article 20 TFEU give the citizens of the Union the right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in their Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that state;

N.

whereas European citizens are directly represented in the European Parliament and every citizen must receive equal attention from the EU institutions; whereas Article 8 TFEU establishes the principle of gender mainstreaming by stating that ‘In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women’;

O.

whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has established in a number of cases that the rights deriving from EU citizenship can also be invoked by nationals of a Member State vis-à-vis that same state (20);

P.

whereas several Member States offer so-called ‘golden visa programmes’ and investor schemes as means of obtaining their nationality;

Q.

whereas the freedom of movement provides EU citizens with opportunities to travel, study, work and live in other EU countries; whereas more than 16 million Europeans enjoy their right to reside in another EU country;

R.

whereas the right to freedom of movement is central to EU citizenship and complements the other freedoms of the EU internal market; whereas young Europeans are particularly attached to the freedom of movement, which is regarded as the EU’s most positive achievement after ensuring peace in Europe;

S.

whereas the implementation of Directive 2004/38/EC has encountered practical difficulties and Europeans may still find it difficult to move to or live in another Member State owing to discrimination arising from nationality, entry and residence requirements; whereas there is considerable Court of Justice jurisprudence intended to clarify key concepts for mobile EU citizens;

T.

whereas the right to consular protection is guaranteed under Articles 20 and 23 TFEU, and EU citizens are therefore, in the territory of a third country in which their Member State of nationality is not represented, entitled to protection by any other Member State on the same conditions as nationals of that state; whereas emergencies, natural disasters or events such as terrorist attacks may affect European citizens who are from a Member State with no representation in the third country concerned;

U.

whereas the Commission has demonstrated a commitment in the EU Citizenship Report 2017 to organise an EU-wide information and awareness-raising campaign on EU citizenship in order to help citizens to better understand their rights; whereas this responsibility to better inform EU citizens of their rights and duties needs to be shared by Member States and civil society;

V.

whereas, according to the Commission’s 2017 EU Citizenship Report, since 2012 a growing number of people have reported experiencing some form of discrimination;

W.

whereas the creation of the Schengen area and the integration of the Schengen acquis into the EU framework have greatly enhanced the freedom of movement within the EU and are one of the greatest achievements of the European integration process;

X.

whereas the introduction of European citizenship is an achievement of the European project, which has yet to realise its full potential; underlines that this is a unique construction not seen anywhere else is the world;

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.

—

having regard to the Treaty provisions related to enhanced cooperation and in particular Articles 20, 42(6), 44, 45 and 46 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and Articles 82, 83, 86, 87, 187, 188, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333 and 334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the Treaty provisions on other existing forms of differentiated integration and in particular Articles 136, 137 and 138 TFEU relating to provisions specific to Member States whose currency is the euro,

—

having regard to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG),

—

having regard to Protocol 10 on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union, Protocol 14 on the Euro Group and Protocol 19 on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the European Union,

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on budgetary capacity for the euro area (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 March 2017 on constitutional, legal and institutional implications of a common security and defence policy: possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 January 2019 on differentiated integration (5),

—

having regard to the Commission white paper of 1 March 2017 (COM(2017)2025) and the five subsequent reflection papers (COM(2017)0206), COM(2017)0240, COM(2017)0291, COM(2017)0315, COM(2017)0358),

—

having regard to the Rome Declaration of 25 March 2017,

—

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 Constitutional Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0038/2019),

A.

whereas the Union has a particular interest in implementing enhanced cooperation in certain areas of non-exclusive EU competences in order to move forward the European project and to facilitate the life of citizens;

B.

whereas, pursuant to Article 20(2) TEU, enhanced cooperation is meant to be a measure of last resort, when the objectives of such cooperation cannot be attained within a reasonable period by the Union as a whole;

C.

whereas enhanced cooperation should not be seen as an instrument of exclusion or division of the Member States, but as a pragmatic solution to advance European integration;

D.

whereas the sensitive nature of certain policy areas makes it difficult to follow the ordinary legislative procedure, not only because of the unanimity requirement but also due to the established practice in the Council of always seeking consensus among the Member States, even when a qualified majority would be sufficient to take a decision;

E.

whereas with the exception of the Financial Transaction Tax, all enhanced cooperation initiatives could have been adopted in Council by qualified majority voting (QMV), had this rule been established instead of unanimity voting;

F.

whereas a number of cases exist of sub-groups of Member States carrying out bilateral or multilateral cooperation between themselves outside the Treaty framework, for example in fields such as defence; whereas the pressure exerted by the economic and monetary crisis to take swift decisions and to overcome the unanimity requirement in certain areas led to the adoption of intergovernmental instruments outside the EU legal framework, such as the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG or the ‘Fiscal Compact’);

G.

whereas enhanced cooperation is a procedure whereby a minimum of nine Member States are permitted to establish advanced cooperation in an area within the structures of the EU, but without the involvement of the remaining Member States; whereas enhanced cooperation allows those participating Member States to achieve a common goal or initiative and to overcome paralysis in negotiations or a blockage by another Member State or Member States when unanimity is required; whereas pursuant to Article 20(4) TEU acts adopted in the framework of enhanced cooperation should bind only participating Member States; whereas enhanced cooperation is limited to areas in which the EU does not have exclusive competences;

H.

whereas pursuant to Article 328(1) TFEU, ‘the Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall ensure that they promote participation by as many Member States as possible’;

I.

whereas experience shows that enhanced cooperation has delivered satisfactory results in divorce law (6), and offers interesting prospects with regard to property regime rules (7), the European unitary patent and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office;

J.

whereas the initial experiences with enhanced cooperation have highlighted the difficulties associated with the application of this concept, due to the limited provisions available in the Treaties concerning its practical implementation and the lack of sufficient follow-up carried out by the Union institutions;

K.

whereas the analysis of different federal models used in EU Member States and federations outside the Union revealed that flexible cooperation mechanisms are often used by sub-federal entities in areas of common interest;

L.

whereas without the use of bridging clauses to move from unanimity to QMV in the Council, and in the absence of a thorough reform of the Treaties, it seems possible that in the future, the Member States would need to resort to the provisions on enhanced cooperation in order to address common problems and attain common goals;

M.

whereas it is of importance for the smooth application of enhanced cooperation to establish a list of questions that need to be addressed and to provide a roadmap for the effective functioning of enhanced cooperation in the letter and spirit of the Treaties;

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.

—

having regard to the Treaty provisions concerning the political oversight of the European Parliament over the European Commission and in particular Articles 14, 17 and 25 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 121, 159, 161, 175, 190, 225, 226, 230, 233, 234, 249, 290, 291, 319 and 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 17 TEU, which entrusts the Commission with promoting the general interest of the Union and a monopoly on taking initiatives ‘to that end’,

—

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

—

having regard to the interinstitutional agreement (IIA) on better law-making of 2016 and the interinstitutional agreement on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management of 2013,

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on improving the functioning of the European Union building on the potential of the Lisbon Treaty (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union (2),

—

having regard to its decision of 7 February 2018 on the revision of the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, and especially paragraphs 2 and 8 thereof, which further reaffirm that the Spitzenkandidaten process consists of a successful constitutional and political practice reflecting the interinstitutional balance provided for in the Treaties (3),

—

having regard to its legislative resolution of 16 April 2014 on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry and repealing Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (4), and to the ongoing interinstitutional negotiations,

—

having regard to the report of the European Ombudsman on Meetings and Inspection of Documents — Joint Complaints 488/2018/KR and 514/2018/KR on the Commission’s Appointment of a new Secretary-General, and to its recommendation on those cases,

—

having regard to its Rules of Procedure, including Rule 52, 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 Constitutional Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0033/2019),

A.

whereas the institutional framework of the Union as enshrined in the Treaties confers on Parliament, as a legislative body of the Union, the responsibility of political oversight over the Commission;

B.

whereas Parliament has at its disposal a set of instruments to call the Commission to account, such as the motion of censure (Articles 17 TEU and 234 TFEU), the ability to ask the President of the Commission to withdraw his or her confidence in an individual member of the Commission (Rule 118(10) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure), the right of inquiry (Article 226 TFEU), the competence of scrutiny over delegated and implementing acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU), the right to ask oral and written questions (Article 230(2) TFEU), and the right to institute legal proceedings against the Commission on an issue of legality (Article 263 TFEU) or in case of failure to act by the Commission;

C.

whereas, in addition to these instruments, Parliament has an array of tools for steering oversight, thanks to which it can proactively shape the European political agenda;

D.

whereas the budget is the most important tool of the European Union for fulfilling its objectives and strategies, and therefore budgetary control is of utmost importance;

E.

whereas the Spitzenkandidaten process reflects the interinstitutional balance between Parliament and the Commission, and has thus substantially consolidated and strengthened the link between the two institutions, leading to a greater politicisation of the Commission, which should result in increased parliamentary scrutiny of its executive functions;

F.

whereas Article 17 TEU provides for the President of the Commission to be elected by Parliament on a proposal by the EU heads of state and government, taking into account the results of the European elections and consultations with Parliament; whereas Article 17 TEU also provides that the same procedure should be followed in the event that Parliament were to reject the proposed candidate, including the consultation of Parliament;

G.

whereas all commissioners-designate are subject to a hearing before the investiture of the College of Commissioners, and whereas over its mandate Parliament can review the commitments and priorities expressed by the commissioners-designate during their appointment hearings, including an evaluation of whether their personal backgrounds qualify them for fulfilling the requirements the office demands;

H.

whereas the Treaties give Parliament the right to vote on a motion of censure against the Commission as a whole but not to withdraw its confidence in an individual Commissioner;

I.

whereas despite the collective responsibility of the College of Commissioners, Parliament should ensure effective political oversight of the individual work of each Commissioner;

J.

whereas the recent appointment of the new Secretary-General of the Commission has raised serious concerns over the role and political influence exercised by senior Commission officials;

K.

whereas a new, rule-abiding procedure for filling the post of Secretary-General of the Commission should be conducted when the new President of the Commission and the new Commissioners are appointed in 2019;

L.

whereas the Commission has Treaty-based obligations to report regularly to Parliament: yearly on the general activities of the Union (Article 249 TFEU); every three years on the application of the provisions on non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union (Article 25 TFEU); on the results of multilateral surveillance in economic policy (Article 121(5) TFEU); every three years on the progress made on social policy (Articles 159 and 161 TFEU); every three years on the progress made towards achieving economic, social and territorial cohesion (Article 175 TFEU); yearly on research activities in the Union (Article 190 TFEU); yearly on the fight against fraud (Article 325 TFEU); and when conducting negotiations with third countries or international organisations (Article 207 TFEU);

M.

whereas, moreover, as far as secondary legislation is concerned, the Commission is instructed to review and evaluate various directives and regulations and report on its findings;

N.

whereas with the adoption of the Framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, Parliament has gained additional leverage in the shaping of the legislative agenda as proposed by the Commission every year in the Commission Work Programme (CWP);

O.

whereas since the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty Parliament has become a true co-legislator in the budgetary field and has the responsibility to give discharge to the Commission for the implementation of the Union budget;

P.

whereas following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty Parliament has expanded its influence over the scrutiny of EU external policies, by obtaining the power of consent over the conclusion of international agreements and, therefore, the right to be immediately and fully informed by the Commission at all stages of the negotiation of such agreements (Article 218 TFEU, Article 50 TEU);

Q.

whereas the conditions under which negotiations took place with the United Kingdom on its withdrawal from the European Union were exemplary in terms of their transparency and the involvement of Parliament;

R.

whereas the extent of Parliament’s scrutiny rights varies greatly between delegated acts and implementing acts; whereas Parliament has the right to veto a delegated act and/or to revoke the delegation, but in the case of implementing acts its involvement is much less far-reaching;

S.

whereas the current institutional structure of the Union and the lack of precise definition of the executive in the Treaties make the concept of EU executive complex and scattered across the European, national and regional levels;

T.

whereas stronger cooperation between the European Parliament and national and regional parliaments, in line with their respective constitutional competences and in accordance with Article 10(2) TEU, is key to addressing the issue of parliamentary control of executive functions when it comes to the implementation of European legislation;

U.

whereas the transparency and strong involvement of Parliament in the negotiations with the United Kingdom has had a positive impact on their outcome, creating a climate of trust and unity, and should therefore serve as inspiration for future international negotiations practices;

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.

—

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

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 21, 23 and 49 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 67(1), 258, 263, 267 and 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),

—

having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Council of Europe and the European Union,

—

having regard to the Opinions and the Rule of Law Checklist of the Venice Commission,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), and to its resolution of 12 September 2017 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, by the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2007 on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission’s legislative proposals: methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring (2),

—

having regard to its annual resolutions on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU,

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2017 on a European Pillar of Social Rights (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2017 on transparency, accountability and integrity in the EU institutions (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (7),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 27 April 2005 entitled ‘Compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in Commission legislative proposals — Methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring’ (COM(2005)0172),

—

having regard to the Commission Report of 29 April 2009 on the practical operation of the methodology for a systematic and rigorous monitoring of compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights (COM(2009)0205),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 October 2010 entitled ‘Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union’ (COM(2010)0573),

—

having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper of 6 May 2011 entitled ‘Operational Guidance on taking account of Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact Assessments’ (SEC(2011)0567),

—

having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2011 entitled ‘Human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action — Towards a more effective approach’ (COM(2011)0886),

—

having regard to the ‘EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy’ of 25 June 2012,

—

having regard to the Council Guidelines of 20 January 2015 on methodological steps to be taken to check fundamental rights compatibility at the Council preparatory bodies,

—

having regard to the Guidelines for Council preparatory bodies entitled ‘Fundamental rights compatibility’,

—

having regard to the Council Presidency seminar report of 13 May 2016 entitled ‘National policy application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’,

—

having regard to the Commission Guidelines of 19 May 2015 on the analysis of human rights impacts in impact assessments for trade-related policy initiatives,

—

having regard to the Commission annual reports on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to the Commission Annual Colloquia on Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 20 September 2016, in Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P, Ledra Advertising Ltd v European Commission and European Central Bank (ECB) (8),

—

having regard to the Judgment of the CJEU of 6 November 2018, in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16, Stadt Wuppertal v Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v Martina Broßonn (9),

—

having regard to Opinion 2/13 of the CJEU of 18 December 2014 on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (10),

—

having regard to Opinion 4/2018 of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 24 September 2018 entitled ‘Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’,

—

having regard to the annual fundamental rights reports of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to the Handbook of the FRA of October 2018 entitled ‘Applying the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in law and policymaking at national level — Guidance’,

—

having regard to the Better Regulation Toolbox, in particular Tool #28 ‘Fundamental rights & human rights’,

—

having regard to Rule 38 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the Opinion of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of 2 December 2016 on the European Union initiative to establish a European Pillar of Social Rights,

—

having regard to the Paper from the Dutch COSAC delegation on EU transparency of November 2017 entitled ‘Opening up closed doors: Making the EU more transparent for its citizens’, and to the letter of the COSAC Delegations to the EU Institutions of 20 December 2017 on the transparency of political decision-making within the EU,

—

having regard to the studies entitled ‘The implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU institutional framework’, ‘The interpretation of Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: the Dilemma of Stricter or Broader Application of the Charter to National Measures’ and ‘The European Social Charter in the context of implementation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies on 22 November 2016, 15 February 2016 and 12 January 2016 respectively (11),

—

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 Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the position in the form of amendments of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the opinion of the Committee on Petitions (A8-0051/2019),

A.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty has conferred the status of primary law on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter the Charter) within the EU legal framework, having the same legal value as the Treaties;

B.

whereas this report does not assess each individual right contained in the Charter, but, rather, analyses implementation of the Charter as an instrument of primary law;

C.

whereas social provisions are a crucial part of the Charter and the Union’s legal structure; whereas it is important to ensure respect for, and highlight the importance of, fundamental rights across the Union;

D.

whereas, according to the CJEU, the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter are at the heart of the EU legal structure, and respect for them is a necessary precondition for the legality of any EU act;

E.

whereas the Charter encompasses, in line with the requirements of international human rights law and of its Article 51, both negative (non-violation) and positive (active promotion) obligations which should be equally fulfilled in order to give full operational character to its provisions;

F.

whereas Article 51 of the Charter circumscribes the scope of the Charter with regard to observing the principle of subsidiarity, taking account of the powers of the Member States and of the Union, and respecting the limits of the powers conferred on the Union in the Treaties;

G.

whereas Article 51(2) of the Charter makes it clear that the Charter does not extend the scope of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties;

H.

whereas the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union are continuously bound by the Charter, even when they act outside the EU legal framework;

I.

whereas, by virtue of Article 51, the provisions of the Charter apply to the Member States only when they implement Union law; whereas, however, the uncertain boundaries of such a requirement make it hard to determine whether and how the Charter applies concretely;

J.

whereas the potential of the social and economic rights set out in the Charter has not been adequately exploited so far; whereas, recalling the opinion of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, respect for social rights is not only an ethical imperative and a legal obligation, but also an economic necessity;

K.

whereas Article 6 TEU also emphasises that fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR, must constitute general principles of the Union’s law;

L.

whereas Article 151 TFEU refers to fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter;

M.

whereas its study of 22 November 2016 entitled ‘The Implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU institutional framework’ (12) considers, inter alia, the relevance of the Charter for the Commission’s activities under the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM Treaty) and in the context of the European Semester; whereas little attention is being paid to the social rights set out in the Charter in the economic governance of the Union; whereas these rights must be considered genuine fundamental rights;

N.

whereas the commitment in the European Pillar of Social Rights to delivering new and more effective rights for citizens in the areas of equal opportunities and access to the labour market, fair working conditions and social protection and inclusion further enhances the rights enshrined in the Charter;

O.

whereas the principle of gender equality is a core value of the EU and is enshrined in the EU Treaties and the Charter; whereas Article 8 TFEU establishes the principle of gender mainstreaming by stating that ‘In all its activities, the Union shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women’;

P.

whereas the transparency of the EU legislative and decision-making processes is a corollary of the right to good administration, as set out in Article 41 of the Charter, and an essential precondition for citizens to be able to assess and properly monitor the implementation of the Charter by the EU institutions;

Q.

whereas the promotion, by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union, of the broad spectrum of rights provided for in the Charter — ranging from civil and political to social, economic and third-generation rights — would constitute a crucial impetus to develop a European public sphere and to give tangible expression to the concept of European citizenship and to the EU participatory dimension enshrined in the Treaties;

R.

whereas the FRA has formulated a number of recommendations for the effective implementation of the Charter in its opinions entitled ‘Improving access to remedy in the area of business and human rights at the EU level’ (13) and ‘Challenges and opportunities for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (14);

S.

whereas Article 24 of the Charter sets out the rights of the child, obliging public authorities and private institutions to make children’s best interests a primary consideration;

T.

whereas Article 14 of the Charter emphasises the right of every child to a free education;

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.

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2017 on digitising European industry (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapon systems (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2018 on language equality in the digital age (4),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 June 2018 establishing the Digital Europe programme for the period 2021-2027 (COM(2018)0434),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1488 of 28 September 2018 establishing the European High Performance Computing Joint Undertaking (5),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0019/2019),

A.

whereas transparent, ethics-embedded artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics have the potential to enrich our lives and further our capabilities, for both individuals and the common good;

B.

whereas developments in AI are unfolding at a fast pace, and whereas AI has already played a part in our daily lives for a number of years; whereas AI and robotics are boosting innovation, leading to new business models and playing a key role in transforming our societies and digitalising our economies in many sectors, such as industry, healthcare, construction and transport;

C.

whereas the increasing integration of robotics in human systems requires strong policy guidance on how to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks for society and ensure a safe, equitable development of artificial intelligence;

D.

whereas artificial intelligence is one of the strategic technologies for the 21st century both globally and in Europe, bringing positive change for the European economy, enabling innovation, productivity, competitiveness and wellbeing;

E.

whereas around a quarter of all industrial robots and half of all professional service robots in the world are produced by European companies, and whereas the EU therefore already has important assets on which it should base its European industrial policy;

F.

whereas AI and robotics have the potential to reshape multiple industries and lead to greater efficiencies in production as well as making European industry and SMEs more competitive globally; whereas the availability of large-scale datasets and testing and experimentation facilities are of major importance for the development of artificial intelligence;

G.

whereas a common approach will facilitate the development of AI technologies for the benefit of society, while also addressing the challenges presented by these technologies in order to foster innovation, enhance the quality of AI-enabled products and services, improve consumer experience and trust in AI technologies and robotics, and avoid fragmentation of the internal market;

H.

whereas computing performance must be maintained at a leading level in the Union, which should provide opportunities for the EU supply industry and increase its effectiveness in turning technological developments into demand-oriented, application-driven products and services, leading to their uptake in large-scale and emerging applications underpinned by artificial intelligence;

I.

whereas a coordinated approach at European level is urgently needed for the EU to be able to compete with the massive investments made by third countries, especially the US and China;

J.

whereas on 25 April 2018 (6) the Commission committed to proposing a European approach to artificial intelligence by developing draft AI guidelines in cooperation with stakeholders within the AI alliance, a group of artificial intelligence experts, in order to boost AI-powered applications and businesses in Europe;

K.

whereas existing rules and processes ought to be reviewed, and if necessary modified, to account for artificial intelligence and robotics;

L.

whereas the European framework for AI must be developed with full respect for the rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular with respect to the principles of data protection, privacy and security;

M.

whereas developments in artificial intelligence can and should be designed in such a way that they preserve the dignity, autonomy and self-determination of the individual;

N.

whereas in its resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics, Parliament called on the Commission to propose a coherent legal framework regarding the development of robotics, including autonomous systems and smart autonomous robots;

O.

whereas the development of AI and robotics needs to include society as a whole; whereas, however, in 2017, rural areas remained largely excluded from the benefits of AI, as 8 % of homes were not covered by any fixed network, and 53 % were not covered by any ‘next-generation access’ technology (VDSL, Cable Docsis 3.0 or FTTP);

P.

whereas development of AI-enabled services and products requires connectivity, free flow of data and accessibility of data within the EU; whereas use of advanced data mining techniques in products and services may help to increase the quality of decision-making, and hence consumer choice, and improve business performance;

Q.

whereas technological developments in smart products and services can benefit the knowledge economy, which is based on the quantity, quality and accessibility of information available, and can thus lead to better adaptation to consumer needs;

R.

whereas cybersecurity is vital for ensuring that data is not maliciously corrupted or misused to make AI function in a way that is detrimental to citizens or companies, which would undermine industry and consumer trust in AI; whereas developments in AI increase reliance on these systems for actions and decisions, which in turn necessitates high standards of cyber resilience in the EU to protect against cybersecurity breaches and failures;

S.

whereas the trend towards automation requires that those involved in the development and commercialisation of artificial intelligence applications build in security and ethics at the outset, thereby recognising that they must be prepared to accept legal liability for the quality of the technology they produce;

T.

whereas the building of a trusted ecosystem for the development of AI technology should be based on data policy architecture; whereas this implies the creation of smooth and simplified data collection and management programmes for educational research purposes to enable the development of AI in many domains: medical, financial, biological, energy, industrial, chemical or public sector; whereas a data-driven AI ecosystem could comprise pan-European initiatives launched on open standards and based on mutual recognition of certificates and transparent rules of interoperability;

U.

whereas the use of AI alone does not ensure truth or fairness, as bias can emerge in how the data is collected and how the algorithm is written and can stem from bias present in society; whereas data quality, together with algorithmic design and constant re-evaluation processes, should prevent bias;

V.

whereas AI and robotics should be developed and deployed in a human-centred approach with the aim of supporting humans at work and at home; whereas AI can also be used to avoid people having to do dangerous jobs;

W.

whereas further development and increased use of automated and algorithmic decision-making undoubtedly has an impact on the choices that an individual (such as a businessperson or an internet user) and an administrative, judicial or other public authority make in reaching a final decision of a consumer, business or authoritative nature; whereas safeguards and the possibility of human control and verification need to be built in to the process of automated and algorithmic decision-making;

X.

whereas machine learning also raises challenges in terms of ensuring non-discrimination, due process, transparency and understandability in decision-making processes;

Y.

whereas AI constitutes a significant tool for addressing global societal challenges, and whereas the Member States should, therefore, through their public policy, promote investment, make funds available for R&D and address barriers in the development and adoption of AI;

Z.

whereas commercial artificial intelligence platforms have moved from testing to real applications in health, the environment, energy and transport; whereas machine-learning techniques are at the heart of all main web platforms and big data applications;

AA.

whereas Europe’s researchers and companies are involved in a wide variety of blockchain topics, ranging from the supply chain, government services, finance, internet of things (IoT), healthcare, media, smart cities, energy and transport; whereas Europe is a strong player in important blockchain-related fields such as AI; whereas blockchain can play an important role in enhancing European innovation;

AB.

whereas cybersecurity technologies such as digital identities, cryptography or intrusion detection, and their application in areas such as finance, industry 4.0, energy, transportation, healthcare and e-government, are essential to safeguard security and trust in online activity and transactions by citizens, public administrations and companies alike;

AC.

whereas text and data mining serves as a foundation for AI and machine learning applications, and are vital for SMEs and start-ups because they allow them to access large quantities of data to train AI algorithms;

AD.

whereas AI could prove to be very energy intensive; whereas, in light of this, it is important that the use of AI advances in keeping with the EU’s existing energy efficiency and circular economy targets;

AE.

whereas AI should fully support all European languages to provide all Europeans with equal opportunities to benefit from modern AI developments within the multilingual European information society;

AF.

whereas, in industry and services associated with high technology, AI is key to turning Europe into a ‘start-up continent’ by exploiting the latest technologies to generate growth in Europe, in particular in the areas of health technology, healthcare services and programmes, drug discovery, robotic and robot-assisted surgery, treatment of chronic diseases, and medical imaging and records, as well as securing a sustainable environment and safe food production; whereas Europe is currently lagging behind North America and Asia in terms of research and patents in the field of artificial intelligence;

AG.

whereas the development of AI technologies may help to improve the lives of people with chronic illnesses and disabilities and address social challenges such as our ageing population by making health technology more precise and effective in providing healthcare;

AH.

whereas there is a broad catalogue of possible applications of AI and robotics in medical care, such as managing medical records and data, performing repetitive jobs (analysing tests, X-rays, CT scans, data entry), treatment design, digital consultation (such as medical consultation based on personal medical history and common medical knowledge), virtual nurses, medication management, drug creation, precision medicine (as genetics and genomics look for mutations and links to disease from the information in DNA), health monitoring and healthcare system analysis, among other applications;

AI.

whereas accessibility does not mean the same services and appliances for all; whereas the accessibility of AI and robotics is based on inclusive planning and design; whereas the user’s needs, wishes and experiences need to be the starting point of the design;

AJ.

whereas there are strong ethical, psychological and legal concerns about the autonomy of robots, their obvious lack of human empathy and their impact on the doctor-patient relationship, which have not yet been properly addressed at EU level, in particular as regards the protection of patients’ personal data, liability, and the new economic and employment relationships that will be brought about; whereas ‘autonomy’ as such can only by fully attributed to human beings; whereas there is a need for a robust legal and ethical framework for artificial intelligence;

AK.

whereas the introduction of artificial intelligence in the area of health in particular must always be based on the ‘man operates machine’ principle of responsibility;

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.