20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/1

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/2

—

having regard to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2177 (2014) of 18 September 2014 on peace and security in Africa,

—

having regard to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 69/1 of 19 September 2014 on measures to contain and combat the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa,

—

having regard to the decision by the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, to set up the organisation’s first emergency health mission, the UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER), following the adoption of General Assembly Resolution 69/1 and Security Council Resolution 2177 (2014) on the Ebola epidemic,

—

having regard to the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations (IHR) of 2005 (WA 32.1),

—

having regard to the recommendations from the WHO’s consultation on zoonoses of 5 May 2004,

—

having regard to the WHO’s statement of 8 August 2014 declaring the Ebola epidemic a public health emergency of international concern,

—

having regard to the WHO’s Ebola response roadmap of 28 August 2014 and the updates thereto,

—

having regard to the Director-General of the WHO’s report to the Executive Council at its extraordinary session on Ebola held in Geneva on 25 January 2015,

—

having regard to the WHO’s statement of 9 May 2015 on the end of the epidemic of the Ebola virus in Liberia,

—

having regard to the Guidance for Immunization Programmes in the African Region in the Context of Ebola, issued by the WHO,

—

having regard to the statement made following the spring 2015 meeting of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund held in Washington DC from 17 to 19 April 2015,

—

having regard to the international conference entitled ‘Ebola: from emergency to recovery’ held in Brussels on 3 March 2015,

—

having regard to the establishment by the African Union of the African Union Support to Ebola Outbreak in West Africa (ASEOWA) mission on 21 August 2014,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020),

—

having regard to the Commission communication COM(2010)0128 together with SEC(2010)0380, 0381 and 0382 on the EU Role in Global Health,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 24 October 2014,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on the EU Role in Global Health of the 3011th Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on 10 May 2010,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the EU Foreign Affairs Council meetings of 15 August 2014, 20 October 2014, 17 November 2014 and 12 December 2014 and 16 March 2015 on the Ebola crisis in West Africa,

—

having regard to the reports to the European Council drawn up in November 2014 and March 2015 by Christos Stylianides, Commissioner and EU Ebola Coordinator,

—

having regard to the Comprehensive Response Framework for the Ebola Virus Outbreak in Western Africa drawn up by the European External Action Service and the Commission,

—

having regard to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and to the 2011 EITI progress report of Sierra Leone, the 2012 EITI progress report of Liberia and the 2012 EITI progress report of Guinea,

—

having regard to the French RIPOST ‘Network of Public Health Institutes in West Africa’ programme,

—

having regard to the resolution on the Ebola outbreak adopted by the ACP-EU Parliamentary Assembly on 3 December 2014 in Strasbourg, France,

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 September 2014 on the EU’s response to the Ebola outbreak (1),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0281/2015),

A.

whereas the health systems of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea contain massive gaps, and whereas the three countries already before the outbreak were among those at the bottom of the UNDP’s human development index, with around 80 % of the countries’ citizens living in extreme poverty, and scored highest in the world in premature adult and under-five mortality rates, mainly for treatable conditions;

B.

whereas the Ebola crisis is systemic at local and regional level and also at national and global governance level;

C.

whereas the magnitude of the catastrophe can be attributed to several factors, among which: the political failure of the affected countries to sound the alarm, the ill-adapted response of the international community, the shattering effects of closure of borders and restrictions on people, the ineffectiveness of the surveillance and alert mechanisms, the slow and poorly adapted response once aid was eventually mobilised, the stark absence of leadership from the WHO, the lack of research and development of drugs, diagnostics and vaccines;

D.

Whereas three new confirmed cases of Ebola virus disease were registered in the week to 18 October 2015, all in Guinea; whereas the country had reported zero cases for the previous two weeks; whereas Sierra Leone reported zero cases for a fifth consecutive week; whereas the WHO declared Liberia free of Ebola virus transmission in the human population on 3 September 2015; whereas there have been 28 512 confirmed cases, including 11 313 confirmed deaths;

E.

whereas still too little is known about the prevalence, transmission and mutation potential of the Ebola virus; whereas widespread confusion and prevailing misunderstandings about the causes and consequences of Ebola virus disease have perpetuated the spread of the virus; whereas ethnographic research is useful in order to understand how communities work and how to reach people with different cultural backgrounds;

F.

whereas Ebola virus disease was found in semen and in ocular fluid of convalescent persons; whereas there are single evident cases of sexual transmission, which indicates difficulties to eradicate the virus and to determine a point in time when countries really can be regarded as Ebola free;

G.

whereas in a large number of African countries the health and education systems have deteriorated throughout the Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank, which required budget cuts in the public sector;

H.

whereas the Ebola outbreak in West Africa has shown that local and national health systems in low-income countries do not have the means or resilience to respond to an infectious disease outbreak such as that of Ebola; whereas strengthening global health systems has therefore become an integral part of global health governance;

I.

having regard to the importance of culture and traditional customs in the management of the Ebola crisis (2);

J.

whereas children, adolescent girls and young women are among the most marginalised and vulnerable during such a crisis, which poses a serious threat to women’s engagement in economic activities and has increased gender gaps in education; whereas orphans may face repudiation and stigmatisation;

K.

whereas the Ebola epidemic which affected West Africa is the largest and most complex outbreak in the history of the disease; whereas the WHO was first alerted to the outbreak of Ebola on 23 March 2014, but whereas it was only on 8 August 2014 that the International Health Regulations Emergency Committee declared it a public health emergency of international concern; whereas prior to this outbreak, Ebola had not been considered a major public health challenge;

L.

whereas nearly 500 healthcare workers have died of Ebola in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, in countries suffering already from a serious shortfall of staff before the outbreak of the Ebola crisis; whereas hospitals and health staff did not have the capacity to deal with other diseases owing to the resources mobilised to fight the Ebola epidemic; whereas there is a need to protect health facilities and health workers to enable the sustainable provisions of medical care;

M.

whereas many recovered patients have had to face stigmatisation from both their relatives and society; whereas this situation particularly affects children who have lost one or two parents, and many of these children have been rejected by their surviving relatives for fear of infection;

N.

whereas there is a need to integrate epidemiology, public health and social science in order to draw appropriate lessons from the Ebola outbreak;

O.

whereas in the first few months of the Ebola crisis, the humanitarian NGOs — Médecins Sans Frontières and the Red Cross in particular — were the most effective, best informed and most experienced players and therefore played a front-line role in initial efforts to combat the virus;

P.

whereas the closing of schools and the tendency for orphaned children to become caregivers in households risk creating a ‘lost generation’ of children deprived of formal education for long periods of time;

Q.

whereas with their know-how and their ability to work together, the humanitarian organisations showed that, when it is necessary at the start of a crisis, they can be more relevant and more effective than the ‘institutional players’;

R.

whereas the Ebola crisis has resulted in another problem which Médecins Sans Frontières has referred to as ‘a crisis within a crisis’, namely that people with conditions other than Ebola are not going to hospital for fear that they will be infected with the virus;

S.

whereas the EU, together with its Member States, is the biggest donor of development aid in the world and has made available more than EUR 1,39 billion to help contain the outbreak of Ebola virus disease in West Africa; whereas this amount enables the EU to negotiate with partner countries and other donors to support a comprehensive national health system development that builds on a coherent, inclusive, needs-based strategy;

T.

whereas the United Nations World Food Programme has proved that it has an effective logistics capability that could be used in future for early warning and response purposes as well;

U.

whereas the safety of caregivers is essential for the international mobilisation of health workers;

V.

whereas the European Council appointed an EU Ebola Coordinator on 23 October 2014 in the person of the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Management, Mr Stylianides; whereas since 12 November 2014 he has visited the countries most affected, accompanied by the Commissioner for Health, Mr Andriukaitis;

W.

whereas the United Nations, the WHO and the Commission have established procedures for assessing the management of the epidemic;

X.

whereas in a statement issued in April 2015 the WHO acknowledged that the world and the organisation itself were poorly prepared to deal with a lengthy epidemic;

Y.

whereas it is essential to improve international governance of health crises;

Z.

whereas access to medicines is a key part of the right to health;

AA.

whereas 2 billion people worldwide do not have access to the vaccines or treatments they need to stay alive and healthy;

AB.

whereas access to medicines and to research and development findings in this area must be geared, as a priority, to the needs of sufferers, whether in Europe or in developing countries;

AC.

whereas Innovative Medicines Initiative is the world’s biggest public-private partnership in life sciences, with a budget of EUR 3,3 billion for the 2014-2024 period, of which EUR 1,638 billion comes from Horizon 2020;

AD.

whereas the trauma of Ebola has left people distrustful of health facilities, left health workers fearful of resuming services and left communities impoverished and suspicious; whereas the basic relaunching of health services is urgent; and whereas it is equally essential to set up robust and effective health systems, including mutualisation of risks, in all developing countries, which also implies solid training of the local medical staff;

AE.

whereas the Ebola crisis has dragged the countries in the area affected deeper into recession, and whereas in 2015 alone, according to the World Bank, the GDP of the three countries worst affected will be reduced by USD 2 billion as a result;

AF.

whereas those three countries have applied to the IMF and the World Bank for a ‘Marshall Plan’ package worth EUR 7 500 million, to help them to overcome their economic difficulties;

AG.

whereas some NGOs have called on the World Bank to raise some USD 1,7 billion in order to help those countries to make lasting improvements to their healthcare infrastructure;

AH.

whereas the international community needs to remain vigilant, and whereas the goal is to reach the post-Ebola stage, i.e. the stage at which there have been no new cases of infection for a long period;

AI.

whereas good hygiene practices are indispensable; whereas, however, the three countries lack sufficiently working water and sanitation systems;

AJ.

whereas it is to be feared that in the case of any other outbreak, the scale of the death toll would reoccur;

AK.

whereas Vice-President/High Representative Federica Mogherini, European Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid and EU Ebola Coordinator Christos Stylianides, European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica, Members of the European Parliament, governments and parliamentarians of the Member States have repeatedly called for the strengthening of health systems;

AL.

whereas, under the 11th European Development Fund, health system strengthening and the strengthening of water and sanitation services are only among the focal sectors for Guinea, and not for Liberia and Sierra Leone;

AM.

whereas the Commission communication on the EU Role in Global Health (COM(2010)0128) presents a comprehensive and holistic needs-based global health strategy that was endorsed by the Member States;

AN.

whereas not all states fully implemented the IHR; whereas the IHR should be revised after gaining experience during the latest Ebola epidemic;

AO.

whereas little is known about potentially dangerous zoonoses; whereas food and agricultural practices, deforestation and trade in animals and animal products led to the emergence of newly evolving zoonotic diseases such as avian influenza, Ebola and HIV;

AP.

whereas the WHO recommends coordination between public health and veterinary sectors;

AQ.

whereas a delegation from the Committee on Development will visit Sierra Leone in November 2015;

1.

Criticises the slow international response to the crisis during the first months; stresses, however, the response and commitment of the EU and its Member States since March 2014 to help contain the propagation of the Ebola virus; notes the scaling-up of the EU and its Member States’ commitment in the areas of humanitarian and development aid, logistics and research to respond to the crisis;

2.

Welcomes the development of a new vaccine (in record time), which has proven 100 % effective in Guinea as of 23 March 2015, and calls for urgent guaranteed access to this vaccine, which should be affordable to everyone in Liberia and Sierra Leone;

3.

Considers that there should be no lowering of the guard in relation to some new cases of Ebola, the mode of transmission of which remains open to question;

4.

Calls on all parties concerned, particularly governments of developing countries, European institutions and international organisations, to learn from this crisis, including from the negative impacts on health sectors in developing countries of the conditionalities of IMF and World Bank structural adjustment facilities, and to develop effective means of dealing with international health crises;

5.

Notes, in this context, the reform announced by the Director of the WHO on 18 May 2015, particularly as regards the establishment of a new emergency programme and a world reserve of staff who can be deployed quickly on the ground, and the establishment of a new reserve fund of USD 100 million specifically for emergencies; welcomes the commitment to increase the WHO’s budget by 10 % within two years, bringing it to USD 4,5 billion;

6.

Calls on the international community to promote information and education campaigns in the countries concerned; stresses the crucial importance of prevention and information campaigns in managing the crisis, in particular in order to limit contamination, and to raise awareness of unsafe practices that should be avoided; stresses the importance of alternative means of disseminating information;

7.

Strongly emphasises the importance of combating increased tensions between groups as a result of the Ebola outbreak, as the creation of myths could mean that certain ethnic groups are blamed for the Ebola outbreak;

8.

Takes the view that, once emergency assistance is no longer required, the EU’s long-term response should focus first on development assistance, which will need to include investment in the health sector to promote resilience, particularly as regards the organisation and management of health systems, health monitoring and information, medicine supply systems, domestic governance and state-building, and then focus on the assistance that is essential in order to get the three countries’ economies back on their feet;

9.

Calls on the authorities to take into account the lessons learnt concerning the stigmatisation phenomenon and to implement them in similar humanitarian crisis which may occur;

10.

Recalls the importance of conflict prevention, as conflicts and fragility have a very negative impact on health systems;

11.

Calls for the establishment of a permanent European rapid response capability comprising experts, laboratory support staff, epidemiologists and logistics facilities, including mobile laboratories, that can be deployed extremely swiftly; draws attention in particular to the contribution the EU can make to screening at land and maritime borders and to the fact that the Union could seek to emulate and benefit from the level of excellence achieved by the US health authorities in screening at airports;

12.

Calls also on the EU to support the establishment of a network of monitoring points in developing countries to make it possible to detect as quickly as possible new cases of infectious disease which have the potential to develop into pandemics, in order to create a sentinel network in those countries;

13.

Recognises the need to support the establishment of cooperation between the EU and its Member States and developing countries, in particular those of West Africa, as far as training medical staff is concerned;

14.

Stresses the importance of strengthening protection and rapid evacuation systems for international health workers;

15.

Deplores the fact that past adjustments and reforms and inequitable development policies have contributed to ineffective health systems; urges the Commission to help the three countries affected to develop their own public health systems in order for them to be able to meet basic healthcare needs and to build up the infrastructure required to ensure that all their citizens have access to public healthcare; in particular, takes the view that building a resilient health system over the long term requires, inter alia, (i) investing resources in basic public health services, (ii) ensuring safe and quality care by increasing resources to train, supervise and pay health workers adequately and by giving access to safe drugs, (iii) engaging local stakeholders and communities in crisis response and development planning; calls on international donors to increase Official Development Assistance (ODA) to those countries through country systems such as budget support; calls on the Commission to establish, in cooperation with partner countries, the WHO, the World Bank and other donors, coherent needs-based health plans and monitoring procedures;

16.

Stresses that the responses should address the underlying gaps in women’s representation, access to health and services and the disruption to livelihoods; stresses in particular the need to offer high-quality basic services and healthcare, especially where maternity care and obstetric and gynaecological services are concerned;

17.

Welcomes the Commission communication on the EU Role in Global Health (COM(2010)0128) and its holistic vision on comprehensive health systems, its horizontal approach and its endeavour for universal health coverage; encourages the Commission to review this communication in the light of new insights gained during the Ebola crisis, while keeping the comprehensive and horizontal approach, and to present and implement a Programme for Action in a timely manner;

18.

Stresses, in general, the need for developing countries to give budgetary priority to setting up robust and resilient public social security and public health systems, building sufficient numbers of well-equipped, sustainable healthcare infrastructure (in particular laboratories, water and sanitation facilities) and offering high-quality basic services and healthcare; emphasises the need for a sufficient ratio of health workers to population, and calls on the governments of the affected countries to ensure that health workers are paid and that money for health reaches the people; acknowledges, nevertheless, that crises such as the current one cannot be solved by health systems alone, and that a comprehensive approach involving different sectors such as education and training, sanitation, food safety and drinking water, is needed to address the critical gaps in all essential services; stresses, at the same time, that education, covering cultural dimensions and beliefs, are also key in the recovery;

19.

Points out that investment in the health sector is an important driver of economic development and contributes to poverty reduction in developing countries; welcomes the inclusion of Goal 3 ‘Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages’ in the proposal for future Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);

20.

Stresses that the long-term costed plans needed to build resilient and comprehensive health systems must further include an adequate number of trained health workers, access to sufficient medical supplies and robust health information systems;

21.

Calls for research infrastructure to be bolstered by the establishment of a regional public infectious disease research centre in West Africa, and for inter-university cooperation to be established with the participation of the EU and its Member States;

22.

Stresses the need to tackle social inequality in order to build a resilient, sustainable public health system; supports, to this end, the introduction of publicly funded universal health coverage free at the point of use, and urges the Commission, together with partner countries and other donors, to submit as soon as possible a programme for establishing universal health cover, which will guarantee the mutualisation of health risks;

23.

Calls on all countries to commit to Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and to develop a plan identifying domestic resources and potential international funding to meet this goal; supports the target of scaling-up healthcare spending in all countries to the recognised minimum of USD 86 per person for essential health services;

24.

Welcomes the high-level international conference on Ebola held on 3 March 2015 under the auspices of the EU and key partners with the aim of eradicating Ebola but also of assessing the impacts on the affected countries in order to make sure that development aid builds on humanitarian efforts;

25.

Supports the idea of a ‘Marshall Plan’ to help kick-start those countries’ economies; suggests offering technical assistance to the administration to enhance their capacity and to ensure that money reaches the people and is not lost to corruption or other purposes;

26.

Welcomes international efforts to alleviate the international debt burden of the countries affected by the Ebola virus;

27.

Believes that partnerships between the EU and the area affected by the crisis will be effective only if Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone are able to take ownership of their own development as quickly as possible;

28.

Believes that the programming of the 11th European Development Fund should be reviewed to ensure that investments in health and good governance become priority areas for all countries with fragile public infrastructure; is concerned that health and water and sanitation are not among the focal sectors in the National Indicative Programmes of Liberia and Sierra Leone; calls on the Commission to establish mechanisms to monitor aid more closely;

29.

Believes that the risk posed by the structural under-funding of EU humanitarian action cannot be ignored during the mid-term review of the multiannual financial framework;

30.

Congratulates the humanitarian aid workers and medical staff on the ground who have risked their lives in the efforts to contain this major health crisis;

31.

Congratulates the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER), partner organisations and non-governmental humanitarian organisations, such as Médecins Sans Frontières, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Emergency and others, for their work done on the ground, and warmly welcomes their extensive input and help in controlling this outbreak; regrets the cases of inappropriate treatment of medical staff and other staff involved in the fight against the Ebola outbreak following their return from Africa;

32.

Believes that access to medicines should, as a matter of principle, no longer be dependent on patients’ purchasing power but should instead be geared to patients’ needs, and that market forces should not be the sole determinant of which medicines to produce;

33.

Calls for the EU and its Member States to honour the EU’s ‘Policy Coherence for Development’ principle, set out in Article 208 TFEU though the promotion of fair and equitable international trade, medical research and innovation policies that foster and facilitate universal access to medicines;

34.

Calls on the Commission to explore alternative models to those based on patent monopolies when it comes to the development of drugs or vaccines produced by public-private partnerships, such as the Innovative Medicines Initiative, which can guarantee patient accessibility to treatments, sustainability of healthcare budgets and an efficient response to crises such as the one caused by the Ebola virus or similar threats;

35.

Stresses the importance of increasing global epidemiological research capacity, developing ‘quick tests’ and providing access to vaccines; welcomes, in this regard, the fact that many EU research funds have been mobilised to fight against the Ebola virus, including through the Innovative Medicines Initiative, the Horizon 2020 programme and the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trial Partnership (EDCTP) programme; underlines that, although vaccines are welcome, they are most probably not suitable to eradicate Ebola, as the virus is mutating; stresses, therefore, that funding priority has to be given to general health system strengthening, hygiene, containment, reliable quick testing in tropical settings and medication targeting the virus and the symptoms it causes;

36.

Urges all parties concerned to promote health training among the public by focusing on the issue of traditional customs that are incompatible with the fight against the spread of the disease among the population;

37.

Stresses that the EU should promote effective and fair financing of research that benefits the health of all and ensures that innovations and interventions lead to affordable and accessible solutions; reiterates, in particular, that models that dissociate the costs of research and development and the prices of medicines should be explored, including the opportunities for technology transfer to developing countries;

38.

Reiterates the need to invest in neglected diseases; calls, in this context, on the Commission to continue the discussions on this issue and to make arrangements for wide-ranging cooperation between the public and private sectors, provided that safeguards are introduced to prevent public-private partnerships from harming vulnerable people in an unregulated market, aiming at reinforcing national health systems and facilitating the transfer of results to the population concerned; welcomes in this regard the fact that, to address the urgent need for research into new treatments, the EU has made available EUR 138 million for projects developing clinical trials for new vaccines, rapid diagnostic tests and treatments under Horizon 2020 and the Innovative Medicines Initiative; commends the European pharmaceutical industry, which has also committed important resources to supporting the research efforts;

39.

Underlines that Ebola and other epidemics are transnational threats that call for international cooperation; calls on the WHO to revise the IHR with a view to incorporating interdependent responsibility and financial support, including for addressing root causes;

40.

Welcomes, in the light of sketchy IHR implementation and a lack of epidemiological surveillance, the French RIPOST ‘Network of Public Health Institutes in West Africa’ programme;

41.

Stresses that now that the outbreak is in decline, while the virus stays in the gonads for months after recovery, sexual counselling and family planning has to be made available as part of the health system and education measures;

42.

Stresses that a food crisis seems increasingly likely to follow in the wake of the epidemic, which has devastated small-scale farmers; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the international community to invest in their long-term development in order to ensure that farming households and West Africa’s future food security do not remain at risk;

43.

Calls on its relevant committee to monitor the crisis management measures being taken, in close cooperation with the EU Ebola Coordinator, and after Parliament’s mission to Sierra Leone, before submitting a final assessment based on well-defined criteria;

44.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the governments and parliaments of the African Union countries, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation.

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/11

—

having regard to the question to the Commission on emission measurements in the automotive sector (O-000113/2015 — B8-0764/2015),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (2),

—

having regard to Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 333/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 to define the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO2 emissions from new passenger cars (5),

—

having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas on 18 September 2015 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) both issued a notice of violation of the pollution rules applicable to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Volkswagen Group of America (collectively, VW); whereas the investigation began following research on nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from diesel vehicles, conducted by a non-governmental organisation in cooperation with university researchers, and the results of this research were submitted to the EPA and the CARB in May 2014;

B.

whereas air pollution causes over 430 000 premature deaths in the EU yearly and costs up to an estimated EUR 940 billion annually as a result of its health impacts; whereas NOx is a major air pollutant which causes, inter alia, lung cancer, asthma and many respiratory diseases, as well environmental degradation such as eutrophication and acidification; whereas diesel vehicle exhausts are a principal source of NOx in urban areas in Europe; whereas up to a third of the EU’s urban population continues to be exposed to levels above the limits or target values set by the EU; whereas transport continues to be a main contributor to poor air quality levels in cities, and to the related health impacts; whereas over 20 Member States are currently failing to meet the EU air quality limits, in particular because of urban pollution;

C.

whereas since 2012 the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified diesel engine exhaust as a carcinogen, and has advised that, given the additional health impacts of diesel particulates, exposure to the mixture of chemicals emitted should be reduced worldwide;

D.

whereas the automotive industry is one of the key contributors to growth and innovation, and contributes to employment in a significant number of Member States; whereas unless decisive action is taken the present scandal risks undermining the reputation and competiveness of the whole sector;

E.

whereas small and medium-sized enterprises dominate the automotive supply industry and contribute 50 % to sector specific research and development; whereas the economic strength of many regions in Europe derives from the automotive industry and the automotive supply industry;

F.

whereas fair competition, including among car manufacturers, implies that the customer is able to choose the product basing his choice on the comprehensive and unbiased technical characteristics provided;

G.

whereas the EU has made a number of efforts to remedy the effects of the economic crisis on the automotive industry using the available tools on state aid;

H.

whereas the Regulation on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light vehicles (Regulation (EC) No 715/2007, agreed by Parliament and the Council in December 2006), which sets the Euro 5/6 emission standards, requires manufacturers to equip their vehicles so that they meet the emission requirements ‘in normal use’ (Article 5(1));

I.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (Article 5(2)) explicitly prohibits the use of defeat devices, defined as ‘any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed (RPM), transmission gear, manifold vacuum or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system, that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and use’; whereas the Member States have an obligation to enforce this ban; whereas the regulation also explicitly invites the Commission to introduce tests and to adopt measures concerning the use of defeat mechanisms;

J.

whereas, under the Directive on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (1999/44/EC), consumers have the right to a minimum two-year guarantee period after purchasing a product, and whereas the seller is required to deliver goods to the consumer which are in conformity with the contract of sale; whereas, if there is no such conformity, the consumer is entitled to a free-of-charge repair or replacement, or to have a price reduction;

K.

whereas the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU) requires information on the main characteristics of a product to be provided prior to the conclusion of on- or off-premises or distance contracts, and requires the Member States to have rules on effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties if the provisions of the directive are not fulfilled;

L.

whereas the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) prohibits, in particular, any practice that ‘materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour with regard to the product of the average consumer whom it reaches or to whom it is addressed’, provides that commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered to be unfair include ‘claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when he/it has not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation’, and requires the Member States to adopt effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties;

M.

whereas the Euro 5 limit value for NOx emissions from diesel vehicles is 180 mg/km, applicable to vehicles type-approved between 1 September 2009 and 1 September 2014 and to all vehicles sold between 1 January 2011 and 1 September 2015, and whereas the corresponding Euro 6 value is 80 mg/km, applicable to new types since 1 September 2014 and to all vehicles sold since 1 September 2015; whereas Euro 6 vehicles registered before the standard was introduced as a legal limit have benefited from tax rebates in many Member States; whereas independent test results confirm significant discrepancies between the limits and actual vehicle emissions in normal use for both standards;

N.

whereas an analysis by the Commission Joint Research Centre (6) in 2011 came to the conclusion that NOx emissions of diesel vehicles measured with Portable Emission Measurement Systems (PEMS) substantially exceed respective Euro 3-5 emission limits, ranging from a factor of 2-4 for average NOx emissions over entire test routes up to a factor of 14 in individual test windows; whereas another JRC report (7) published in 2013 referred to conclusions that Euro 6 vehicles may even exceed the emission levels of Euro 5 vehicles; whereas independent analyses undertaken in 2014 documented, on average, on-road NOx emissions from tested diesel vehicles about seven times higher than the limits set by the Euro 6 standard;

O.

whereas VW has admitted to having installed defeat devices in at least 11 million of the diesel vehicles it has sold worldwide; whereas VW has announced that it will recall 8,5 million VW diesel vehicles in the EU following a decision of the German Federal Motor Transport Authority;

P.

whereas this documented emissions gap can be due to both the inadequacy of the current test procedure used in the EU, which does not represent normal driving conditions, and to the use of defeat devices; whereas the reliability and robustness of the test procedure for vehicles is of crucial importance for the attainment of the emission limits and hence for the protection of public health and the environment in the EU;

Q.

whereas Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 obliges the Commission to keep under review the test cycles used to measure emissions and, if the tests are found to be no longer adequate, to adapt them so as to adequately reflect the emissions generated by real driving on the road; whereas such adaptation has not yet taken place; whereas the Commission is, however, currently preparing the adoption of a new test cycle based on Real Driving Emissions (RDE);

R.

whereas the tests for conformity of production and in-service conformity have not been subject to common standards at EU level, despite the mandate given to the Commission to establish specific requirements for such procedures through comitology; whereas, as a result, the requirements for conformity of production and in-service conformity are generally not adequately enforced; whereas there is no requirement for disclosure of information to the Commission, other Member State Type Approval Authorities or other interested parties regarding any tests applied by the competent Type Approval Authorities and results thereof;

S.

whereas the current EU type-approval regime does not allow the Commission or other Member States’ authorities to reassess vehicles’ type approvals or certificates of conformity, to recall vehicles or to suspend their placement on the market if they are type-approved by another Member State; whereas under the current system there is no oversight of testing performed by national Type Approval Authorities to ensure that all authorities respect the common EU rules and do not engage in unfair competition by lowering standards;

T.

whereas the Commission is in the process of reviewing the type-approval framework; whereas this review is of the utmost importance in order to restore consumer trust in emissions and fuel consumption tests;

U.

whereas current systems for controlling NOx emissions from diesel passenger cars rely on three main technologies: inner-engine modifications coupled with exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), lean-burn NOx absorbers (lean NOx traps, or LNTs), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR); whereas, in order to meet Euro 6 limit values, most vehicles are equipped with at least two of the three technologies; whereas all of these technologies can be de-activated with software defeat devices;

V.

whereas, in order to ensure compliance with emission standards, vehicles equipped with defeat devices will require the removal of the device, emission control system software modifications and, depending on the engine technology, hardware interventions; whereas it could be possible to improve the performance of emission control systems already installed in vehicles through the removal of defeat devices, reprogramming and recalibration;

W.

whereas discrepancies between test results and vehicle performance in normal use are not limited to NOx, but also exist for other pollutants and for CO2; whereas according to independent studies the gap between official and real-world CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe stood at 40 % in 2014;

X.

whereas the change to the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP) in the EU requires the existing fleet average CO2 emission targets for manufacturers to be adapted to the new test;

1.

Strongly condemns any fraud by automobile manufacturers and urges companies to take full responsibility for their actions and to cooperate fully with the authorities in any investigations; deplores the fact that millions of consumers have been deceived and misled by false information regarding emissions from their vehicles;

2.

Believes that, where evidence of wrong-doing is confirmed, redress to the consumer should be well communicated and undertaken swiftly and should not be to the further detriment of the consumer;

3.

Considers it regrettable that excess emissions cause premature deaths, harmful effects on human health, and environmental damage;

4.

Considers it imperative that the Commission and Member States quickly restore the confidence of consumers through concrete actions and make every possible effort to de-escalate the situation; emphasises its solidarity with the employees concerned, and is concerned about the impact along the supply chain, especially on SMEs, which currently are innocently facing huge challenges caused by the fraud; stresses that employees should not ultimately be the ones who pay the price for emission measurement manipulation;

5.

Stresses that before considering any redundancies the manufacturers must use their own financial resources, including by retaining profits rather than distributing dividends, to cover as much as possible of the cost arising from the infringement of applicable law;

6.

Is deeply concerned about the delay on the part of Member State authorities and the Commission to act upon the evidence of serious and persistent exceedances of emissions limit values prescribed in EU law for vehicles in normal use;

7.

Recalls that diesel cars have lower CO2 emissions per kilometre than equivalent petrol-powered vehicles and that they are an important means of enabling manufacturers to reach the EU’s 2021 fleet average CO2 emission targets; recalls that they will also continue to be an essential contributor to meeting post-2021 targets, but stresses that manufacturers need to use available clean technology to reduce NOx, PM and other pollutants;

8.

Urges full transparency on the part of the Commission and the Member States about their knowledge of these breaches and the actions they have taken to address them; calls for a thorough investigation regarding the role and responsibility of the Commission and of Member State authorities, bearing in mind inter alia the problems established in the 2011 report of the Commission’s Joint Research Centre;

9.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen the implementation of the EU strategy for sustainable, resource-efficient transport systems for road and other modes of transport, progressively abandoning the current system based on fossil fuels and using new technologies and energy sources such as hydrogen, electricity and compressed air;

10.

Welcomes the investigations being undertaken in several Member States and other countries globally regarding vehicle emissions test results manipulation; supports the Commission’s call to national surveillance authorities to proceed with extensive checks on a wide variety of makes and models of vehicles; considers that any such investigation should involve the Commission; insists that investigations be conducted in a transparent and effective manner, with due consideration for the need for consumers affected directly by any lack of conformity that is discovered to be kept well informed;

11.

Demands that the Commission report back to Parliament on the results of these investigations, in writing, by 31 March 2016;

12.

Demands that where defeat devices are found, Member State authorities take all necessary action to remedy the situation and apply the appropriate sanctions in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2007/46/EC and Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007;

13.

Draws attention to the Girling report (on National Emission Ceilings for certain pollutants) (A8-0249/2015), adopted by its Committee on the Environment on 15 July 2015, and in particular the request to the Commission and the Member States to urgently finalise the new Euro 6 Real Driving Emissions (RDE) regulation proposal currently under consideration;

14.

Urges the Commission to adopt and implement the new Real Driving Emissions test cycle without any further delay, and to bring it into force for regulatory purposes; welcomes the report on the reduction of pollutant emissions from road vehicles (the Deß report, A8-0270/2015) adopted by Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on 23 September 2015, and in particular the requirement that the Commission ‘introduce a real driving emissions test for all vehicles type-approved or registered from 2015 to ensure the effectiveness of emission control systems and enable the vehicle to comply with this Regulation and its implementing measures, with a conformity factor reflecting only the possible tolerances of the emissions measurement procedure in place by 2017’; urges the Member States and the Commission to swiftly come to an agreement on a framework for the test cycle on that basis;

15.

Notes that according to the Commission’s current plans the Real Driving Emissions tests would be used only for NOx emissions; calls for the RDE tests to be implemented for all pollutants;

16.

Deplores the lack of transparency of the deliberations under comitology on the proposal for an RDE test, and in particular the Commission’s failure to forward information to Parliament at the same time as to Member State representatives; calls on the Commission to disclose all relevant documentation to Parliament on an equal footing with Member States, and in particular to publish the preparatory documents for the Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles relating to the adoption of the new RDE test;

17.

Stresses the need for significant strengthening of the current EU type-approval regime, including greater EU oversight, in particular as regards the market surveillance, coordination and follow-up regime for vehicles sold in the Union, the power to require Member States to launch control procedures based on evidence, and the ability to adopt appropriate measures in the event of breaches of EU law;

18.

Calls on the Commission to redesign the current type-approval regime in order to guarantee that type approvals and certificates by national competent authorities can be checked independently and reassessed by the Commission, if appropriate, and to ensure an EU-wide level playing field, and that the implementation of the EU regulations can be effectively enforced, and the shortcomings of implementing measures corrected, without unnecessarily increasing the administrative burden;

19.

Calls, therefore, for consideration to be given to the establishment of an EU-level surveillance authority;

20.

Finds it of utmost importance that the Commission and all Member State competent authorities have the right to reassess type approval and certificates of conformity, to require recalls and stop the placing on the market of vehicles when they have evidence of non-compliance with the EU emissions limit values under the Euro 5 and 6 Regulation or any other requirement provided for by the type-approval regime;

21.

Considers that the upcoming review of the Type Approval Framework Directive must consider expanding and specifying the conformity-of-production requirements in order to ensure that a sufficient and representative sample of new models taken off production lines at random are tested on an annual basis, using RDE tests to check their compliance with EU pollutant and CO2 limit values; calls, furthermore, for improved in-service testing of vehicles already in use on the road, also on the basis of the RDE procedure, in order to verify the in-service conformity of vehicles at different mileages as required under the regulation; calls for the improvement of on-road surveillance through periodic technical inspections to identify and repair vehicles which are found not to be in compliance with EU law;

22.

Calls on national authorities to show no tolerance towards so-called ‘vehicle testing optimisation’, whereby practices such as the over-inflation of tyres, the removal of side-mirrors, taping up of gaps between body panels to reduce aerodynamic drag, the use of special engine and gearbox lubricants that are otherwise not used in engines, the removal of auxiliary equipment such as stereos, and testing at the maximum allowed ambient temperature are common, thus unacceptably accentuating the difference between in-lab testing and the consumer’s experience on the road;

23.

Stresses that consumers must be able to exercise their rights easily, as provided for in Directives 1999/44/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU;

24.

Calls on the Commission, being responsible for competition in the EU internal market, in cooperation with national surveillance authorities, to ensure a level playing field among competitors serving the market;

25.

Recalls the need to fully and thoroughly transpose and implement European rules concerning the functioning of the internal market in all Member States and furthermore calls on European and national market surveillance authorities to investigate all claims of fraud vigorously;

26.

Asks for the Commission to ensure that information provided to consumers under the EU car labelling Directive (1999/94/EC) is accurate, relevant and comparable; considers that the labels should be based on the emission values and fuel efficiency that correspond to real-life driving;

27.

Is concerned about the discrepancy of the CO2 emissions declared in official test results and those measured in real driving conditions; calls, therefore, for swift agreement on the WLTP correlation for fleet average CO2 targets, with due respect for the principle of ‘comparable stringency’ but without credit being given for unfair flexibilities in the current test procedure, in order not to weaken the 2021 target;

28.

Calls on the Commission to take the present revelations into account when formulating new policies in the field of sustainable transport; asks the Commission to take further action to strengthen the EU strategy for sustainable, resource-efficient systems for road and other modes of transport; refers to the approach set out in the 2011 Commission White Paper ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area — Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’ and points out its potentially large contribution to effectively reducing the real emissions from transport and improving urban mobility; urges the Commission to put a greater effort into bringing forward the suggested measures covered by the White Paper and encourages the Member States to support this;

29.

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

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/17

—

having regard to Article 11(4) of the Treaty on European Union and to Article 24(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative (A7-0350/2010),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative,

—

having regard to the public hearing of 26 February 2015 on the citizens’ initiative, organised by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs in association with the Committee on Petitions,

—

having regard to the study by Parliament’s Policy Department C entitled ‘European Citizens’ Initiative — First lessons of implementation’, issued in 2014,

—

having regard to the decision of the European Ombudsman of 4 March 2015 closing her own-initiative inquiry concerning the Commission (OI/9/2013/TN),

—

having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service study of February 2015 entitled ‘Implementation of the European Citizens’ Initiative’,

—

having regard to the Commission report of 31 March 2015 on the European Citizens’ Initiative,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Petitions and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0284/2015),

A.

whereas the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is a new political right for citizens as well as a unique and innovative agenda-setting tool for participatory democracy in the European Union, allowing citizens to play an active part in projects and processes that affect them, and the potential of which must unquestionably be exploited to the full and significantly enhanced in order to achieve the best results and to encourage as many EU citizens as possible to participate in the further development of the European integration process; whereas it must be one of the EU’s priority objectives to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of its institutions;

B.

whereas, three years on from the entry into application of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on 1 April 2012, it is necessary to evaluate its implementation thoroughly in order to identify any shortcomings and to propose viable solutions for its prompt revision;

C.

whereas experience has shown that the majority of organisers of ECIs have encountered a number of difficulties in setting up an ECI, in relation to both practical and legal aspects, and whereas the organisers of several rejected ECIs have consequently submitted complaints to the Court of Justice and the European Ombudsman against the Commission’s decision not to register their ECIs; whereas the rules must therefore be designed in such a way as to make ECIs as accessible as possible to citizens and organisers;

D.

whereas Parliament is the only directly elected body of the European Union, and as such represents, by definition, EU citizens;

E.

whereas a number of institutions, NGOs, think tanks and civil society groups have considered the various deficiencies in the implementation of the Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens’ initiative and in the organisation of ECIs, have proposed numerous improvements and have indicated on many occasions which aspects of the regulation it is necessary to reform as a matter of urgency;

F.

whereas the practicalities set out in Article 6 of the regulation, in particular the setting-up of an online collection system and its certification by a competent authority in a Member State, in most cases leave the organisers less than 12 months to collect the required signatures;

G.

whereas the submission of a successful initiative to the Commission once the signature collection period is over is not subject to a specific time limit and is thus a source of confusion and uncertainty for both the institutions and the public;

1.

Welcomes the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) — as defined in Article 11(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 24(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) — as the first instrument for transnational participatory democracy enabling citizens to engage directly with the EU institutions and to become actively involved in the framing of European policies and legislation, complementing their right to submit petitions to Parliament and to appeal to the European Ombudsman;

2.

Underlines the fact that the ECI is the first tool for participatory democracy that confers on EU citizens the right, on the basis of at least one million statements of support from at least one quarter of the Member States, to take the initiative — thereby underpinning their new political prerogative — and ask the Commission to submit, within the framework of its powers, an appropriate proposal on matters on which citizens consider that a legislative act is necessary to implement the treaties;

3.

Stresses that the ECI is an exceptional opportunity for citizens to identify and articulate their aspirations and to ask for EU action, and that it must be encouraged and supported by all available means; recognises, however, that there are significant deficits which need to be tackled and solved in order to make the ECI more effective; stresses that all further assessment of the instrument should be aimed at attaining maximum user-friendliness, given that it is a primary means of linking the citizens of Europe to the EU; further stresses that the use of one's mother tongue is a civic right, and calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to explore alternatives in order to offer the option of doing so in all activities connected with an ECI, as this encourages citizen participation; points out the importance of public awareness of the ECI, while regretting the limited knowledge of this tool among EU citizens; calls for the EU, to this end, to organise publicity and promotion campaigns with a view to giving the ECI a higher profile in the media and among the public;

4.

Stresses, further, that civic engagement among young people is fundamental for the future of all democracies, and calls on the Commission to draw lessons from national experiences of genuinely successful ECIs;

5.

Considers it essential that citizens be able to contribute to the exercise of the legislative prerogatives of the Union and to be involved directly in the initiation of legislative proposals;

6.

Points out the importance of public awareness of the ECI in order for it to be an effective tool for democratic participation; urges the Commission and the Member States, in this connection, to maximise their communication efforts in respect of the instrument in order to bring its existence to the attention of as many citizens as possible and encourage active participation in it;

7.

Calls on the Commission to use all public communication channels to raise awareness, and to take the necessary measures to ensure the transparency of the ECI and facilitate communication relating to current ECIs, for example by creating applications that provide information, send notifications and allow online signing; emphasises that active public participation in ECIs also crucially depends on their being publicised in the Member States, and therefore suggests that Member States’ national parliaments should mention the ECI on their official websites;

8.

Notes that more than six million EU citizens have participated in an ECI, that there were 51 requests to launch an initiative, of which only three — the ‘Right2Water’, ‘One of Us’ and ‘Stop Vivisection’ initiatives — were deemed admissible, and that six ECI organisers, corresponding to 30 % of all rejections, have challenged the Commission's refusal before the Court of Justice, which shows that much still needs to be done to make sure that the ECI lives up to its full potential; points to the various practical difficulties which organisers have encountered since the entry into force of the regulation in April 2012, and to the fact that the number of initiatives is declining;

9.

Calls on the Commission to provide appropriate and comprehensive guidance — especially of a legal nature — as early as possible to the organisers of ECIs through the Europe Direct Contact Centre, so that organisers are aware of the possibilities open to them and will not fail by proposing an ECI that is manifestly outside the Commission’s powers and does not comply with the legal admissibility criteria; calls for consideration to be given to the possibility of establishing another independent body tasked with giving advice; notes, however, that under the Treaty of Lisbon the issues raised by ECIs may not correspond entirely to the Commission’s jurisdiction; takes the view, furthermore, that the Commission should consider setting up a dedicated ECI office at its representations in each Member State to provide all the necessary information, advice and support for ECIs;

10.

Stresses, furthermore, that a dedicated ECI office could also contribute to raising public and media awareness about the ECI; invites the Commission, therefore, to promote the ECI as an official EU instrument in order to achieve this goal; emphasises that this measure may also help to overcome citizens’ distrust of sharing the personal data required to support a ECI;

11.

Calls for the provision of more detailed guidelines on the interpretation of legal bases and of more information on data protection requirements in each Member State in which the organisers run their campaigns, so as to give them legal security, and also on the possibility for organisers to take out affordable insurance policies;

12.

Regrets the lack of clear information on the ECI instrument in the early stages, which led to a general misconception about its nature and generated frustration when the first ECIs were rejected by the Commission; recalls that the instrument should be simple, clear, user-friendly and widely publicised; stresses that the Commission should encourage and support national and local elected representatives in spearheading this increased exposure of ECIs;

13.

Supports, further, the active participation of EU citizens in using this instrument appropriately for agenda-setting purposes; expresses its concerns about a potential conflict of interest, given that the Commission itself has the exclusive responsibility to carry out the admissibility check, and asks that this situation be properly addressed in the future; notes, at the same time, that transparency and accountability should be an objective for all stakeholders in order to preserve the clarity of citizens' activities;

14.

Calls on the Commission, in this connection, to consider Parliament also as a decision-maker, particularly because it is the only institution the members of which are directly elected by EU citizens;

15.

Stresses that under the terms of Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, in the event of a refusal by the Commission to register an ECI, ‘the Commission shall inform the organisers of the reasons for such refusal and of all possible judicial and extrajudicial remedies available to them’; acknowledges, in this connection, the many complaints from organisers about not having received detailed and exhaustive reasons for the rejection of their ECIs; invites the Commission to explain in detail the reasons for rejecting an ECI if in its view an ECI which has been submitted is ‘manifestly outside the Commission’s powers’, and at the same time to inform the organisers, in writing and in such a manner as to facilitate their work, of the relevant legal considerations — which should be made fully public in the name of transparency — in order that the validity and complete objectivity of those elements can be subjected to legal scrutiny, that the Commission’s power of discretion as judge and party in the assessment of an initiative’s admissibility can be reduced as far as possible, and that the organisers can decide whether to revise their ECI and resubmit it in a modified form;

16.

Invites the Commission to consider the possibility of registering only part of an initiative in the event that the entire ECI does not fall within the Commission’s powers; invites the Commission to give the organisers, at the time of registration, an indication as to which part they could register, recognising that dialogue and engagement with ECI organisers is essential throughout the process, and to inform Parliament of its decision concerning the registration of the ECI; invites the Commission also to explore ways of referring initiatives, or those parts of initiatives, that do not fall within the scope of the Commission's powers to the competent authority, be it at national or regional level;

17.

Points out the importance of technology as a tool for encouraging citizen participation; calls on the Commission to make its software for the online collection of signatures more user-friendly, to make it accessible to people with disabilities, to offer its own servers for the storage of online signatures for free on a permanent basis, using existing EU budgets, and to simplify and revise the technical specifications for the online collection of signatures so that e-mail addresses can be collected on a non-mandatory basis on the same screen as the support form but stored in a separate database;

18.

Believes that, if revised, the instrument has the potential to engage the public and to promote dialogue among citizens and between citizens and the EU institutions; stresses the need to link the online collection of signatures to the relevant new social and digital media campaigning tools, following the example of other successful online campaigning platforms;

19.

Invites the Commission to reconsider the automatic link between the registration of an ECI and the beginning of the 12-month period within which expressions of support can be collected, so that the organisers of an ECI themselves can decide when they wish to start to collect expressions of support;

20.

Calls on the Commission to urge the Member States to use the ECI Validation Tool for Statements of Support, developed under the Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations programme;

21.

Stresses that, within the scope of the instruments available to enhance participatory democracy across the Union, IT tools should be made available also to regions, thus allowing greater involvement of citizens in public affairs;

22.

Welcomes warmly the European Economic and Social Committee’s offer of free translation of ECI texts so as to reduce the cost of organising an ECI;

23.

Calls for enhanced interinstitutional cooperation at EU level, as well as at the national and local levels, in providing information and support to ECI organisers when dealing with ECIs; calls for the improvement of the multilingual ECI website run by the Commission and for a single set of guidelines in all the EU’s official languages on the rights and obligations of ECI organisers and on the administrative procedures applicable throughout the ECI process;

24.

Calls for the future establishment of a physical and online ‘one-stop shop’ providing, on a permanent basis, information, translation services and technical, legal and political support for ECIs, and considers that it could use the existing resources of the point of contact based in the Europe Direct Contact Centre, and of the Commission representations and Parliament information offices in the Member States; considers that such a set-up would bring the ECI project closer to citizens;

25.

Deems it too complicated for organisers to provide different personal data in support of ECIs in the 28 Member States, as laid down in Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the basis of the various national provisions, and calls for the introduction of a uniform procedure for making statements of support by amending Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 to standardise the nature of the data collected in the Member States; encourages the Commission to negotiate further with Member States with a view to reducing the number of data requirements, removing — accordingly — the requirement for personal identification numbers and making them more user-friendly, and recalls that an ECI is about participation and agenda-setting rather than binding proposals; suggests that consideration be given to establishing an EU digital citizenship, and recommends providing an interim solution until this EU digital citizenship is established, with a view to resolving the current problems caused by multiple registration; calls on the Commission, therefore, to explore this issue in its digital agenda as a matter of urgency;

26.

Calls on the Commission to amend Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 and to recommend to the Member States that they lower the age for supporting and participating in an ECI from 18 to 16 and that it not to be tied to the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament, thus giving young people, in particular, the possibility of becoming actively involved in taking the European project forward;

27.

Acknowledges the delicate problem of organisers’ personal liability with regard to data protection when collecting signatories’ personal data, and proposes that the range of data required be reduced and that the wording of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011, on liability, be changed to make it clear that personal liability is not unlimited; proposes, to this end, that citizens' committees be able to acquire legal personality and that inspiration be drawn from Article 3 of Directive 2008/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, with a view to establishing that organisers are responsible only for acts which are ‘unlawful and committed intentionally or with at least serious negligence’;

28.

Encourages the Commission and the Member States to achieve more user-friendly and more harmonised data collection requirements; calls on the competent national authorities to inform the European affairs committees of their national parliaments on a periodic basis about ECIs in progress which have already gathered a significant number of signatures; urges the Commission to propose a revision of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 with the aim of guaranteeing citizens the possibility of signing an ECI in their country of residence;

29.

Expresses its concern that, since 2012, only 3 out of 31 registered ECIs have reached the final phase; points out that the dramatic decrease in the number of new initiatives is one of the consequences of disproportionate requirements and of an unnecessarily complex system; regrets the lack of legislative impact and the discouraging follow-up by the Commission of successful initiatives; expresses differences of opinion with the Commission regarding the successful implementation of the regulation in order to realise the full potential of ECIs; stresses that the EU institutions and the Member States must take all necessary steps to promote the ECI and to foster citizens’ confidence in this tool;

30.

Calls on the Commission to revise the wording of Article 10(c) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 to allow proper follow-up to a successful ECI; urges the Commission to start preparing a legal act on successful ECIs within 12 months after issuing a positive opinion;

31.

Takes the view that, in order to emphasise the political dimension of ECIs, a public hearing under the terms of Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 should be structured in such a way as to allow organisers to engage in a dialogue with Members of the European Parliament and relevant Commission officials; stresses that hearings on ECIs should be organised under the auspices of a ‘neutral’ committee that does not have the main responsibility for their subject-matter in terms of content, and furthermore that external experts should be involved at all times;

32.

Urges, where necessary, Parliament and its committees, should the Commission fail to put forward a legislative proposal within this 12-month period, to exercise their right, under the terms of Article 225 TFEU, to ask the Commission to submit an appropriate proposal; considers that, when exercising this right, Parliament’s competent committee should take into account the content of any successful ECI and consult the ECI organisers in another hearing; calls for its Rules of Procedure to be amended accordingly;

33.

Invites the Commission to explore the possibility of providing financial support for ECIs from existing EU budgets via European programmes such as ‘Europe for Citizens’ and ‘Rights, Equality and Citizenship’, including the possibility of financing promotional radio and television programmes, bearing in mind that equality between citizens must be guaranteed, that there is a real need for financial support for the organisation of ECIs and that numerous amendments to the EU budget have been submitted to this end;

34.

Calls on the Commission to counter, by taking every possible precaution, the theft — including through internet tools — of sensitive information relating to signatories, especially when it is managed in the form of aggregate data;

35.

Welcomes the Commission’s report of 31 March 2015 on the ECI, and the European Ombudsman’s Decision OI/9/2013/TN, and calls on the Commission to ensure, in its revision of this instrument, that all the appropriate legal measures are implemented in order to provide proper follow-up when an ECI is deemed to have been completed successfully; calls on the Commission, therefore, in view of the various shortcomings which have arisen, to submit as soon as possible a proposal to revise Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1179/2011;

36.

Calls on the EU institutions to carry out essential communication work through an information campaign on the ECI;

37.

Invites the Commission to report regularly to Parliament on the state of play of ongoing ECIs, so that Parliament — as part of its commitment to EU citizens — can scrutinise whether the tool is working as effectively as possible; stresses that the ECI process should be continuously improved on the basis of the practical experience gained and, furthermore, should comply with the judgments to be delivered by the Court of Justice;

38.

Recommends using every available communication channel, in particular the social and digital media platforms of all the relevant EU institutions, to conduct ongoing awareness-raising campaigns, with the involvement of EU offices and representations as well as national authorities; calls on the Commission to support the development of an open-source dedicated ECI software program for mobile devices; welcomes the fact that some ECIs have managed to have an impact at local level;

39.

Considers it crucial, in order to ensure proper use of this participative democracy tool by citizens and to prevent its possible abuse by private interests, to increase the transparency and quality of checks of the funding and sponsorship of ECIs;

40.

Notes the important role of the European Ombudsman in investigating the handling of ECI requests by the Commission, and especially cases of refusal to register an ECI;

41.

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

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/23

—

having regard to the Commission communication concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (COM(2014)0357) and the accompanying action plan and supportive analytical document,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) (hereinafter ‘the CPR’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal (2),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 23 October 2014 on the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region,

—

having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the added value of macro-regional strategies (COM(2013)0468) and the relevant Council conclusions of 22 October 2013,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 September 2014 on the Commission communication concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (COM(2014)0357) and the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region: research, development and innovation in SMEs (exploratory opinion requested by the Italian Presidency of the EU),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 21 January 2014 on the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR) (exploratory opinion),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 26 June 2014 on the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region,

—

having regard to the own-initiative opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 11 October 2011 entitled ‘Territorial cooperation in the Mediterranean through the Adriatic and Ionian macroregion’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2012 on the evolution of EU macro-regional strategies: present practice and future prospects, especially in the Mediterranean (3),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘A Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas’ (COM(2012)0713),

—

having regard to the Commission report concerning the governance of macro-regional strategies (COM(2014)0284),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 January 2011 entitled ‘Regional policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020’ (COM(2011)0017),

—

having regard to Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment,

—

having regard to Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment,

—

having regard to Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus Convention),

—

having regard to the Ancona Declaration, adopted at the Conference on Development and Security in the Adriatic and Ionian of 19-20 May 2000,

—

having regard to the Founding Conference of the Adriatic-Ionian Euroregion held in Pula on 30 June 2006, and to the Declaration on launching the initiative for creating the Adriatic Strategy adopted at the Assembly of the Adriatic-Ionian Euroregion held in Split on 22 October 2009,

—

having regard to the study by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies (Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies) of January 2015 entitled ‘New Role of Macro-Regions in European Territorial Cooperation’,

—

having regard to the study by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies (Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies) of June 2015 entitled ‘Adriatic and Ionian region: Socio-Economic Analysis and Assessment of Transport and Energy Links’,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0279/2015),

A.

whereas the macro-regional strategies represent a new model of multilevel governance in which the involvement of stakeholders representing the EU, national, regional and local levels, including economic and social partners and civil society organisations, as well as the complementarity between different policies and programmes are essential for successful implementation and achievement of the goals; whereas regional and local authorities play an important role in the promotion of democracy, decentralisation and greater local and regional autonomy;

B.

whereas the previous Baltic Sea and Danube strategies have brought tangible benefits for the regions involved, confirmed the success of EU cooperation mechanisms and provided useful experience for developing new macro-regional strategies;

C.

whereas the interest shown by regions in this modern form of regional cooperation and the accompanying governance model is on the rise; whereas this has especially been the case recently as regards mountain regions such as the Carpathians and the Alps, where natural barriers mean that specific regional policies need to be pursued;

D.

whereas a macro-regional strategy as an integrated framework relating to Member States and non-EU countries in the same geographical area and endorsed by the European Council, is an EU strategy;

E.

whereas there are large socio-economic differences between the countries involved in this strategy, especially between EU Member States and non-Member States;

F.

whereas the increased interest of countries in the Adriatic and Ionian Region in cooperation and defining joint actions to respond to the challenges by using potential throughout the region, and their continuous effort to achieve synergy, has led to the adoption of the EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region (EUSAIR);

G.

whereas the macro-regional strategies may be seen as a tool of European integration and increased territorial cohesion based on voluntary cooperation among Member States and neighbouring countries in addressing common challenges; whereas the EUSAIR is a new form of regional cooperation which may assist participating candidate and potential candidate countries on their path towards the EU, and an important component of the broader Mediterranean policy of the EU as expressed through the Union for the Mediterranean; whereas the EUSAIR, as part of the EU regional policy, is a tool for promoting economic and social cohesion, with the principal objectives of reducing disparities between regions, promoting real convergence and encouraging growth and employment;

H.

whereas the Adriatic Sea, due to its semi-enclosed nature is especially vulnerable to pollution and has unusual hydrographic features such as the fact that the depth and coastline vary considerably between the north and south of the region; whereas fish stocks are shared among all the coastal countries, which puts regeneration of the stocks under sustained pressure; whereas measures within the future framework regulation on technical measures in the reformed CFP should be devised on a regional basis and tailor-made to the specificities of this area and its marine resources and fisheries;

1.

Welcomes the Commission communication concerning the European Union Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region and the accompanying action plan; believes it is a vital step in the development of this part of Europe; stresses that the EUSAIR has been created to add value to interventions, whether by the EU, national or regional authorities or private sectors, in a way that significantly strengthens the functioning of the macro-region; highlights the strategy’s prospects for candidate and potential candidate countries in the region; underlines the importance of the strategy being based on the principles of integration, coordination, cooperation and partnership; reiterates the importance of the ‘three NOs’ principle of no new legislation, no new institutions, no new funding, as macro-regions are frameworks for cooperation initiatives, building on synergies resulting from the articulation of different EU policy instruments, including the ESI Funds;

2.

Welcomes the efforts undertaken by all interested stakeholders in setting up an institutional architecture for the implementation of the EUSAIR within the existing institutional framework; encourages all national, regional and local stakeholders to take full ownership of the implementation of the projects covered by this macro-regional strategy; stresses the importance of strengthening the institutional capacity and efficiency of public administrations and public services and securing, in each participating country, sufficient resources and competent administrative personnel expressly dedicated to implementing the EUSAIR;

3.

Stresses the need for a place-based approach as regards the cooperation activities and highlights the added value of the multi-level governance model which needs to address the lack of administrative capacity and can be used to pool resources in the macro-region; insists, in this regard, that there is a need to include the local and regional authorities in the political managing bodies and in the operational, technical and implementing bodies of the strategy while maintaining the Commission’s role in the coordination process; stresses that community-led local development (CLLD) can mobilise and involve local actors in the decision-making process and help strengthen the ownership of projects at citizens’ level;

4.

Stresses the importance of a transparent process for adoption, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy, as well as of openness and inclusiveness towards civil society and all relevant stakeholders; emphasises that communication and awareness-raising across all pillars are essential for the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process and for building public support; encourages the Member States to ensure the strategy has adequate visibility nationally, regionally and locally, to develop appropriate communication with regard to the strategy’s goals and results, and to promote coordination and exchanges of best practice with other existing and future macro-regional strategies;

5.

Highlights the need for non-EU countries to harmonise their legislation with specific sectoral acquis related to the strategy in order to ensure fulfilment of the EU goals and their regular, legal and timely implementation based on EU standards and legislation; encourages all the participating countries to establish think tanks and organise regular meetings to exchange best practices to secure this procedure and make it more efficient;

6.

Notes that, due to the steep fall in private investment across the countries in the region, coupled with fiscal consolidation and limited investment capacity in the public sector, problems may arise in financing projects under the strategy; calls on the participating countries to maintain a high degree of ownership, commitment and leadership necessary to successfully carry out the strategy;

7.

Welcomes the fact that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance for 2014-2020, and in particular the Adriatic Ionian Cooperation Programme 2014-2020 (ADRION), provide significant potential resources and a wide range of tools and technical options for the strategy; supports the fact that other funds and instruments relevant to the strategy pillars are available, in particular the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus Plus programmes in respect of all pillars, the Connecting Europe Facility in respect of Pillar II, the LIFE programme in respect of Pillar III, as well as in respect of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the COSME and Creative Europe programmes for SMEs in respect of Pillar IV, as well as the INNOVFIN programme for innovation funding; encourages cooperation, in order to create a synergy of available funds, between the monitoring committees of the territorial cooperation programmes which cover the region, the EUSAIR governing board and the ESIF managing authorities; stresses that the strategy should enable a more efficient and effective use of existing instruments and funds;

8.

Calls on the European Commission and national, regional and local bodies which are responsible for the preparation, management and implementation of ESIF programmes to stress the importance of macro-regional projects and actions;

9.

Stresses the importance of defining, at macro-regional level, the implementation structure and coordination mechanisms in order to facilitate cooperation including joint planning, alignment of funding opportunities and a bottom-up approach; underlines the need to align the national and regional operational programmes with the goals of the strategy, including, where possible, the incorporation of EUSAIR into the programmes; considers it necessary to coordinate and harmonise initiatives, proposals and projects which concern the Adriatic-Ionian Region;

10.

Encourages the Commission, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the participating countries to fully exploit the possibilities available under the newly established European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) to finance projects in the region which would create added value, promote sustainable development and economic and social cohesion, spur growth and increase employment at the macro-regional level and contribute to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy; in this context, encourages the provision of ‘bonus points’ to macro-regional projects in the project selection phase due to their inherent transnational nature;

11.

Points out that there are no specific funds assigned just for the implementation of macro-regional strategies and that strong political will, partnership and coordination among the countries is a precondition for success; calls therefore on the countries in the region to bundle funds (ESI Funds, IPA, EFSI) as well as contributions from national sources under the EIB as a financial and investment platform for supporting the financing of projects contributing to the fulfilment of the goals of the strategy; calls for the creation of a transparent and publicly available project pipeline for the Adriatic and Ionian Region, which would make current and potential investment needs and projects visible so that investors are encouraged to invest in these projects;

12.

Urges stakeholders to exchange best practices, draw on experience gained and identify the bottlenecks in the implementation of other EU macro-regional strategies and to increase cooperation with their counterparts, such as those from the Baltic Sea, Danube Basin and Alpine macro-regions;

13.

Calls on the Commission to eliminate administrative and non-financial obstacles which often dissuade investors from investing in such projects;

14.

Considers it necessary to find ways to involve countries not included in the strategy and which are geographically and economically close to the region, at least on an individual and specific project basis; highlights in this context the importance of cross-border and trans-national cooperation under cohesion policy and invites the Members States and regions concerned to make use of the existing best practices in this area;

15.

Recalls the major impact of the economic crisis on the region and stresses the need for regular assessment of strategies designed to achieve economic recovery; points out that the countries in the region are at different levels of development and have different needs; calls on the Commission to underline the importance of creating the conditions for reducing socio-economic differences between the countries; supports reforms in less developed countries and encourages the exchange of knowledge, experience and practices in this context;

16.

Points out that it is necessary to encourage, renew and deepen cultural, scientific and educational cooperation, including by increasing the scope for academic mobility of students and university staff; stresses that science and innovation are a prerequisite for smart, inclusive and sustainable growth; emphasises the interdependence of scientific and cultural cooperation with the growth of economic dynamics and the level of diversity and sustainability of tourism within the region;

17.

Welcomes the European Parliament’s representation in the governing bodies of the EUSAIR; calls on the Commission to analyse the joint efforts of the countries in the region (EU Member States and third countries) and the effective participation of local and regional authorities in achieving the strategy’s objectives;

18.

Refers to precedents established in the context of other EU macro-regional strategies and calls for support to be given, within the framework of pilot projects and preparatory actions, to different types of actions ranging from studies to seed money for the preparation of projects under different priority areas;

19.

Considers it imperative that, in the implementation phase of the strategy, its general principles, and in particular matters relating to environmental protection and the enhancement of natural resources, should be taken into due consideration in all four pillars, also in order to take a holistic approach to the complex and varied challenges of the macro-region;

20.

Emphasises that particular attention should be given to areas referred to in Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, such as islands, mountainous and rural regions, with the aim of identifying and exploiting their specific potential, especially in the tourism sector, whilst respecting the areas for action and priorities identified in this report; calls, moreover, on the Commission to propose a European Year of Islands and Mountains;

21.

Considers it necessary to find ways for the participating countries to involve other important pillars that could create development benefits for the area, such as agriculture on account of specific geo-climatic conditions, bio-diversity and the potential to create synergic coordinated effects and further growth; recommends close cooperation and coordination among inland areas, the coastal area and the islands to achieve synergies between clean energy projects and healthy food production;

22.

Draws attention to the importance of adequate reporting and evaluation of the implementation of the strategy; calls, in this context, on the participating countries, together with the Commission, to gather reliable baseline data and establish concrete targets for each pillar which would be evaluated on a yearly basis and made publicly available;

23.

Calls for a comprehensive and integrated European approach to migration; emphasises that the region faces serious migration challenges and deplores all the tragedies in the Mediterranean; urges that in tackling these challenges a significant shift in asylum policies in terms of solidarity among Member States is essential; highlights the need to look at the overall strategy on cooperation with third countries; regrets the insufficient cooperation among EU Member States with regard to migratory challenges; encourages the exchange of good practices in receiving migrants and calls, as a matter of urgency, for special attention to be paid to the social and humanitarian issues affecting the region, with a view to a possible redefinition of the EUSAIR priorities in the future;

24.

Expects new impetus to be given to the strengthening of peace and security in South East Europe;

25.

Calls on countries to exchange best practices in the area of respect for minority rights in order to apply the highest standards, given that this is a particularly sensitive area regarding linguistic issues;

26.

Stresses that, within the various stages of implementation, public and private economic players, members of society and the various components of organised civil society must be provided with appropriate training through a specific programme including organisational and technical support;

27.

Calls on the Commission to present a report on the implementation of EUSAIR to Parliament and the Council every two years, in order to assess its functioning and its added value in terms of growth and jobs, reducing disparities and sustainable development;

28.

Encourages specific measures to promote the social dimension; stresses the importance of incorporating priorities and measures which seek to support the inclusion of persons with disabilities and prevent all kinds of discrimination;

29.

Stresses that the region’s unique geographical position and specific coastline structure, together with its rich marine biodiversity, hold immense potential for the creation of ‘blue’ jobs and for innovative and sustainable economic development and growth, including blue technologies, fisheries and aquaculture, and better maritime and marine governance and services;

30.

Advocates the blue economy as a solution to the economic crisis, since it stimulates the creation of new jobs and economic development, and especially jobs for women and young people in coastal and island countries; believes that the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Region cannot be pursued without factoring in the concept of the blue economy, which links the economic sectors relating to seas and oceans, aquaculture, maritime and river transport and tourism to environmental protection;

31.

Calls on the Commission and the states involved in the strategy to provide incentives that attract young people to the field of fisheries and aquaculture in the Adriatic and Ionian region and encourage them to undertake such activities;

32.

Calls for policy coordination and harmonisation of the strategy’s goals, as well as common projects, in line with the values, principles and objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy; encourages, furthermore, support for the development of a sustainable fisheries sector and the production of traditional and healthy food; calls for the establishment of Fisheries Local Action Groups, which could represent a natural tool for diversifying fisheries; highlights the fact that sustainable and profitable fisheries and aquaculture require strengthened stakeholder involvement in the overall management, as well as improved and diversified fisheries activities;

33.

Takes the view that blue growth comprises highly diverse sectors and businesses and for this reason its development requires highly skilled labour in all those sectors; calls on Member States involved in EUSAIR to promote the various sectors of blue growth in their training programmes, taking into account lifelong-learning systems and training for employees; points out the complexity of the activities, sectors and disciplines of the socio-economic systems involved in blue growth, and therefore considers it extremely important that Member States involved in the EUSAIR strategy adopt labour market policies in order to increase the capacity to adapt to change, innovation and multidisciplinarity, adapt the training of human capital and increase the female participation rate;

34.

Stresses the importance of a greater and real interconnection between the EU 2020 strategy and the three pillars (especially the blue growth pillar) of the EUSAIR strategy based on the European Commission Action Plan; considers the Action Plan as one of the outputs of the strategy approach identifying the concrete priorities for the macro-region; points out that, on the basis of this, each action or project is selected by an extensive bottom-up consultation process involving a range of stakeholders from the Adriatic-Ionian Region representing national, regional and local authorities, social partners, but also the private sector, the social economy, academia and civil society;

35.

Encourages clustering and cooperation between public and private enterprises, universities, research institutes and other relevant stakeholders in the marine and maritime sectors with the aim of stimulating innovation and benefiting fully from synergies; considers that actions under the blue growth pillar should build on the national and regional research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation in order to secure more efficient and effective investments; calls on the countries and regions to participate in the Commission’s S3 Platform to benefit from assistance in the development, implementation and review of smart specialisation strategies; considers it necessary, in this context, to give SMEs better access to credit and to improve the existing business networks (clusters) through an internationalisation process, in order to create new quality and sustainable jobs;

36.

Supports the creation of a joint quality label for high-quality seafood products from the region in order to increase their competitiveness;

37.

Stresses the importance of social dialogue and of the involvement of civil society representatives in capacity-building activities alongside the public authorities; considers that this could be achieved by setting up a permanent platform at macro-regional level and at regional level in each Member State to represent the social and economic partners, in line with what has already been done for universities, chambers of commerce and cities;

38.

Stresses the importance of marine and maritime research and of stronger cooperation in these sectors among researchers, and among Member States and regions involved in the EUSAIR strategy, in order to overcome the existing gap between these Member States and to boost the competitiveness of coastal areas and the creation of quality and sustainable local jobs;

39.

Notes with concern the rate of fish stock depletion in the Adriatic and Ionian Seas as a result of overfishing, along with illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing (IUU), and other significant risks to all marine life; stresses that fisheries are one of the key components in the economies of the coastal areas and islands; deems it necessary, therefore, to consider the protection and preservation of fish stocks and marine ecosystems, in line with the principle of the maximum sustainable yield included in the common fisheries policy, to be a paramount objective of the strategy; underlines the need, in the transitional period, to support adjustment to fishing limits through subsidies for the purchase of equipment via the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF); calls for decisive action in the form of aligning third-country fisheries legislation with EU legislation, data sharing, joint monitoring platforms and multiannual fisheries management plans, and for consideration of how to develop a sustainable aquaculture sector with its great potential for being powered by renewable energy sources;

40.

Recalls that commercially exploited fish and shellfish should be within safe biological limits in order to achieve good environmental status and to safeguard the long-term sustainability of the fishing industry;

41.

Calls on the Commission to register recreational fishing catch volumes, to regulate this activity and to make both recreational and professional fishing activities subject to MSY objectives;

42.

Urges comprehensive research on fish stocks, especially of endangered species, and their biological interconnection, given that the lack of exact data would make evaluations unclear and unreliable; urges the preservation of natural spawning;

43.

Calls for projects seeking to assess the impact of indirect fishing (ghost nets, mussel cultivation meshes) and by-catches of protected species to be evaluated and promoted, it being estimated that, in the Adriatic alone, over 40 000 sea turtles are caught accidentally; takes the view that environmental studies and studies on means of alleviating the problem (such as turtle excluder devices) are urgently necessary;

44.

Urges strong support for shipbuilding, including the leisure boat sector, focusing on its modernisation and specialisation in order to create jobs and adapt to the requirements of sustainable and competitive growth that is in line with blue technologies;

45.

Calls for strong support for manufacturing areas, twinning and cooperation between areas in different parts of the macro-region; encourages the exchange of good practices involving the most significant experiences in the sector and those of other regions which seek to take the same approach in order to promote the establishment of manufacturing areas;

46.

Underlines the importance of supporting and fostering recreational sport and family fishing together with integrated policies for fishing and tourism (fishing and fish tourism, mariculture), especially on the islands, in order to preserve the local cultural traditions and maritime lifestyles of islanders and small coastal sites; encourages sustainable, small-scale and traditional fishing and aquaculture, coupled with a diversified culinary offer and the promotion of local fish markets, as the best way to ensure sustainability and provide stronger support to coastal tourist activities;

47.

Calls on the Commission to support and promote the involvement of fisheries and fishery workers in projects such as those relating to cultural and heritage tourism, encompassing fisheries and the rediscovery of seafaring activities and traditional fishing grounds and occupations;

48.

Underlines the importance of the social economy and of female entrepreneurship for achieving the blue growth pillar and calls on the Member States involved in the EUSAIR strategy to encourage and support the participation of women in all the relevant sectors; recalls the fundamental role of small and micro enterprises in the regions and territories concerned and asks the Member States involved in EUSAIR to implement active policies for promoting such forms of economic activity;

49.

Supports measures to reduce the hydrogeological risk and the risk of coastal erosion;

50.

Stresses the importance of research and calls for strong support for marine and maritime districts;

51.

Stresses that the development of aquaculture and mariculture can play an important role not only in the recovery of species diversity but also in the economic growth of the Adriatic and Ionian region;

52.

Calls on the Commission to intensify the exchange of good practices such as the sustainability of projects developed by the Coastal Action Groups;

53.

Notes that better transport and energy connections among the participating countries as well as between them and their other neighbours, including maritime transport, intermodal connections to the hinterland and energy networks, are compelling needs for the macro-region and a precondition for its economic and social development; underlines the lack of connection between the two coasts on the Adriatic and the network infrastructure gap existing in the Adriatic-Ionian area;

54.

Calls for incentives to be provided for the establishment of sustainable transport links which reduce journey times, transport and logistic costs and externalities; calls for major strategic works related to the interchange between sea and land in order to create opportunities for intermodal transport between countries, contribute to cohesion, enhance the overall network and reduce road congestion and thus CO2 emissions; draws attention to the need to improve the maritime and port dimension of cabotage, of motorways of the sea and of cruises between the two shores of the Adriatic, both on the north-south and transversal east-west routes; points out the need for greater coordination to prevent maritime traffic congestion and to improve its management and control;

55.

Encourages the use of the regulation on the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions from maritime transport (Regulation (EU) 2015/757) for innovation and establishment of sustainable maritime transport in the macro-region by using alternative marine propulsion engines and fuels to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency in the transport sector;

56.

Underlines the importance of connecting maritime transport routes and ports with other parts of Europe and the relevance of interconnections with TEN-T corridors; calls on the participating countries to focus their efforts on implementing projects that are covered by the current TEN-T network and other interventions for its proposed extension to South-Eastern Europe/the Eastern Adriatic coast, and which are able to close the network gap existing in the Adriatic-Ionian area; invites the countries involved therefore to identify priority infrastructure projects of regional and European added value and suggests that attention be paid inter alia to:

57.

Calls for the capacity of the existing infrastructure network to be optimised, with particular reference to the existing road and rail links in the macro-region, including ‘last-mile’ links; stresses the need to finalise the Adriatic-Ionian highway as soon as possible, which will give a boost to the economic and social development of the macro-region; recalls the importance of the new corridors that integrate highways, railways and other infrastructures on both sides of the Adriatic-Ionian area; points out the need for greater coordination to prevent maritime traffic congestion and to improve its management and control;

58.

Calls for the development of a high-speed railway infrastructure that will interconnect the macro-region and allow better connection with and within the EU; highlights the importance of improving the railway connectivity of the Adriatic and Ionian region, as well as between the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic/Ionian coasts;

59.

Calls for the participating countries to improve their maritime, rail and air transport infrastructure, to develop motorways of the sea in the macro-region, combining intermodal transport means, especially for connecting the hinterland, and to improve transport logistics, putting the most advanced technologies to the best possible use and always ensuring a high level of safety and environmental sustainability; calls also on the participating countries to assess the possibilities to improve connectivity with e-mobility instruments which could facilitate an international electronic ticketing service;

60.

Underlines the lack of effective connection with the islands; urges the Commission and the Member States to facilitate better connections by exploring new coordinated and value-added options, optimising the use of freight and passenger routes and involving private and public stakeholders, in order to increase the quality of life, stop depopulation and make it possible to exploit socioeconomic opportunities in these areas; underlines the need to improve the islands’ internal communications and transport infrastructure for sustainable inland mobility; stresses also the need to ensure adequate healthcare and educational programmes for island populations throughout the year;

61.

Calls for the implementation of major projects to develop intermodal links on the islands, and in particular wishes to see strong support for enhancing strategically important airports, in terms both of infrastructure and of new routes to other regions in the macro-region;

62.

Urges the participating countries to continue their efforts to diversify energy supply sources, a process which will not only improve the energy security of the macro-region but will also increase competition and combat energy poverty, which will have important benefits for the economic and social development of the region; emphasises the need for thorough assessments of the environmental impact of interventions in the energy sector; underlines the importance of the common planning for investment in the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals and missing gas pipeline networks in the macro-region, thereby helping to achieve enhanced independence and energy security; encourages, furthermore, measures to increase energy and resource efficiency, thus also contributing to competitiveness;

63.

Encourages the development of energy infrastructure capable of reducing the carbon footprint, increasing energy efficiency and guaranteeing the energy security of the macro-region and beyond; highlights furthermore the importance of developing and promoting the concept of Smart Cities in order to provide added value to the current overall energy infrastructure of the macro-region;

64.

Recognises the high potential of underused renewable energy sources in the macro-region; calls for the exploitation of available renewable sources such as solar, wind, tidal (when technically feasible) and wave energy within the energy production mix; underlines the sustainability and competitiveness of potential hydropower plants in all participating countries; calls on the participating countries to contribute to the setting-up of a well-functioning and interconnected gas and electricity market in the macro-region that will ensure equal access to cheap and affordable energy; stresses the importance of strengthening cross-border energy interconnections underpinning investment in the energy sector as a key precondition for integration into the EU's energy network, as well as the removal of barriers to cross-border investment in the energy sector;

65.

Supports joint planning and investment in energy infrastructure for both the production and transport of electricity and gas in the macro-region, in accordance with the TEN-E network, implementing the concrete projects mentioned in the list of Projects of Energy Community Interest (PECIs);

66.

Expresses concern at the renewed impulse given to the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas offshore and on land, which could expose the macro-region to the risk of disasters with very serious consequences for the environment, economy, including the fisheries sector, and public health; stresses that any such activity must be in line with the Union’s climate and renewable energy rules and guidelines; emphasises that the Adriatic is a closed, shallow sea, which lacks the capacity to disperse pollutants and has a flourishing tourist trade on both its shores, and that the macro-region’s growth should first depend on tourism and on economic activities linked to its specific environmental features and ecosystems; underlines the need for consistent implementation of EU legislation and international conventions on environmental sustainability and the safety of maritime activities; calls for the full implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) and of the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations Directive (2013/30/EU);

67.

Calls for the formulation of common European transport safety standards in the Adriatic-Ionian macro-region;

68.

Stresses the need to promote cross-border air services through the implementation of joint projects designed to secure and enhance links within the macro-region;

69.

Recalls the richness of the marine, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems of the participating countries; notes that the Adriatic Sea is home to nearly half (49 %) of all recorded Mediterranean marine species and is the most unusual subregion of the Mediterranean due to its shallowness, restricted flows, and the large influence of rivers; calls for joint efforts in taking all possible measures, such as the use of clean fuels for maritime transport and logistics, in order to preserve the biodiversity of the marine environment and the transnational terrestrial habitats as well as to prevent and reduce the pollution of the sea and other threats to coastal and marine biodiversity; stresses the importance of protecting endangered marine and terrestrial species, such as Mediterranean monk seals, olms, lynxes, griffon vultures and others, and calls on the participating countries to implement proportionate measures to fulfil this objective;

70.

Calls for the exchange of best practices between participating countries in the field of managing the natural and cultural heritage, including Natura 2000 areas and UNESCO sites, with the intention of creating sustainable tourist attractions;

71.

Urges all the participating countries to join forces in implementing maritime spatial planning, in accordance with Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, and integrated coastal management, involving various stakeholders (national, regional and local authorities, local population, research community, NGOs, etc.); considers that proper joint governance of the maritime space provides an important framework for the sustainable and transparent use of maritime and marine resources;

72.

Highlights the importance of protecting and preserving the rivers and lakes in the Adriatic-Ionian basin;

73.

Points out the need to tackle responsibly historical and trans-border pollution and to clean up the sites affected by the industrial contamination of soil, water and air, and, where applicable, by pollution resulting from military conflicts; supports all active measures for the reduction of the pollution of the sea from chemical and conventional weapons; supports the reduction, with a goal of elimination, of marine litter, in line with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, in particular regarding waste pollution in the Adriatic islands;

74.

Is concerned about the damage caused by plastic waste at sea; calls on the Commission to support initiatives to collect and recycle this waste; stresses the importance of involving fishermen in the process;

75.

Calls on countries to develop and implement comprehensive plans to reuse obsolete industrial and military sites; stresses that these sites not only pose a threat to the environment but also offer significant economic potential which is not being exploited;

76.

Calls for encouraging the relocation of industry from urban centres and coastal areas with the aim of improving the quality of life;

77.

Insists that all existing tools be used in implementing the best waste management and wastewater treatment solutions in the region, in line with Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment in the EU Member States;

78.

Draws attention to the various natural and man-made disasters that have hit the region in the last years; draws attention to the problem of deforestation and other climate change-related risks; stresses the need to apply in full the horizontal principles for natural disaster risk management and climate change adaptation with a view to implementing the action plan and the priorities of each pillar; encourages cooperation between the countries’ hydrometeorological institutes in tackling extreme weather events, climate change consequences, and disaster risk management; recognises water, agriculture and tourism as the sectors most vulnerable to climate change, therefore encourages cooperation between national authorities in order to establish a framework and a support mechanism for the implementation of adaptation and mitigation measures;

79.

Underlines the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in particular in the marine transport sector;

80.

Stresses that there is a problem with the geographic and seasonal disparities in accessibility to water reserves, with a marked shortage of water on the islands and in the coastal area during the summer when water demands become several times higher due to the arrival of a large number of tourists;

81.

Urges the establishment of a regional centre for disaster preparedness together with a joint contingency plan for oil spills and large-scale pollution events, in order to create an early warning system to prevent natural disasters and those caused by industrial, transport and other activities, such as floods, fires and exploitation activities in the Adriatic; emphasises that the centre should be directly linked to the EU Civil Protection Mechanism; stresses the importance of preserving the ecosystem and the biodiversity of the region through better understanding and the exchange of best practices;

82.

Calls on the non-EU countries to accelerate the implementation of the sectoral acquis (such as the Water Framework Directive) with a view to their future accession to the Union;

83.

Urges the Member States to consult the competent authorities of neighbouring countries and local communities in the macro-region, particularly with regard to economic activities subject to Environmental Impact Assessments in accordance with Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment;

84.

Underlines the crucial importance of tourism for the European economy and the development of social cohesion within the EU, especially for the Mediterranean countries and for the region as a whole; stresses the need to develop new approaches to help offset seasonality in line with the impact and sustainability of tourism on the environment; urges more support for the financing of tourism projects from the ESIF and other sources;

85.

Urges the urgent improvement of cross-border road connections in order to enhance the competitiveness of tourism, given that poor connectivity causes traffic bottlenecks and long delays; underlines the need to improve, for tourism purposes, the existing air infrastructure and the maritime connection between the two coasts of the Adriatic;

86.

Stresses the need to encourage the use of existing airports in the macro-region in order to avoid the excessive concentration of passengers in a few airport hubs and promote sustainable and more balanced tourist flows in various locations;

87.

Recognises the rich cultural and natural heritage (including cultural activities such as cinema, theatre and music) of the region as a strong asset, which the tourism sector builds upon; points out the large number of protected UNESCO sites and Natura 2000 areas in all participating countries; considers that, despite the significant contribution of this sector to the economy, the tourism potential is not being fully exploited, in particular owing to high seasonality and lacks in the areas of innovation, sustainability, transport infrastructure, the quality of the tourism offer, the skills of participating stakeholders and responsible tourism management; calls on the participating countries to adopt policies ensuring adequate connections and tourist facilities both during and outside the summer season so as to diversify tourist flows and ensure a constant tourist presence in every season; stresses the importance of combining tourism with the natural, cultural and artistic heritage;

88.

Encourages Member States to promote sustainable mobility solutions in the tourism sector, thus improving the quality of tourist services and enhancing its range;

89.

Recognises the importance of national and nature parks and of protected areas as the foundations for the future education of citizens in matters relating to environmental protection and combatting climate change;

90.

Stresses that cooperation between countries is essential for the further development of tourism in the region; encourages the formulation of tourism strategies for the Adriatic Sea and for the Ionian Sea which are based on sustainability and enable the countries to benefit from synergies and to address common challenges at the macro-regional level; considers it necessary to work together to raise the profile of destinations in the Adriatic-Ionian region;

91.

Urges the European Commission, the participating countries and the local and regional authorities to take measures that incentivise stakeholders to improve the tourism infrastructure;

92.

Underlines the importance of supporting cultural and creative activities and in particular the development and integration of business activities in the fields of music, theatre, dance and films; calls for the organisation of festivals, conventions and cultural events that promote integration;

93.

Draws attention to the need to allow SMEs easier access to support and finance as they are instrumental for the tourism sector; encourages stakeholders in the region to participate in the Enterprise Europe Network in order to share experience, network and find cross-border partners;

94.

Stresses the importance of Smart Specialisation and Smart Communities projects involving the exploitation of existing innovation platforms, such as the creation of an Adriatic-Ionian area of creativity;

95.

Supports the development of a diversified tourism offer including thematic tourist parks and routes, and cultural, rural, health, medical, nautical, enogastronomic, conference and sport tourism, including cycling, golf, diving, hiking, skiing, mountaineering and outdoor sports, in order to promote tourism throughout the year and to improve the competitiveness of tourist destinations, based on sustainability; supports the development of rural tourism in order to reduce the pressure on major tourism centres and the narrow coastal area and to help overcome seasonality; supports the expansion of tourist activities towards the hinterland with the creation of integrated tourism products which include the main attractions of the macro-region and those of its capitals;

96.

Stresses the importance of coherence between tourism management and infrastructure and the need to improve the quality and diversity of services and opportunities, taking account of the specific characteristics of the region; stresses also the importance of promoting and preserving local and regional traditions;

97.

Stresses the importance of exploring alternative routes and business models and improving the linkage of cruise packages to local people and products, thus allowing unsustainable congestion to be tackled more effectively and better exploitation of the full potential, with more lasting economic benefits for local economies; recognises the importance of developing and branding macro-regional tourism routes, through the mapping and further promotion of existing routes;

98.

Advocates exploitation of the most representative assets of the area for the purposes of tourism and the development of promotional and marketing programmes;

99.

Stresses the need for genuine transport intermodality using an integrated network of services and intersections with a view to developing quality eco-tourism;

100.

Calls for the drafting of an Adriatic-Ionian Charter containing criteria, principles and guidelines for the promotion of sustainable tourism through implementation of the European Tourism Indicator System (ETIS) for the assessment of tourist destinations with a view to improving their sustainable development;

101.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the EUSAIR participating countries (Croatia, Greece, Italy, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia).

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/37

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Articles 4, 162 and 174 to 178 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (hereinafter ‘the Common Provisions Regulation’) (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such groupings (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 (6),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (7),

—

having regard to the Commission’s sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion entitled ‘Investment for jobs and growth: Promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities’, of 23 July 2014 (hereinafter ‘the sixth cohesion report’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (8),

—

having regard to the Commission’s eighth progress report on economic, social and territorial cohesion entitled ‘The urban and regional dimension of the crisis’, of 26 June 2013,

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 January 2014 on smart specialisation: networking excellence for a sound Cohesion Policy (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 January 2014 on EU Member States preparedness to an effective and timely start of the new Cohesion Policy Programming period (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2014 on the European Commission’s 7th and 8th progress reports on the EU Cohesion Policy and the Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 27 November 2014 on delays in the start-up of cohesion policy for 2014-2020 (12),

—

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

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 October 2011 entitled ‘A framework for the next generation of innovative financial instruments — the EU equity and debt platforms’ (COM(2011)0662),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on European long-term investment funds (13),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 13 January 2015 entitled ‘Making the best use of the flexibility within the existing rules of the stability and growth pact’ (COM(2015)0012),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on the sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: investment for jobs and growth, adopted by the General Affairs (Cohesion) Council on 19 November 2014,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 3 December 2014 on the sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion (14),

—

having regard to the working document entitled ‘Blueprint for a revised Europe 2020 strategy: Contribution of the Steering Committee of the Committee of the Regions’ Europe 2020 Monitoring Platform’ (15),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 21 January 2015 on the Commission’s sixth cohesion report (16),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 March 2015 entitled ‘Results of the public consultation on the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2015)0100),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 13 January 2015 entitled ‘Making the best use of the flexibility within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact’ (COM(2015)0012),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0277/2015),

A.

whereas cohesion policy is the EU’s main investment growth and development policy aligned with the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth and aimed at reducing disparities between regions and promoting convergence, with a budget of EUR 351,8 billion until the end of 2020; whereas the EU continues to face the effects of the economic and financial crisis — high unemployment, uneven and slow pace economic recovery; and whereas cohesion policy seeks to ensure that all energies and capacities are mobilised and focused on the pursuit of the Europe 2020 strategy’s objectives of sustainable growth and jobs;

B.

whereas it is crucial that different EU initiatives for growth and jobs, as well as environment and climate protection, maintain a coherent approach; whereas the Europe 2020 strategy flagship initiatives play a key role in enhancing coordination at local and regional level as regards the implementation of cohesion policy; whereas there is no explicit mechanism built into the programming or the reporting provisions that would explicitly target flagship initiatives in terms of the contribution of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) to their delivery; whereas the Europe 2020 strategy review will need to address the implementation of the flagship initiatives and aim for a balance between financial, fiscal and economic measures on the one hand and social, educational, environmental and equality (especially gender equality) aspects on the other;

C.

whereas there is a growing need for stronger co-ownership of the strategy by the different levels of governance and by the different actors involved, and for shared responsibility with the corresponding rights and obligations at all levels of implementation; whereas multi-level governance and partnership must be enhanced, as these principles have the potential to address the lack of administrative capacity;

D.

whereas the goals of cohesion policy have unquestionably evolved over time to support investment in the main EU priorities, demonstrating their adaptability and effectiveness, while maintaining the reduction of disparities between the levels of development of the various regions as the central objective, strengthening regions’ potential and promoting sustainable development; whereas the European Fund for Strategic Investments brings new elements to the overall EU strategy aimed at creating innovative, sustainable and inclusive growth and skilled jobs;

E.

whereas the review of the Europe 2020 strategy should take account of the serious, uneven effects the economic and financial crisis has had on the Member States and regions and be smart and balanced for reasons of coherence and effectiveness; whereas it might nevertheless consider other measures, such as infrastructure, internal market and administrative capacity measures; whereas different territorial characteristics should be taken into account, with special attention being given to the EU’s regions mentioned in Articles 174 and 349 of the TFEU;

F.

whereas the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy, though delayed in 2015, affords above all an opportunity to assess (and acknowledge) the contribution of cohesion policy to achieving the strategy’s targets and to improve existing interactions and links between various EU policies and with the EU budget, with a view to them acting as an effective driving force for the implementation of the strategy; whereas this stage is essential for shaping future cohesion policy, as an EU-wide investment policy, while prioritising the reduction of development disparities and re-accelerating the convergence process;

1.

Recalls that the Europe 2020 strategy is an overarching, long-term ‘growth and jobs’ strategy of the European Union, built around five ambitious objectives: employment, innovation, climate change and energy sustainability, education, and fighting poverty and social exclusion; notes that the objectives are accompanied by seven flagship initiatives and notes that the challenges identified in 2010 have been unevenly addressed and that progress at EU level towards achieving some of them, such as fighting unemployment, is still moderate; emphasises that the EU should concentrate on sustainable growth and development, as well as on decent jobs in order to gain long-term benefits from its investments;

2.

Highlights the fact that progress in gender equality could also contribute to economic growth, sustainable development and social cohesion;

3.

Points out that an EU economic governance framework and its implementation mechanism, the ‘European Semester’, were established in 2010 to ensure coordination of Member States’ fiscal policies, structural reforms and better alignment of national budgetary policies on growth and jobs at EU and national level, in order to support the delivery of the strategy; draws attention to the fact that further coordination and synchronisation challenges still remain to be addressed;

4.

Stresses that cohesion policy for 2007-2013, aligned with the predecessor Lisbon Strategy and having similar core objectives, was already in the implementation phase when the Europe 2020 strategy was launched, and that reprogramming in accordance with the new strategy objectives would therefore have been both difficult and counterproductive; points out, nevertheless, that, at a time of global economic crisis, cohesion policy has not only been the sole source of investment for many Member States, but has also, through ‘Lisbon earmarking’, substantially supported and contributed to countries’ policies for the implementation of the strategy, as shown by the sixth cohesion report and by several Commission communications and studies; recalls that the Lisbon Strategy lost the commitment of Member States, regions and cities over time, and that Europe 2020 governance is particularly consistent with cohesion policy principles and instruments, which can ensure a co-ownership commitment on the implementation of the strategy;

5.

Calls on the Commission, in the context of the ex-post evaluations for the 2007-2013 programming period, to provide information on both the output and result orientation and the concrete contribution made to the Europe 2020 objectives by cohesion policy; stresses the importance of understanding the realities and limitations of the available evidence on cohesion policy’s contribution to the overarching objectives of the strategy and of considering the upheavals which the EU economies have suffered, especially in the case of those countries severely hit during the crisis; appreciates that those conclusions could be useful for the current delivery of the strategy;

6.

Emphasises that cohesion policy is the main EU instrument, covering all regions, for investment in the real economy and acts as the expression of European solidarity by extending growth and prosperity and reducing economic, social and territorial disparities; points out that cohesion policy is fully aligned with the Europe 2020 objectives and provides the investment framework needed, without being simply a tool for its implementation; stresses, in this context, that through thematic concentration the ESIF under the new architecture are oriented towards 11 thematic objectives derived straight from the Europe 2020 objectives, and that preconditions linked directly to these thematic objectives have been established in order to ensure that investments are made in such a way as to maximise their effectiveness; underlines its full support for this new approach, which will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of spending;

7.

Underlines the fact that cohesion policy is developing synergies with other EU policies such as the digital single market, the energy union, the single capital market and social policy and that, through all its instruments and objectives, including macro-regional strategies, the urban agenda, the territorial agenda, investment in SMEs, smart growth and smart specialisation strategies, it is substantially contributing to the strengthening of the single market and achieving Europe 2020 strategy targets; calls in this context on national and regional authorities across Europe to design smart specialisation strategies and exploit synergies between different EU, national and regional instruments, both public and private;

8.

Points to the connection with a broader economic governance process through measures linking the effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance; calls on the Member States to act with full responsibility in order to avoid their application to the greatest possible extent and to prevent negative impacts on the implementation of the ESIF and on the attainment of cohesion policy goals; stresses furthermore, that support should be provided to Member States experiencing temporary budgetary difficulties; welcomes the flexibility mechanisms within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact (COM(2015)0012) aimed at strengthening the link between investment, structural reforms and the use of resources in order to promote long-term sustainable growth and facilitate progress towards the Europe 2020 objectives;

9.

Stresses with concern the delays in implementing cohesion policy during the current programming period; points out that, although a large majority of operational programmes have now been agreed, the implementation itself is still at a very early stage; stresses, nevertheless, that assessments can be made as regards directing policy resources to priorities that contribute to sustainable growth and jobs; notes, in this context, that according to the first evaluation released by the Commission, the amounts allocated to R&I, support for SMEs, ICT, the low-carbon economy, employment, social inclusion, education and capacity-building have increased substantially as compared with the previous programming periods, while the level of support for transport and environmental infrastructure has decreased; draws attention to the fact that, at the time of the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy, data on implementation of the ESI Funds 2014-2020 may still be lacking, and that, as a result, a concrete evaluation of the contribution of these funds to achieving the strategy’s targets may still not be possible at that stage; appreciates the fact that Member States have taken action, e.g. to ensure that 20 % of their resources are spent on climate action;

10.

Acknowledges that establishing a performance framework and introducing ex ante conditionalities and linkages with country-specific recommendations (CSRs) in the cohesion policy programming 2014-2020 could provide a better investment environment for maximising the cohesion policy contribution to achieving Europe 2020 strategy headline targets;

11.

Recalls that the Commission launched the strategy review process in 2014 by publishing its communication entitled ‘Taking stock of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, and considers it regrettable that insufficient reference was made to cohesion policy and the associated instruments in that document; appreciates the fact that the process continued with a public consultation carried out between May and October 2014 with a view to collecting evidence for the review process, and welcomes the fact that the strategy’s relevance and the meaningfulness of its objectives and priorities were confirmed;

12.

Notes that the flagship initiatives are considered to be serving their purpose, but also highlights the fact that their visibility is considered to be rather low; regrets that the economic and financial crisis has aggravated the disparities within the European Union and that insufficient progress has been made towards several of the strategy’s headline targets, especially as regards employment, research and development, poverty and social exclusion; welcomes the conclusion drawn as to the need to enhance ownership and involvement on the ground, by consolidating vertical and horizontal partnerships with a view to improving the delivery of the strategy; stresses that the strategy should encourage the shift from process and outcome orientation to an actual result orientation approach in order to ensure the highest possible efficiency and effectiveness for the EU policies linked thereto;

13.

Welcomes Eurostat’s regular publication of progress indicators as regards the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy; calls, nevertheless, for greater and more accurate regional details in respect of the data provided at the NUTS II and NUTS III levels, which is going to be of increasing importance due to unforeseen economic and social problems occurring in various EU regions irrespective of their development level; points, moreover, to the three dimensions of cohesion policy — economic, social and territorial — and considers, in the light of this, that it should not be measured solely on the basis of economic indicators; calls,, in this context, on the Commission and the Member States to continue the discussion and engage in more efficient cooperation on the development of a more inclusive set of indicators to complement GDP, with a view to them being more relevant to evaluating the progress made towards achieving the priority objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

14.

Notes that the publication of the Commission’s proposal on the review of the Europe 2020 strategy is due before the end of 2015 and regrets this delay, given that it was initially scheduled for early 2015; stresses that this will once again take place at a rather ‘inopportune moment’ in the cohesion policy cycle, when the effective implementation process is under way; stresses, moreover, that early reprogramming would be completely counterproductive for the long-term strategic planning of cohesion policy;

15.

Welcomes the setting-up of a task force for better implementation of EU funds; also welcomes the establishment of the ‘Structural Reform Support Service’, which officially started work on 1 July 2015 and which will provide technical assistance to Member States with a view to the more effective implementation of structural reforms and CSRs;

16.

Acknowledges, at the same time, the need to consider the evolution of the economic outlook, the use of new instruments, the progress made towards the strategy objectives and the consequent necessity of making operational adjustments;

17.

Calls therefore for the scope of the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy to be smart and balanced and to be focused on better interlinking the strategy’s five objectives and its flagship initiatives and on identifying methods as to how they could be better carried forward and evaluated without creating additional layers of complexity and excessive administrative burden; stresses that it should take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the EU economy, the growing inequalities (such as in wealth), high unemployment and high public debts; emphasises that, in parallel with the focus on macro-economic criteria of fiscal and economic governance, progress towards all the Europe 2020 headline targets should be pursued; considers that attention should also be paid to increased societal and environmental sustainability, greater social inclusion and gender equality; underlines the importance of continued support from the Commission services for Member State authorities in improving administrative capacity;

18.

Reiterates its calls to enhance the responsibility, ownership, transparency and participation dimensions of the strategy by involving LRAs and all relevant civil society stakeholders and interested parties from the target-setting and development of objectives to the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the strategy; insists on the crucial importance of a strengthened governance structure based on multi-level governance, incentive structures, an effective mixed top-down/bottom-up approach, the partnership model of cohesion policy and public-private partnerships in general, with a view to the consultation and cooperation of all stakeholders, in order to ensure effective capacity to deliver on the long-term objectives; recalls that, in accordance with Member States’ institutional and legal frameworks, regional and local authorities are also responsible for public investment and should therefore be acknowledged as key actors in the implementation of the strategy;

19.

Suggests, moreover, that the commitment by LRAs and stakeholders in the Europe 2020 strategy project should be renewed in the form of a pact between those partners, the Member States and the Commission, in order to ensure ownership and participation and that a code of conduct similar to the one on partnership, introduced by cohesion policy 2014-2020, should be adopted;

20.

Emphasises the need for a truly territorial approach to the Europe 2020 strategy with a view to adjusting public interventions and investments to different territorial characteristics and specific needs; considers it of the utmost importance to bridge the overall approach of the Europe 2020 strategy and the territorial approach of the Territorial Agenda 2020 (TA 2020); takes the view, moreover, that tailor-made Europe 2020 voluntary regional targets should be possible and should be discussed at regional level without adding to the bureaucratic burden on the ground; stresses that such tailor-made voluntary regional targets should be consistent with the strategy’s overarching architecture and be comprised within the pre-defined targets; recalls also, in this connection, the importance of community-led local development strategies;

21.

Acknowledges the significant role of cities and urban areas as drivers for growth and jobs, and demands that the review of the Europe 2020 strategy also take into account a wider holistic approach to the future development of cities as entities which play an active role in meeting Europe 2020 objectives; calls on the Commission, therefore, to give due consideration to the Riga Declaration on the Urban Agenda, in view of the fundamental role played by urban areas, whether small, medium-sized or large; stresses, in particular, the need for a strategy that takes account of the specific needs of small and medium-sized urban areas on the basis of an approach that builds synergies with the Digital Agenda and the Connecting Europe Facility;

22.

Calls on the Commission to provide information about the role of territorial aspects as factors of economic growth, job creation and sustainable development, and demands that the review of the Europe 2020 strategy address territorial impacts and provide guidance on how to tackle them; reiterates the importance of consultation with LRAs in this regard, as they play a determinant role in the implementation of territorial development strategies; highlights also the role that macro-regional strategies and European territorial cooperation in general could play in the successful implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy’s goals, given that many development projects involve cross-border areas, including several regions and countries, and are able to develop place-based responses to the long-term challenges;

23.

Notes the importance of the new EU investment instrument, the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI), which will support the mobilisation of up to EUR 315 billion in investments, with the aim of closing the investment gap in the EU and maximising the impact of public spending; emphasises that the EFSI should be complementary and additional to the ESI Funds; regrets that it is not clearly linked to the Europe 2020 strategy, but considers that, through its objectives and the selection of viable, sustainable projects, it should contribute to the implementation of the strategy in specific areas;

24.

Stresses, moreover, the imperative of ensuring full coherence and synergies between all EU instruments, by considering the smart specialisation strategies as one of the core investment instruments, in order to avoid overlapping or contradictions between them or between the different levels of policy implementation; demands, therefore, that the review of the Europe 2020 strategy confirm it as the EU’s long-term strategic framework for growth and jobs and address this challenge of coordinating policy instruments, including the EFSI, with a view to using all the available resources effectively and achieving the expected results as regards the overarching strategic goals;

25.

Asks the Commission, with a view to promoting the overall harmonious development of the EU and in view of cohesion policy’s key role in delivering Europe 2020 strategy objectives, to take into consideration, when reviewing the strategy’s goals and objectives, the characteristics and constraints of specific territories, such as those of rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition, regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, island, cross-border and mountain regions and the EU’s outermost regions, in accordance with Articles 174 and 349 of the TFEU; points, in this context, to the latter regions’ potential in such areas as biotechnology, renewable energy and biodiversity;

26.

Stresses the improved results arising from increasing the quantity, quality and impact of R&I investments, through the coordinated use of cohesion policy instruments and Horizon 2020 in the context of the mid-term review of the Europe 2020 strategy; asks the Commission, in this connection, to reinforce all possible interactions and synergies between these two important policy frameworks when reviewing the Europe 2020 goals and objectives and to set up a web-based tracking system in order to identify cases of combinations of funding from the ESI Funds with Horizon 2020, EFSI and the other Community-funded programmes; welcomes also the plan to introduce a ‘seal of excellence’ for applicants that are evaluated as excellent, but cannot obtain financing from Horizon 2020, in order to help them access ESI Funds;

27.

Calls on the Commission to establish a coherent ongoing evaluation process in order to regularly assess the progress of Europe 2020 strategy targets and suggest appropriate measures for their achievement, as well as recommendations for post-2020 cohesion policy; emphasises also Parliament’s role to supervise the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy and cohesion policy in a coordinated manner, not only within Parliament, but also with all relevant institutions; calls, in this connection, for the timely involvement of Parliament in all relevant discussions targeting the design of the policies covered by the strategy, their implementation and their evaluation; points to the importance of also mobilising in these exchanges of views the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee, national and regional parliaments, LRAs, other stakeholders and interested parties;

28.

Considers that the review of the Europe 2020 strategy, which will precede the launch of the proposal for the mid-term revision of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020, will provide the basis for the future cohesion policy architecture post-2020, as well as for other MFF instruments; stresses, in this context, the importance of effectively addressing all the concerns raised above, while ensuring the continuity of the strategic approach; recalls, also, the added value of an EU-wide cohesion policy, which must continue to be one of the main EU investment instruments for growth, job creation and climate protection, while ensuring balanced, harmonious development across the EU, as a catalyst for change and a stimulator of prosperity, including in the less developed regions; underlines, in this regard, the need to ensure a sustainable level of financing for the ESI Funds after 2020;

29.

Points out that both future cohesion policy and the future EU long-term strategy should be drafted before the end of the Commission’s current term, bearing in mind that there will be elections to the European Parliament in 2019, and that this imposes significant specific time constraints on the co-legislators as regards the negotiation calendar, and on the new Commission and the Member States as regards the preparation and adoption of the new partnership agreements and operational programmes before the start of the next MFF; notes, at the same time, that negotiations will also be entered into on the future MFF; calls on the Commission, therefore, to take into consideration all the specific constraints generated by interlinkages and timing coordination requirements and to develop a coherent approach as regards the EU’s future long-term sustainable growth and jobs strategy, the EU budget, cohesion policy in particular, and other instruments under the MFF;

30.

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

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/45

—

having regard to the Commission communication on the guidelines on the application of the measures linking effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds to sound economic governance according to Article 23 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 (COM(2014)0494) (hereinafter ‘the Guidelines’),

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in particular Articles 4, 162 and 174 to 178 and 349 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) (hereinafter ‘the CPR’),

—

having regard to the Commission’s statement on Article 23, included in the Statements relating to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2013 on effects of budgetary constraints for regional and local authorities regarding the EU’s Structural Funds expenditure in the Member States (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU2020 objectives (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2014 on the European Commission’s 7th and 8th progress reports on the EU Cohesion Policy and the Strategic Report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 October 2014 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: implementation of 2014 priorities (6),

—

having regard to the Commission’s sixth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, entitled ‘Investment for jobs and growth: promoting development and good governance in EU regions and cities’, of 23 July 2014,

—

having regard to the Commission’s Cohesion policy strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013, of 18 April 2013 (COM(2013)0210),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 12 February 2015 on the guidelines on the application of the measures linking the effectiveness of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) to sound economic governance,

—

having regard to Parliament’s study of January 2014 entitled ‘European Economic Governance and Cohesion Policy’ (Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies),

—

having regard to Parliament’s briefing of December 2014 entitled ‘The European Structural and Investment Funds and sound economic governance: guidelines for the implementation of Article 23 of the Common Provisions Regulation’ (Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0268/2015),

A.

whereas cohesion policy is a TFEU-based policy and an expression of European solidarity, aimed at strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU, and in particular at reducing disparities between regions, promoting a balanced and harmonious socio-economic development; whereas it is also an investment policy contributing to achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;

B.

whereas the current legislative framework for cohesion policy, while establishing links with the EU strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the European Semester and the Europe 2020 Integrated Guidelines, as well as with the relevant country-specific recommendations (CSRs) and Council recommendations, is nevertheless subject to very specific missions, objectives and horizontal principles;

C.

whereas the current legal framework of the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) aims to reinforce coordination, complementarity and synergies with other EU policies and instruments;

D.

whereas there is evidence that good governance and efficient public institutions are essential for sustainable and long-term economic growth, job creation and social and territorial development, although less evidence is available about the macroeconomic factors which affect the way cohesion policy operates;

E.

whereas economic and financial unpredictability and legal uncertainty may result in decreasing levels of public and private investment, putting at risk the achievement of the goals of cohesion policy;

F.

whereas the Guidelines concern the first strand of measures linking the effectiveness of the ESI Funds to sound economic governance under Article 23 CPR; whereas this relates to a reprogramming and a suspension of payments which are not compulsory, unlike the second strand of Article 23 CPR, which requires the suspension of commitments or payments where Member States fail to take corrective action in the context of the economic governance process;

G.

whereas the Member States’ track record of implementing the CSRs is low, on the evidence of the Commission’s assessments of implementation progress concerning the 279 CSRs issued in 2012 and 2013, showing that 28 CSRs had been fully addressed or showed substantial progress (10 %) and 136 (48,7 %) had achieved some progress, but for 115 (41,2 %) limited progress or no progress was recorded;

1.

Emphasises the importance of cohesion policy instruments and resources in maintaining the level of European added-value investment in Member States and regions for enhancing job creation and improving socio-economic conditions, especially where investment has fallen significantly owing to the economic and financial crisis;

2.

Believes that the achievement of the ESI Funds’ policy objectives and goals should not be hindered by the economic governance mechanisms, while acknowledging their relevance in contributing to a stable macroeconomic environment and an efficient, effective and result-oriented cohesion policy;

3.

Considers that Article 23 of the CPR must only be used as a last resort to contribute to an efficient implementation of the ESI Funds;

4.

Emphasises the multiannual and long-term nature of programmes and objectives under the ESI Funds, as opposed to the annual cycle of the European Semester; in this context, points out the need to ensure the clarity of the mechanisms for implementation of the latter, and calls for close coordination between these two processes and between the bodies responsible for their respective implementation;

5.

Stresses the need for the Commission to submit a white paper taking account of the effects of public investment in the long term and establishing a typology of quality investments, so that those which produce best effects in the long term can be clearly identified;

6.

Recalls that cohesion policy has played a vital role and has shown significant responsiveness to macroeconomic and fiscal constraints in the context of the current crisis, through the reprogramming of more than 11 % of the available budget between 2007 and 2012, in order to support the most pressing needs and strengthen certain interventions; stresses, in this connection, that in several Member States cohesion policy represented more than 80 % of public investment over the period 2007-2013;

7.

Asks the Commission to provide further analytical data on the impact and significance of the macroeconomic mechanisms for regional development, for the effectiveness of cohesion policy and for the interaction between the European economic governance framework and cohesion policy, and to provide specific information on how cohesion policy contributes to the relevant CSRs and Council recommendations;

8.

Calls on Member States to make best use of the flexibility existing under the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact;

9.

Recalls that any decision regarding reprogramming or suspension under Article 23 CPR must only be used in exceptional situations, and must be well-weighed, thoroughly justified and implemented in a cautious fashion, with indication of the programmes or priorities concerned in order to ensure transparency and allow for verification and review; emphasises, moreover, that such decisions should not increase the difficulties that regions and Member States face as a result of the socio-economic environment or of their geographical location and specificities in the sense of Articles 174 and 349 TFEU;

10.

Considers that the partnership agreements and programmes adopted in the current programming period have taken account of the relevant CSRs and the relevant Council recommendations, ensuring good grounds for avoiding any reprogramming in the medium term unless the economic conditions should worsen substantially;

11.

Stresses that frequent reprogramming would be counter-productive and should be avoided in order not to disrupt fund management or undermine the stability and predictability of the multiannual investment strategy and to prevent any negative impacts, including on the absorption of the ESI Funds;

12.

Welcomes the cautious approach of the Commission with regard to reprogramming and its intention to keep it to the minimum necessary; calls for an ‘early warning’ approach in order to inform Member States concerned of the launching of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR, and emphasises that any reprogramming request should be preceded by consultation of the monitoring committee;

13.

Asks the Commission to carry out, in close cooperation with the Member State concerned, a comprehensive analysis of all available options other than the application of Article 23 CPR to address issues that may trigger a reprogramming request;

14.

Deplores any disproportionate increase of the administrative burden and subsequent cost for all levels of administration concerned, given the tight deadlines and the complexity of the reprogramming procedure under Article 23 CPR; warns against any overlapping of reprogramming procedures under Article 23 CPR with subsequent European semester cycles; calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of reassessing the application of the deadlines as per the review provided for in Article 23(16) CPR;

15.

Expresses its concern that the Guidelines do not make explicit reference to the general and horizontal principles provided for in Articles 4 to 8 of the CPR, and recalls that the reading of Article 23 CPR must take account of and comply with these principles, in particular with those of partnership and multi-level governance, and with the Regulation and the Common Strategic Framework as a whole; calls on the Commission, in this context, to clarify how these principles will be specifically taken into account in the application of the provisions of Article 23 CPR;

16.

Emphasises that the increase in the public debt stems principally from the policies pursued by Member State governments, and is seriously concerned that the inability to properly address macroeconomic issues at national level may penalise subnational authorities and the beneficiaries of and applicants for ESI Funds;

17.

Recalls that the thematic concentration rules provided for by the 2014-2020 cohesion policy allow for a certain degree of flexibility in addressing Member States’ and regions’ needs, and notes that the application of Article 23 CPR may restrict this flexibility; recalls the need to take account of key territorial challenges, as well as the principle of subsidiarity as provided for in Article 4(3) CPR;

18.

Asks the Commission to evaluate, in close cooperation with Member States and partners as stipulated in Article 5 CPR, the impact and cost-efficiency at regional and local levels of any measures adopted under Article 23 CPR;

19.

Stresses the need for local and regional authorities to be actively involved in any reprogramming exercise, and is of the opinion that since the ESI Funds are linked to sound economic governance, the European Semester should be given a territorial dimension by also involving those authorities;

20.

Asks the Commission to read Article 23 CPR in line with the principle of proportionality, by taking into account the situation of those Member States and regions which face socio-economic difficulties and where ESI Funds represent a significant share of investment, which is even more evident in a crisis context; stresses that Member States and regions, and in particular the lagging ones, should not be further impacted;

21.

Recalls that strong institutional coordination is essential for ensuring the right policy complementarities and synergies, as well as a proper and stable interpretation of the framework of sound economic governance and its interaction with cohesion policy;

22.

Calls for an adequate flow of information between the Commission, the Council and Parliament, and for the holding of a public debate at the appropriate political level to ensure a common understanding as regards the interpretation of the conditions of application of Article 23 CPR; recalls, in this context, the need for a specific Council configuration dedicated to cohesion policy in charge of the decisions under Article 23 CPR;

23.

Considers it essential to ensure transparency and accountability by giving Parliament democratic oversight of the system of governance in the context of Article 23 CPR, which introduces important limitations in the bottom-up approach which is an important feature of cohesion policy;

24.

Recalls that the suspension of payments is a matter decided by the Council on the basis of a proposal that the Commission may adopt in the event that the Member State concerned fails to take effective action; underlines the important legal safeguards established by Article 23 CPR to ensure the exceptionality of the suspension mechanism;

25.

Emphasises the penalising nature of any suspension of payments, and asks the Commission to use its discretionary power to propose the suspension of payments with utmost caution and strictly in line with Article 23(6) CPR, after due consideration of all relevant information and elements arising from and opinions expressed through the structured dialogue;

26.

Welcomes, in the context of the criteria for determining the programmes to be suspended and the level of suspension under the first strand, the cautious approach adopted in the Guidelines whereby account will be taken of the economic and social circumstances of Member States by considering mitigating factors similar to those envisaged in the suspensions under Article 23(9) CPR;

27.

Calls on the Commission to establish a timescale for the lifting of the suspension under Article 23(8) of the CPR;

28.

Regrets that the Guidelines do not make any reference to the role of Parliament, despite the fact that the CPR was adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure and despite the consistent calls of Parliament to reinforce democratic accountability and control in the context of economic governance;

29.

Considers that the involvement of Parliament, as the principal democratic guarantor for the correct application of Article 23(15) CPR, should be formalised by way of a clear procedure allowing Parliament to be consulted at all stages as regards the adoption of reprogramming requests or of any proposals and decisions on suspension of commitments or payments;

30.

Stresses the need for constant, clear and transparent collaboration at interinstitutional level, and considers that such a procedure should include, at least, the following steps:

31.

Calls on the Commission to report on the impact and results achieved in the application of Article 23 CPR, in the context of the review of its application in line with paragraph 17 of that Article, including by detailing to what extent any reprogramming request was based on the implementation of the relevant CSRs or Council recommendations or has enhanced the growth and competitiveness impact of the available ESI Funds for Member States under financial assistance programmes, as well as by providing the data on any suspended amounts and the programmes concerned;

32.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the Member States and their regions.

20.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/51

—

having regard to the legal framework set by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 21 thereof, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 42, 47, 48 and 52 thereof, the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Articles 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13 thereof, and the case law of the European courts concerning security, privacy and freedom of speech,

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2014 on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs (1) (hereinafter ‘the resolution’),

—

having regard to the working document of 19 January 2015 entitled ‘On the Follow-up of the LIBE Inquiry on Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU citizens’ (2),

—

having regard to the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 21 April 2015 on mass surveillance,

—

having regard to the questions to the Council and to the Commission on the follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens (O-000114/2015 — B8-0769/2015 and O-000115/2015 — B8-0770/2015),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

—

having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas in the resolution Parliament called on the US authorities and the Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and bulk processing of personal data of citizens, and denounced the reported actions by intelligence services that have severely affected EU citizens’ trust and their fundamental rights; whereas the resolution pointed towards the possible existence of other motives such as political and economic espionage, given the capacity of the reported mass surveillance programmes;

B.

whereas the resolution launched ‘A European Digital Habeas Corpus — protecting fundamental rights in a digital age’, with eight specific actions, and instructed the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to address Parliament within one year with a view to assessing the extent to which the recommendations have been followed;

C.

whereas the working document of 19 January 2015 reported on developments since the adoption of the resolution, with the stream of revelations of alleged electronic mass surveillance activities continuing, and on the state of implementation of the proposed ‘European Digital Habeas Corpus’, indicating the limited response of the institutions, Member States and stakeholders called upon to act;

D.

whereas in the resolution Parliament called on the Commission and other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to act on the recommendations, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU (‘failure to act’);

E.

whereas Wikileaks recently revealed the targeted surveillance of the communications of the last three French Presidents as well as of French cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US; whereas this strategic and economic espionage has been carried out on a large scale over the last ten years by the NSA, targeted on all the French state structures as well as the biggest French companies;

F.

whereas the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression states that encryption and anonymity provide the privacy and security necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age; whereas that report also states that any restrictions on encryption and anonymity must be strictly limited in accordance with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimacy of objective;

1.

Welcomes the inquiries by the German Bundestag, the Council of Europe, the UN and the Brazilian Senate, the debates in several other national parliaments and the work of numerous civil society actors that have contributed to the raising of general awareness regarding electronic mass surveillance;

2.

Calls on the EU Member States to drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender;

3.

Is, however, highly disappointed by the overall lack of sense of urgency and willingness shown by most Member States and the EU institutions in terms of seriously addressing the issues raised in the resolution and implementing the concrete recommendations contained therein, as well as by the lack of transparency towards or dialogue with Parliament;

4.

Is concerned at some of the recent laws in some Member States that extend surveillance capabilities of intelligence bodies, including, in France, the new intelligence law adopted by the National Assembly on 24 June 2015, several provisions of which, according to the Commission, raise important legal questions, in the UK, the adoption of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the subsequent court decision that certain articles were unlawful and to be disapplied, and, in the Netherlands, the proposals for new legislation to update the Intelligence and Security Act of 2002; reiterates its call on all Member States to ensure that their current and future legislative frameworks and oversight mechanisms governing the activities of intelligence agencies are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and all relevant Union legislation;;

5.

Welcomes the inquiry by the German Bundestag into mass surveillance; is strongly concerned about the revelations of mass surveillance of telecommunications and internet traffic inside the Union by the German foreign intelligence agency BND in cooperation with the NSA; considers this a breach of the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU;

6.

Asks its President to call on the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to launch the Article 52 procedure, according to which ‘on receipt of a request from the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe any High Contracting Party shall furnish an explanation of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of any of the provisions of the Convention’;

7.

Considers the Commission’s reaction so far to the resolution to be highly inadequate given the extent of the revelations; calls on the Commission to act on the calls made in the resolution by December 2015 at the latest; reserves the right to bring an action for failure to act or to place certain budgetary resources for the Commission in a reserve until all the recommendations have been properly addressed;

8.

Stresses the significance of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 8 April 2014 declaring invalid Directive 2006/24/EC on Data Retention; recalls that the Court stipulated that the interference of this instrument with the fundamental right to privacy has to be limited to what is strictly necessary; highlights the fact that this ruling presents a novel aspect insofar as the Court of Justice refers specifically to a particular body of case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the issue of ‘general programmes of surveillance’ and has now effectively incorporated the same principles, stemming from that particular case law of the European Court of Human Rights, into EU law in this same field; stresses that it is therefore to be expected that the Court of Justice will, in future, also apply the same reasoning when assessing the validity, under the Charter, of other EU and Member State legislative acts in this same field of ‘general programmes of surveillance’;

9.

Welcomes the opening of informal interinstitutional negotiations on the draft General Data Protection Regulation and the Council’s adoption of a general approach on the draft Data Protection Directive; reiterates its intention to conclude negotiations on the Data Protection Package in 2015;

10.

Reminds the Council of its commitment to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in its amendments to the Commission proposals; reiterates in particular that the level of protection offered should not be lower than that already established by Directive 95/46/EC;

11.

Stresses that both the Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Directive are necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, and that the two must therefore be treated as a package to be adopted simultaneously, in order to ensure that all data processing activities in the EU provide a high level of protection in all circumstances; underlines that the objective of strengthening the rights and protections of individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data must be met when adopting the package;

12.

Notes that since the adoption of the resolution the negotiations with the US on the EU-US framework agreement on the protection of personal data when transferred and processed for law enforcement purposes (hereinafter the ‘umbrella agreement’) have been completed and the draft agreement has been initialled;

13.

Welcomes the efforts by the US administration to rebuild trust through the umbrella agreement, and particularly welcomes the fact that the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 was successfully passed by the House of Representatives on 20 October 2015, underlining the substantial and positive steps taken by the US to meet EU concerns; considers it of paramount importance to ensure the same rights in all the same circumstances of effective judicial redress for EU citizens/individuals whose personal data are processed in the EU and transferred to the US, without any discrimination between EU and US citizens; calls on the US Senate to pass legislation guaranteeing this; underlines that one prerequisite for signature and conclusion of the umbrella agreement is the adoption of the Judicial Redress Act in the US Congress;

14.

Recalls that the resolution calls for the immediate suspension of the Safe Harbour Decision as it does not provide adequate protection of personal data for EU citizens;

15.

Recalls that any international agreement concluded by the EU takes precedence over EU secondary law, and therefore stresses the need to ensure that the umbrella agreement does not restrict the data subject rights and safeguards applying to data transfer in accordance with EU law; urges the Commission, therefore, to assess in detail precisely how the umbrella agreement would interact with, and have an effect on, the EU legal framework for data protection, including, respectively, the current Council framework decision, the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and the future data protection directive and regulation; calls on the Commission to present a legal assessment report on this matter to Parliament before initiating the ratification procedure;

16.

Recalls that the Commission addressed 13 recommendations to the US in its communications of 27 November 2013 on the functioning of the Safe Harbour, in order to ensure an adequate level of protection;

17.

Welcomes that in its ruling of 6 October 2015 the CJEU declared invalid the Commission Adequacy Decision 2000/520/EC on the US Safe Harbour; stresses that this ruling has confirmed the long-standing position of Parliament regarding the lack of an adequate level of protection under this instrument; calls on the Commission to immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that all personal data transferred to the US are subject to an effective level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU;

18.

Objects to the fact that Parliament has not received any formal communication from the Commission regarding the state of implementation of the 13 recommendations, despite the Commission’s announcement that it would do so by summer 2014; underlines that, following the CJEU’s decision to invalidate Decision 2000/520/EC, it is now urgent that the Commission provide a thorough update on the negotiations thus far and the impact of the judgment on the further negotiations that were announced; invites the Commission to reflect immediately on alternatives to Safe Harbour and on the impact of the judgment on any other instruments for the transfer of personal data to the US, and to report on the matter by the end of 2015;

19.

Urges the Commission to assess the legal impact and implications of the Court of Justice ruling of 6 October 2015 in the Schrems case (C-362/14) vis-à-vis any agreements with third countries allowing for the transfer of personal data, such as the EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) Agreement, passenger name record (PNR) agreements, the EU-US umbrella agreement and other instruments under EU law which involve the collection and processing of personal data;

20.

While fully respecting that national parliaments have full competence in the oversight of national intelligence services, calls on all those national parliaments which have not yet done so to thoroughly evaluate and install meaningful oversight of intelligence activities and to ensure that such oversight committees/bodies have sufficient resources, technical expertise and legal means and access to all relevant documents in order to be able to effectively and independently oversee intelligence services and information exchanges with other foreign intelligence services; re-expresses its commitment to cooperate closely with national parliaments to ensure that effective oversight mechanisms are in place including by sharing best practices and common standards;

21.

Intends to follow up the Conference on the Democratic oversight of Intelligence Services in the European Union, held on 28 and 29 May 2015, and to continue its efforts aimed at ensuring the sharing of best practices on intelligence oversight, in close coordination with national parliaments; welcomes the joint concluding remarks of the co-chairs of this conference declaring their intention to convene a follow-up conference in two years’ time;

22.

Considers that the existing tools for cooperation among oversight bodies, for instance the European Network of National Intelligence Reviewers (ENNIR), should be supported and their use should be increased, possibly by making use of the potential of IPEX for the exchange of information between national parliaments, in compliance with its scope and technical capacity;

23.

Reiterates its call for the suspension of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) agreement;

24.

Stresses that a common definition of ‘national security’ is needed for the EU and its Member States to ensure legal certainty; notes that the lack of a clear definition allows for arbitrariness and abuses of fundamental rights and the rule of law by executives and intelligence communities in the EU;

25.

Encourages the Commission and the Member States to introduce sunset and extension provisions in legislation that allows the collection of personal data or the surveillance of European citizens; stresses that such provisions are essential safeguards for ensuring that an instrument which is invasive for privacy is regularly scrutinised as regards its necessity and proportionality in a democratic society;

26.

Stresses that a healthy EU-US relationship remains absolutely vital for both partners; notes that revelations about surveillance have undermined public support for the relationship, and stresses that measures need to be taken to ensure that trust is rebuilt, in particular in the light of the current urgent need for cooperation on a large number of geopolitical issues of common concern; emphasises in this context that a negotiated solution between the US and the EU as a whole, respecting fundamental rights, needs to be found;

27.

Welcomes the recent legislative and judicial decisions taken in the US to limit mass surveillance by the NSA, including the adoption of the USA Freedom Act in Congress without any amendments as the result of bicameral and bipartisan compromise, and the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the NSA’s telephone record collection programme; regrets, however, the fact that these decisions focus mainly on US persons while the situation of EU citizens remains the same;

28.

Considers that any decision to use surveillance technology should be based on a thorough assessment of necessity and proportionality; welcomes the results of the SURVEILLE research project, which offers a methodology for assessing surveillance technologies taking legal, ethical and technological considerations into account;

29.

Emphasises that the EU should contribute to the development of international standards/principles at UN level, in line with the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in order to create a global framework for data protection, including specific limitations with regard to collection for national security purposes;

30.

Is convinced that only if credible norms are established at the global level can a ‘surveillance arms race’ be avoided;

31.

Welcomes the initiatives of the private ICT sector in terms of developing cryptographic security solutions and internet services that improve privacy; encourages the continued development of user-friendly application settings helping customers manage what information they share with whom and how; notes that various companies have also announced plans to enable end-to-end encryption in response to mass surveillance revelations;

32.

Reiterates that under Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers of transmission, storage and hosting services to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity; recalls in particular that the CJEU, in its Judgments C-360/10 and C-70/10, rejected measures for the ‘active monitoring’ of almost all users of the services concerned (internet access providers in one case, a social network in the other) and specified that any injunction requiring a hosting services provider to undertake general monitoring shall be precluded;

33.

Welcomes the publication of transparency reports by IT and telecommunications companies about government demands for user data; calls on the Member States to publish statistics on their requests to private companies for private user information;

34.

Is disappointed that the Commission disregarded Parliament’s clear call for the suspension of the TFTP agreement, given that no clear information was given to clarify whether SWIFT data would have been accessed outside TFTP by any other US government body; intends to take this into account when considering giving consent to future international agreements;

35.

Stresses its position that all agreements, mechanisms and adequacy decisions for exchanges with third countries involving personal data require rigorous monitoring and immediate follow-up action by the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties;

36.

Welcomes the EU-US Riga statement of 3 June 2015 on enhancing transatlantic cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice, in which the signatories committed to enhancing the implementation of the US-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAT), to concluding its review as foreseen by the Agreement, and to conducting workshops to discuss the issues concerned with the competent national authorities; underlines that MLATs are the instrument on the basis of which law enforcement authorities of Member States should cooperate with authorities of third countries; calls, in this regard, on the Member States and the US government to adhere to the above-mentioned commitments with a view to a swift conclusion of the US-EU MLAT review;

37.

Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament by the end of 2015 on the gaps identified in different instruments used for international data transfers as regards access by law enforcement and intelligence services of third countries, and on the means to address those gaps so as to ensure the continuity of the required adequate protection of EU personal data transferred to third countries;

38.

Considers that EU citizens’ fundamental rights remain in danger and that too little has been done to ensure their full protection in case of electronic mass surveillance; regrets the limited progress in ensuring the protection of whistleblowers and journalists;

39.

Deplores the fact that many mass and large-scale intelligence programmes seem to be also driven by the economic interests of the companies that develop and run those programmes, as was the case with the ending of the NSA’s targeted ‘Thinthread’ programme and its replacement by the large-scale surveillance programme ‘Trailblazer’, which was outsourced to SAIC in 2001;

40.

Reiterates its serious concern regarding the work within the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention Committee on the interpretation of Article 32 of the Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2001 (Budapest Convention) with regard to transborder access to stored computer data with consent or where publicly available, and opposes any conclusion of an additional protocol or guidance intended to broaden the scope of this provision beyond the current regime established by this Convention, which is already a major exception to the principle of territoriality as it could result in unfettered remote access by law enforcement authorities to servers and computers located in other jurisdictions without recourse to MLA agreements or other instruments of judicial cooperation put in place to guarantee the fundamental rights of the individual, including data protection and due process; underlines that the EU has exercised its competence in the area of cybercrime and that the prerogatives of both the Commission and Parliament should therefore be respected;

41.

Regrets that the Commission has not responded to Parliament’s request to conduct an examination as to a comprehensive European whistleblower protection programme, and calls on the Commission to present a communication on this subject, by the end of 2016 at the latest;

42.

Welcomes the resolution adopted on 23 June 2015 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on ‘Improving the protection of whistleblowers’, and in particular its point 9 on the importance of whistleblowing to ensure that legal limits placed on surveillance are respected, and its point 10 calling on the EU to enact whistle blower protection laws, also covering employees of national security or intelligence services and of private firms working in this field, and to grant asylum, as far as possible under national law, to whistleblowers threatened by retaliation in their home countries, provided their disclosures qualify for protection under the principles advocated by the Assembly;

43.

Stresses that mass surveillance severely undermines the professional confidentiality privilege of regulated professions including doctors, journalists and lawyers; underlines in particular the rights of EU citizens to be protected against any surveillance of confidential communications with their lawyers which would violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably Articles 6, 47 and 48 thereof, and Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer; calls on the Commission to present a communication on the protection of confidential communications in professions with legal professional privilege, by the end of 2016 at the latest;

44.

Calls on the Commission to prepare guidelines for Member States on how to bring any instruments of personal data collection for the purpose of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including terrorism, in line with the judgments of the CJEU of 8 April 2014 on data retention (Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) and of 6 October 2015 on Safe Harbour (Case C-362/14); points in particular to paragraphs 58 and 59 of the data retention judgment and to paragraphs 93 and 94 of the Safe Harbour judgment, which clearly demand a targeted approach for data collection rather than a ‘full take’;

45.

Highlights the fact that the most recent case law, and in particular the judgment of the CJEU of 8 April 2014 on data retention, clearly sets out as a legal requirement the demonstration of necessity and proportionality for any measures involving the collection and use of personal data potentially interfering with the right of respect for private and family life and the right to data protection; finds it regrettable that political considerations often undermine compliance with these legal principles in the decision-making process; calls on the Commission to ensure, as part of its Better Regulation agenda, that all EU legislation is of high quality, complies with all the legal standards and case law, and is in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; recommends that the impact assessment of all law-enforcement and security measures involving the use and collection of personal data always includes a necessity and proportionality test;

46.

Is disappointed by the lack of action by the Commission to follow up the detailed recommendations made in the resolution for increasing IT security and online privacy in the EU;

47.

Welcomes the steps taken so far to strengthen Parliament’s IT security, as outlined in the action plan on EP ICT Security prepared by DG ITEC; asks for these efforts to be continued and the recommendations made in the resolution fully and swiftly carried out; calls for fresh thinking and, if necessary, legislative change in the field of procurement to enhance the IT security of the EU institutions; calls for the systematic replacement of proprietary software by auditable and verifiable open-source software in all the EU institutions, for the introduction of a mandatory ‘open-source’ selection criterion in all future ICT procurement procedures, and for efficient availability of encryption tools;

48.

Strongly reiterates its call for the development, within the framework of new initiatives such as the Digital Single Market, of a European strategy for greater IT independence and online privacy that will boost the IT industry in the EU;

49.

Intends to submit further recommendations in this field following its conference on ‘Protecting on-line privacy by enhancing IT security and EU IT autonomy’, scheduled for the end of 2015, which will build on the findings of the recent STOA study on the mass surveillance of IT users;

50.

Welcomes the Commission’s aim to make the EU a reference player for internet governance, as well as its vision of a multi-stakeholder model for internet governance as reiterated at the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial) held in Brazil in April 2014; looks forward to the outcome of the ongoing international work in this field, including in the framework of the Internet Governance Forum;

51.

Warns against the obvious downward spiral for the fundamental right to privacy and personal data protection occurring when every bit of information on human behaviour is considered to be potentially useful in combating future criminal acts, necessarily resulting in a mass surveillance culture where every citizen is treated as a potential suspect and leading to the corrosion of societal coherence and trust;