30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/1

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/2

—

having regard to the European Court of Auditors Special Report 25/2012 ‘Are tools in place to monitor the effectiveness of European Social Fund spending on older workers?’,

—

having regard to the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, and, more particularly, its 2012 analysis of employment trends and policies for older workers in the recession,

—

having regard to the contribution of the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work on priority groups, in particular older workers,

—

having regard to the 2013 Eurofound study on the role of governments and social partners in keeping older workers in the labour market,

—

having regard to the first international survey on adult skills carried out by the Commission and the OECD in 2013 as part of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC),

—

having regard to the guiding principles of the new European Social Fund regulations for the 2014-2020 programming period adopted by Parliament on 20 November 2013,

—

having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0151/2014),

A.

whereas population ageing, changing working conditions, the incentives for early retirement that still exist, the financial crisis and changes in production patterns, as well as demand for increasing competitiveness, call for strong responses to enable older workers to remain active in the labour market, including when they wish to do so beyond retirement age;

B.

whereas the Lisbon Agenda defined an ‘older worker’ as any person of working age between 55 and 64 years old;

C.

whereas in 2012 the employment rate for people aged 55 to 64 was less than 50 % in the European Union (54,4 % for men and 41,8 % for women) and whereas in certain Member States it dropped to as low as around 30 %; whereas this trend could be caused by a number of factors such as outdated skills and qualifications, employers’ attitudes towards older workers, difficulties with reconciling professional and family life, and declining health;

D.

whereas an older labour force and longer working lives can make a positive contribution to recovery and future growth;

E.

whereas older people are indispensable in terms of passing on knowledge and experience to future generations;

F.

whereas the Lisbon Agenda (1) and the Europe 2020 strategy (2) adopted in 2010, which establishes the European Union’s economic and social strategies, include action plans for greater growth and more jobs, and set goals, in particular regarding employment;

G.

whereas maintaining the employability of older workers, as well as keeping a high proportion of the population in work until later in life, is crucial to addressing demographic challenges and reaching the EU target of 75 % of the 20- to 64-year-old population in employment by 2020;

H.

whereas it is necessary, in order to support recent changes in pension systems resulting from the raising of the retirement age, to introduce measures in the labour market and in the workplace to encourage longer careers and enable people to continue working until the retirement age;

I.

whereas, as a result of the current demographic shift, with a rise in the average age of the population, those aged 55 to 64 will make up an ever increasing share of workers in Europe;

J.

whereas several years of economic and financial crisis have meant that the European Social Fund’s (ESF) measures are more important than ever as one of the tools for tackling high unemployment, and lessons learned from implementing previous measures will be vital when the new programmes are put in place from 2014;

K.

whereas the ESF, which during the programming period 2007-2013 accounted for 8 % of the total EU budget, is a key financial instrument intended to help Member States achieve EU employment policy and social inclusion objectives, and whereas reliable data are necessary in order to assess how effectively ESF resources are spent;

L.

whereas regarding the period from 2007 to the end of 2013, neither the Member States nor the Commission can establish how many older workers have gained new qualifications, found or kept a job after participating in an action funded by the ESF;

M.

whereas the lifelong learning measures promoted by the ESF are, on the whole, well suited to keeping people in employment (e.g. by employability training or retraining);

N.

whereas older workers account for less than 5 % of participants in the lifelong learning activities of the ESF, which is evidence of lower levels of participation in training programmes but not of a lack of training or qualifications on the part of those workers;

O.

whereas the Member States designate Managing Authorities (MAs) to implement the multiannual Operational Programmes (OPs), prepared by the Member States following consultations with stakeholders and bilateral meetings with the Commission and which were finally adopted in the form of Commission decisions, and which set up and maintain systems for financial management and control systems to carry out programming, checks, monitoring and reporting;

P.

whereas OPs generally cover various groups of unemployed people (young people, older workers, the long-term unemployed and those not in employment, education or training (NEETs));

Q.

whereas the implementation of the ESF must comply with the EU’s Financial Regulations, in particular the fundamental principles of sound financial management, i.e. economy, efficiency and effectiveness;

1.

Is concerned by the fact that in the OPs, for the period 2007-2013, the definition of ‘older workers’ is not used consistently; notes that many MAs do not use in their respective OPs the definition of ‘older workers’ as defined in the Lisbon Agenda, namely any person of working age between 55 and 64 years old, but instead use different age groups; is of the opinion that the definition of ‘older workers’ should be adapted to the maximum legal pension age in the respective Member States;

2.

Regrets the fact that no complete and reliable data, including data disaggregated by gender, are available as a basis for assessing the effectiveness of ESF spending on older workers; takes the view that the use of ESF appropriations must be transparent; stresses that the information on funded programmes, achievement of their objectives and the amount budgeted should be available to citizens in an easily accessible manner on public websites;

3.

Acknowledges that, depending on their own specific socioeconomic and demographic situations, Member States use different age groups to define older workers; considers it regrettable, however, that this definition is not always consistently applied throughout the whole programming process in a given Member State; encourages the Member States, therefore, to make sure, in the forthcoming programming period (2014-2020), that the age groups used for needs analysis are the same as the age groups used in the programmes and/or in the related actions and targets;

4.

Stresses that the implementation of the ESF must comply with the EU Financial Regulation and, in particular, with the fundamental principles of sound financial management such as effectiveness, which should be understood as meaning the attainment of the specific objectives set and the achievement of the intended results;

5.

Calls on the Member States to rely more on quantitative and qualitative data when analysing the socioeconomic situation of older workers and to provide for a measurable causal link between actions identified within operational programmes and the objectives pursued, which would facilitate the verification of consistency among identified needs, chosen strategy and the specific goals set, and make it possible to take sound decisions with regard to the future;

6.

Regrets that the data necessary for evaluating the current employment situation for older workers, assessing future development and adopting measures to achieve the established objectives provided by the Member States are unreliable and of unsatisfactory quality; calls for measures to be adopted that will motivate the Member States to submit reliable and high-quality data;

7.

Notes that the regulatory framework (2007-2013) provides for financial data at priority axis level only and that none of the OPs under review has a priority axis specifically for ‘older workers’; regrets the difficulty in assessing precisely how much funding has been allocated to the actions to which it was dedicated, in particular for ‘older workers’;

8.

Notes that for the period 2007-2013, no priority theme dealing with initiatives for older workers, such as ‘encouraging active ageing and prolonging working lives’, is included in the OPs, mainly because of differing interpretations of the form a priority of this kind should take;

9.

Is of the opinion that specific groups of workers, such as those working in shifts or in heavy industry, need specially adapted programmes and projects that differ from those in less physical jobs, such as workers in service industries and sectors; further points out that gender should be incorporated as a policy factor;

10.

Strongly believes that the experience of older workers is an asset that should be used in the best possible way, not only so that individual workers are able to remain active in the labour market in their own job but also so that they can use this acquired experience when changing jobs;

11.

Is concerned about the fact that, in the OPs, ‘older workers’, although identified as a target group, did not always have their own indicators or target values, leading to a situation where it is difficult or even impossible to assess the effectiveness of the measures addressing the needs of older workers; notes that, when indicators are in fact present in projects, they refer mostly to output, such as the number of participants and results, rather than to any specific impacts;

12.

Calls on the Commission to put more emphasis on the fight against age discrimination of older workers and to use its prerogatives under existing legal instruments to tackle blatant forms of age discrimination in certain Member States and in certain sectors of the economy;

13.

Calls for measures to assess not just employability but also progress in terms of skills (including ‘soft’ skills), higher self-esteem and greater motivation; notes that imparting life skills and providing informal training can make a major contribution in this respect;

14.

Calls for all barriers that hamper active ageing to be monitored and removed and for lifelong learning to be supported, particularly with regard to the acquisition of new qualifications and technical skills, such as computer and foreign language skills; stresses that active ageing and life-long learning among older men and women should become regular features of working life and that these policies should be constantly monitored, evaluated and improved;

15.

Calls, in the new OPs, for a more uniform approach to the choice of target groups and the use of labour market data at national level, in order to set ambitious but realistic targets; notes, given the future importance of the growing cohort of older workers, that preparations for the OPs should also include a dialogue on the prioritisation of target groups;

16.

Is concerned about the fact that some of the goals and indicators used in the projects had no direct connection with the ESF interventions, making it difficult to assess their performance, for example determining their success or failure with regard to achieving the macro-economic targets set in the OPs, given that this is beyond the remit of the ESF’s actions, as they depend to a large extent on external factors such as the economic environment, social protection schemes and conditions for local public or private investment;

17.

Finds it regrettable that none of the OPs included medium-term milestones, nor established an appropriate hierarchy among the different quantified goals to be reached, which would have allowed MAs to implement corrective action as soon as possible;

18.

Deplores the fact that the Commission is therefore unable to report adequately on the overall results and impact of activities aimed at improving the situation for older workers in Member States funded by the ESF;

19.

Strongly believes that the Commission should reinforce the way OP performance is assessed; strongly encourages the introduction of a clearly stated set of standardised performance data (which is reliable, verifiable and timely) for future programmes, which could be, when appropriate, aggregated at EU level for the programming period 2014-2020;

20.

Welcomes the fact that the new focus of the Common Strategic Framework funds for the next programming period 2014-2020 is on results, under which any measure proposed must be designed to achieve a specific objective;

21.

Stresses that setting clear priorities in the new OPs with a view to achieving results will enable synergies to be found between the various funds and other sources of financing, thereby helping to ensure that measures to achieve the proposed objectives are as effective as possible at both national and transnational level;

22.

Believes it necessary for the indicators used under the new OPs to include alerts in respect of financial and physical factors, and welcomes the fact that these are subject to special monitoring so that the reasons for any deviation from a given threshold in respect of the programmed objectives is analysed by the evaluation unit in cooperation with the intermediary bodies for the programmes, with a view to determining whether the deviations are caused by temporary situations or structural problems requiring more in-depth analysis or, where necessary, modifications to the programme;

23.

Believes it also necessary to monitor whether or not changes occur in the socio-economic context and in the national and/or Union priorities, and whether problems arise when the OPs are being implemented which require a programme to be evaluated and substantially modified;

24.

Calls for the systematic use of relevant performance indicators such as operational goals, result targets and specific impact targets to be included from the project condition stage so that the 2014-2020 ESF programmes can improve not only the amount and quality of the data collected on ‘older workers’ in the labour market but also the decision-making process;

25.

Calls on the Member States, in the next programming period, to apply and complement as appropriate the common indicators provided for in the ESF Regulation in order to establish how many older workers, disaggregated by gender, have participated in ESF-funded projects with a focus on workplace adaptation, acquisition of skills, an improved labour-market situation for individuals, or finding a job, and how many of them have gained new qualifications, improved their situation on the labour market or found a job after having benefited from projects financed by the ESF;

26.

Recalls that, overall, it is necessary for the projects to properly reflect the OPs’ goals in order to reduce the risk of not meeting the initial objectives set; calls for MAs to systematically check the existence of this link in order to select the best projects;

27.

Strongly encourages stakeholders to improve methodology where appropriate in order to move on from a simplistic approach concerning disbursement or actual costs to an integrated approach towards best performance in management projects;

28.

Invites the Commission to verify the submission and quality of the data supplied by the OPs more thoroughly and to produce a guide containing operational advice which is made available to the Member States;

29.

Takes the view that any monitoring system should rely on the effective documentation of checks carried out on the OPs in order to obtain a satisfactory level of insurance;

30.

Welcomes the fact that MAs generally defined the monitoring data they required clearly; recalls, nevertheless, that monitoring and evaluation systems should allow for the timely and periodic verification of progress made towards the established objectives and for the possibility of reacting quickly to significant divergences from them;

31.

Calls for more precise regulatory requirements regarding the evaluations requested from the MAs, and for OPs a minimum set of topics, to be covered in the evaluation process to be defined; calls for efforts to be made to ensure that lessons learned from programme management are duly taken into account in future decision making;

32.

Calls on the Commission gradually to rebalance and enhance its management tools so as to move from simply monitoring compliance — on the basis of legality/regularity principles — towards measuring the progress in achieving the target values and the performance of the use of ESF in the forthcoming period 2014-2020; recalls that successfully establishing a robust performance framework, with clear and measurable aims and targets which provide accountability and results, is key to maximising the impact on growth and jobs and requires common and equivalent efforts from the Commission and the Member States;

33.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to improve the performance assessment of OPs in the 2014-2020 programming period and the inclusion of a set of common output and result indicators, including long-term result indicators, in the ESF regulation;

34.

Encourages the Commission, in this regard, to step up its collaboration with other international institutions, such as the OECD, on the basis of specific assessments for disadvantaged groups or vulnerable workers categories and by identifying concrete measures to help Member States better define key priorities, strategies and sustainable projects eligible for ESF funding in the forthcoming 2014-2020 period;

35.

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

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/8

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council — An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen — Stockholm programme (1),

—

having regard to the European Council’s ‘Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens’ (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs under Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0153/2014),

1.

Believes that the Treaty of Lisbon and the recognition of the legally binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union have brought significant improvements and strengthened the constitutional basis for the EU institutions and the Member States to achieve the objective of establishing an area of freedom, security and justice, but observes that some areas require additional efforts, in particular as regards their implementation; considers that this objective requires the Treaties and secondary law to be applied evenly throughout the EU; agrees, therefore, that opt-outs or special regimes should be avoided, and where possible removed; requests that the Commission and the Council Presidency better fulfil their obligation to inform Parliament ‘immediately and fully at all stages of the procedure’ leading to the conclusion of international agreements; regrets the delays in bringing the acts of the former third pillar into line with the new hierarchy of norms — basic, delegated and implementing acts — in accordance with the Treaty of Lisbon and the new institutional structure;

2.

Takes the view that the extension of the use of the ordinary legislative procedure has made law-making more legitimate and brought it closer to the people by giving Parliament, the only directly elected Union institution, a greater degree of influence; believes that in a future Treaty revision the remaining exceptions to the use of the ordinary legislative procedure should be removed;

3.

Notes that, in its communication of 20 April 2010 entitled ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens — Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’ (COM(2010)0171), the Commission argued in favour of ‘greater ambition in responding to the day-to-day concerns and aspirations of people in Europe’ and emphasised that the ‘Union must be able to react to unexpected events, swift in seizing opportunities and in anticipating and adapting to future trends’;

4.

Recalls the application of the EU ordinary legislative procedure as a principle encompassing the decision-making process in a wider range of policies relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, the Treaty requirement to take decisions ‘as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen’ and the increased need for flexibility; calls on the Commission to make use of its right to initiate legislation, with full respect for its competences as established by the Treaties and the principles laid down therein, including subsidiarity, and in close cooperation with the co-legislators;

5.

Takes the view that the greater role played by national parliaments in the activities of the Union, as enshrined in Protocols Nos 1 (on the role of national parliaments in the European Union) and 2 (on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality) to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, has had a positive impact on the development and functioning of the area of freedom, security and justice in particular, not only because the subsidiarity principle is now more likely to be complied with, but also because the broader and closer involvement of the peoples of Europe in the democratic process has made a significant contribution to law-making and to European policymaking;

6.

Calls for strengthened cooperation and dialogue between national parliaments and the European Parliament, and between EU institutions and bodies in general and national parliaments, so to ensure that, as far as possible, information on EU initiatives is made available directly and promptly by EU institutions and bodies to national parliaments;

7.

Notes that, even in the absence of an agreement on a uniform electoral procedure for the European Parliament elections, electoral systems are gradually becoming more similar, in particular as a result of the establishment of political parties and political foundations at EU level, the work done on drawing up a European statute based on the Commission proposal for a reform of the rules governing European political parties and the ban on holding a dual mandate, which has made the office of Member of the European Parliament incompatible with that of member of a national parliament; encourages more transparent procedures for the nomination of candidates, which guarantee their independence;

8.

Takes the view that the public should be made more aware of Parliament’s democratic role and that European election campaigns should focus on genuinely European issues;

9.

Takes the view, therefore, that a reform of the electoral procedure will be required in the future in order to enhance Parliament’s legitimacy and effectiveness in accordance with the principles laid down in the Treaties; considers that a reform of this kind will encourage EU citizens to take part in European elections in their Member State of residence if they are not nationals of that state;

10.

Welcomes, nevertheless, as a first step, the adoption of Council Directive 2013/1/EU of 20 December 2012 amending Directive 93/109/EC as regards certain detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for citizens of the Union residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (3), in that it relaxes the requirements which EU citizens resident in a Member State of which they are not nationals must meet if they wish to stand as candidates in European elections; urges that the bureaucratic barriers which still hamper participation in the European elections by EU citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals be eliminated, and encourages cooperation among the Member States with a view to stamping out this scourge that jeopardises the EU’s democratic standards; reiterates that further steps need to be taken in order to guarantee every EU citizen the right to vote regardless of their actual state of residence;

11.

Welcomes the adoption of the regulation on the European citizens’ initiative (4), which grants EU citizens the same powers to make policy proposals as those already enjoyed by Parliament and the Council;

12.

Takes the view that the citizens’ initiative can play a key role in identifying matters which should be dealt with at EU level and enhances the legitimacy of the policymaking procedure at EU level;

13.

Deplores, however, the technical problems encountered by the organisers of citizens’ initiatives and calls on the Commission to resolve them;

14.

Points out that the effective application of the citizens' initiative is being hampered not only by technical problems, but also by financial problems stemming from a lack of budgetary resources;

15.

Considers that the EU should promote the highest level of protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all; takes the view that the chapter of the Stockholm Programme on promoting citizens’ rights is in line with this ambition; notes, however, that despite the advances made, the implementation of this chapter needs to be stepped up;

16.

Takes note of the Commission communication and recalls the positions adopted by Parliament on the establishment of a new EU rule of law framework to strengthen the Union’s capacity to to address the so-called ‘Copenhagen dilemma’ — a situation in which the Union sets high standards for candidate countries but lacks functional tools for the existing Member States whose aim must be to secure compliance by all Member States with the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU with a view to continuity of the ‘Copenhagen criteria’, pending the amendment of the regulation establishing the Fundamental Rights Agency (5), as repeatedly requested by Parliament;

17.

Welcomes, in this regard the Commission communication entitled ‘A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law’ (COM(2014)0158), and looks forward to cooperating with the Commission on the effective implementation of the framework; stresses, however, that a regular assessment of Member States’ compliance with the fundamental values of the EU as set out in Article 2 TEU remains necessary; acknowledges the special role given to the expertise and advice of the Venice Commission, and recalls that the FRA, judicial networks and other independent expertise bodies should also contribute to the assessment of threats to the rule of law;

18.

Fears that the economic crisis may develop into a crisis of democracy and believes that strong political impetus and the transparent functioning of democratic institutions at national and European level are needed in order to defend democratic achievement, the rule of law and fundamental rights, to combat the rise of populism in Europe and to further strengthen EU citizenship; is concerned by the manifestation of open intolerance to the mobility of EU citizens, with the aim of undermining the rights of workers from some new Member States;

19.

Considers that greater attention must be given to responding to the particular situation of vulnerable groups and strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, religious intolerance, Islamophobia, anti-Gypsyism, homophobia and transphobia;

20.

Takes the view that the adoption and effective implementation of legislation tackling hate crime and hate speech, and those who promote, support and commit hate crime and hate speech, are paramount and calls for the further development of such legislation in full accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

21.

Regrets the lack of progress on the implementation of the national Roma integration strategies and the continuing acts of racism towards and discrimination against Roma across the EU, including the segregation of Roma children in education; calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to enforce the fundamental rights and social inclusion of Roma by implementing, as soon as possible, the recommendations set out in the Council Recommendation of 9 December 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (6); calls on the Commission and the Member States to support Roma organisations financially and to involve them in all policies affecting Roma;

22.

Underlines the fact that the principle of universality applies to fundamental rights and equal treatment; urges the Council, therefore, to adopt the proposal for an antidiscrimination directive; regrets the inadequacy of policies on integrating people with disabilities and of the extent to which their rights are taken into account;

23.

Welcomes the adoption of Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (7), which pays special attention to the protection of disadvantaged groups such as women and children; underlines the frequent victimisation of these groups through all types of violence, including domestic violence; recommends the in-depth investigation, identification and prosecution of such severe violations of human rights; welcomes the adoption of Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order (8) and Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (9) (the Anti-Trafficking Directive); calls on the Member States to transpose and implement those directives as soon as possible;

24.

Refers to its inquiry into the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens; reiterates the serious concern it expressed in its resolution of 4 July 2013 on the US National Security Agency surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens' privacy (10); considers mass surveillance to present a serious challenge to the Union principles of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and insists on the organisation of proper and effective parliamentary and judicial oversight and security at EU and national level; considers it essential that more checks and balances be put in place, in particular through the adoption of the EU legal framework on the protection of data, which should ensure full respect for fundamental rights; considers that action must be taken in relation to surveillance threatening the internal security of the EU; calls on the European Council to address the recommendations and calls made in 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;

25.

Considers that a proper accountability process is crucial in order to protect and promote human rights effectively and to pursue legitimate and effective security policies based on the rule of law; calls on the Commission to propose an accountability mechanism aimed at strengthening the capacity of the EU and of its Member States to prevent, investigate and redress human rights violations at EU level, in particular those committed in the context of the alleged transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA;

26.

Emphasises that the accession of the Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as provided for by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, will strengthen even further the protection of fundamental rights in the Union, as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law of the Court of Justice;

27.

Notes that acceding to that convention will provide citizens, along with other people for whom the Union has a responsibility, with protection in the context of Union action, similar to that which they already enjoy in the context of action by individual Member States; points out that this is all the more relevant because the Member States have transferred significant competences to the Union, in particular in the policy spheres covered by the area of freedom, security and justice;

28.

Welcomes the draft agreement reached by the 47 Council of Europe member states and the EU on the latter’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, and awaits the positive opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the agreed text; calls for Parliament and the Council to ratify the agreement rapidly upon the final ruling of the CJEU;

29.

Welcomes the fact that acceding to the convention will offer citizens, along with other people for whom the Union has a responsibility, vital extra protection, in particular in the context of the area of freedom, security and justice; underlines the excessively long deadline for concluding accession negotiations and deplores the fact that the EU has still not effectively acceded to the convention; recalls that the EU’s accession depends on ratification not only by its Member States, but also by the other States Parties to the convention; calls on all parties concerned to proceed with ratification as soon as possible;

30.

Strongly condemns the blockage and delays experienced by the EU in the negotiations for its accession to the ECHR and calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to accelerate the procedures for the EU’s accession to the ECHR and to reject any future further attempt to undermine the role, competences and powers of the ECHR in relation to citizens' and residents’ human rights and fundamental freedoms;

31.

Calls for the review of the Access to Documents Regulation (11) to be adopted on the basis of Parliament’s proposals;

32.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop specific tools based on new information and communication technologies in order to share best practices in the fight against discrimination at European level;

33.

Stresses the importance of taking the gender dimension into account in all strategies to integrate people with disabilities, immigrants, the Roma population and other minorities, and excluded people;

34.

Notes that the Stockholm Programme aims to facilitate the free movement of EU citizens and residents by defending and respecting all the rights and obligations deriving from a European area of justice, and that judicial cooperation represents the main tool for achieving this objective;

35.

Recognises that initiatives in the field of the mutual recognition of legal situations, judgments and documents play a very important role in this respect, as mutual recognition leaves the legal systems of Member States unchanged, but reduces financial and bureaucratic burdens and legal obstacles for citizens, families and businesses exercising their Treaty freedoms, while also respecting the rule of law and fundamental rights;

36.

Recalls that the Stockholm Programme contains a number of major initiatives in the field of civil law, including easier recognition of judgments, Union-wide validity of wills, easier procedures for the acceptance of public documents, simpler cross-border debt enforcement and Union initiatives in the field of legal training;

37.

Notes that only three pieces of legislation in this field have been adopted so far, namely the Brussels I recast (12), the Successions Regulation (13) and the Rome III Regulation (14), of which only the third is applicable today, and that, whereas the Commission has made a significant number of the proposals called for in the Stockholm Programme, several major proposals are still outstanding, including those relating to the mutual recognition of the effects of civil status documents and the 14th company law directive;

38.

Considers that mutual recognition requires that citizens and legal professionals trust one another’s legal institutions; notes that the strengthening of a truly European legal culture that fully respects fundamental rights and the principles of subsidiarity and of judicial independence, the establishment of common standards and an understanding of other legal systems, in particular through training, play a very important role in underpinning mutual recognition and trust; points out that mutual recognition and trust can lead to gradual changes in national civil law traditions through an exchange of best practices between Member States; considers that this exchange should not detract from the value of national legal traditions;

39.

Notes that legislative initiatives in the field of civil law have so far been focused largely on substantive law; calls for a greater focus on procedural law in the future;

40.

Encourages the Commission to work effectively towards the establishment of an International Judgments Convention which would pursue similar aims to the Brussels I regulation;

41.

Welcomes the proposal for a directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges (15); stresses the need to combat the persisting ‘glass ceiling’, which remains one of the main obstacles to the development of women’s career paths;

42.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the recognition of certain public documents, thus eliminating bureaucracy and closing the existing gap between the EU institutions and citizens;

43.

Calls on the Commission, in line with previous commitments and following repeated requests from Parliament, to pursue existing plans to issue a proposal — adopting an all-encompassing approach — for a regulation on the mutual recognition of the effects of all civil status documents in the EU, in order to eliminate discriminatory legal and administrative barriers for both male and female citizens and their families who wish to exercise their right to free movement, and to allow EU citizens and residents and their families to retain throughout the Union existing rights attached to civil statuses already legally recognised in several European jurisdictions;

44.

Reiterates its call for the adoption of a European code of private international law;

45.

Calls on the Commission to develop the e-Justice programme further in order to allow citizens direct online access to legal information and justice;

46.

Recognises the progress made to date with the roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings, including the adoption of directives on the right to interpretation and translation (16), on the right to information in criminal proceedings (17), and on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings (18); calls for their timely and correct transposition, and for training for government officials, judges, prosecutors and defence practitioners; reiterates that these measures are crucial to the proper functioning of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters, in particular as regards the implementation of measures based on the mutual recognition principle, such as the European arrest warrant, and that continuing progress on the protection of the rights of suspects and defendants is essential; takes note of the proposals on legal aid, the presumption of innocence and safeguards for children; strongly believes that legal aid in particular must be effectively guaranteed in order to ensure effective implementation of the directive on the right to access a lawyer; calls for a discussion on the protection of witnesses and whistleblowers; calls for the strengthening of the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings to be a priority for the post-Stockholm programme and recalls that the roadmap is not exhaustive;

47.

Regrets the fact that further work remains outstanding in relation to pre-trial detention, administrative detention and the detention of minors, in respect of which standards in many Member States fall short of human rights and other international standards; recognises the need for an assessment of the effectiveness of non-legislative work on existing framework decisions, for widespread recognition of the problems with pre-trial detention law and practice across Europe identified as part of the Commission’s consultation, and for a commitment to revisiting the case for establishing minimum and enforceable standards in relation to pre-trial detention through legislative action; calls on the Commission to revisit the case for establishing such standards in relation to pre-trial detention, administrative detention and detention of minors through legislative action;

48.

Strongly believes that consistency in the principles applied in the development of an EU criminal justice area should be a priority and that the EU institutions should cooperate closely with one another in this respect, as outlined in Parliament’s resolution of 22 May 2012 on an EU approach to criminal law (19);

49.

Believes that mutual trust between the Member States must be strengthened by harmonising fundamental rights compliance in relation to criminal procedures and taking common measures to ensure the proper administration of justice and of prisons, which are often at the root of the lack of trust between Member States, and that mutual recognition and harmonisation of EU criminal law cannot progress without serious feedback on the implementation of these rules at Member State level;

50.

Welcomes the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (COM(2013)0534); firmly believes that establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office would represent an important step in further developing an EU area of freedom, security and justice; welcomes, further, the proposal for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) (COM(2013)0535);

51.

Believes that greater efforts are needed in order to implement the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions concerning the enforcement of judgments in criminal cases;

52.

Believes that an effective, accessible, fair and fundamental-rights-compliant justice system is a powerful driver for democracy, the confidence and well-being of citizens and a prosperous economy;

53.

Welcomes the continued efforts of the EU institutions and the Member States to advance universal support and cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), as an essential means of securing justice for victims of crimes under international law and promoting respect for international humanitarian and human rights law; encourages all the Member States to conclude framework agreements with the ICC, in particular on witness relocation, interim release, relocation of acquitted persons and sentence enforcement; calls on the EU Member States, as States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC, to ensure that the ICC has the necessary resources to fulfil its mandate and deliver justice in a robust, fair and transparent manner;

54.

Stresses the need to provide proper training for officials (police, healthcare personnel, court staff, etc.) likely to come into contact with cases in which a person’s physical, psychological and sexual integrity is considered to be at risk, especially cases involving women who are victims of gender-based violence; calls on the Member States to support the work of civil society — particularly NGOs, women’s associations and other voluntary organisations providing specialist support — and to collaborate with such organisations in providing support to women victims of gender-based violence;

55.

Calls on the Member States to ratify the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, and on the Commission to propose negotiating guidelines for the EU’s accession to that convention without any further delay;

56.

Notes the progress made by the Member States and the Commission in the context of the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) and the EU policy cycle on organised and serious international crime, especially in the following fields; combating terrorism, transnational organised crime (including economic crime), cybercrime and cyber-facilitated crime such as child pornography; protection of critical infrastructure; and the fight against corruption, money laundering, terrorist funding, violent radicalisation and the trade in illegal firearms; points out, however, that further progress needs to be made in all these fields;

57.

Stresses that trafficking in human beings is a serious crime which particularly affects women and represents a violation of human rights and human dignity that the Union cannot tolerate; regrets the fact that the number of people being trafficked to and from the EU is rising, despite the entry into force of the Anti-Trafficking Directive in December 2011; calls on the Member States to increase their efforts to curb this worrying trend by ensuring that a common, coordinated and ambitious European strategy, along with legislation and measures to fight smuggling and trafficking in human beings and international organised criminal networks in this field, are developed and implemented in accordance with the directive, targeting women and minors in particular; stresses that action to combat trafficking in human beings, forced labour and irregular immigration and smuggling needs to focus on the root causes;

58.

Regrets the fact that the 2010-2013 EU action plan for strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security (CBRN) (COM(2009)0273) was not fully implemented or incorporated into national policymaking by the Member States; calls, therefore, for the EU and its Member States to strengthen regional and European-level cooperation and coordination in the CBRN field and, in this connection, also calls on the Council to ensure coordination between national authorities and the Counter-terrorism Coordinator;

59.

Urges the Commission to intensify and reinforce its efforts to protect the Union’s financial interests and to complete the delayed reform of the European Anti-Fraud Office, fully integrating data protection and suspects’ rights on the basis of proper criminal definitions;

60.

Welcomes the agreement reached on the proposal for a directive on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union (COM(2012)0085); points out that confiscating criminal assets is one of the most effective ways to combat criminal organisations;

61.

Strongly believes that the EU’s counterterrorism policy needs to address the radicalisation of groups/individuals in European societies and the apparent trend towards the individualisation of terrorist activities in our societies; calls for better coordination of all EU services with responsibilities in the implementation of the EU’s counterterrorism policies, namely the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator, Europol, the Council Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI), the Working Party on Terrorism (External Aspects) (COTER) and Eurojust;

62.

Finds it regrettable that the Commission communication of 10 April 2013 entitled ‘Second Report on the implementation of the EU Internal Security Strategy’ (COM(2013)0179) expresses scant criticism of activities carried out under the ISS, reasserting the same priorities as its initial communication of November 2010 and failing, in particular, to take account of the consequences of the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, most of the provisions of which apply not only to EU citizens but to everyone on EU territory;

63.

Recalls that Parliament is now a fully fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies, and is therefore entitled to participate actively in determining the features and priorities of the ISS and in evaluating those instruments, including through monitoring of the implementation of the ISS, to be conducted jointly by the European Parliament, national parliaments and the Council under Articles 70 and 71 TFEU; believes that Parliament should play a crucial role in the evaluation and definition of internal security policies, as they have a profound impact on the fundamental rights of all those living in the EU; emphasises, therefore, the need to ensure that these policies fall within the remit of the only directly elected European institution, which is responsible for scrutiny and democratic oversight;

64.

Believes that a proper evaluation of the implementation, effects and concrete results of policies and legislation in the internal security field, an analysis of the security threats to be addressed, consideration of the principles of proportionality and necessity, and a democratic debate are essential conditions for an effective ISS;

65.

Points out that the current ISS will come to an end in 2014; calls on the Commission to start preparing a new ISS for the 2015 to 2019 period which takes account of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into Union law; calls on the Council to take proper account of Parliament’s input in respect of the new ISS before adopting the new strategy; takes note of Europol’s analyses, including its risk analysis, in this connection;

66.

Acknowledges that cross-border crime is on the increase in the EU and underlines, therefore, the importance of sufficient funding for agencies working in the area of law enforcement cooperation; believes that the current ‘landscape’ of the different instruments, channels and tools for European law enforcement information exchange is complicated and scattered, leading to inefficient use of the instruments available and to inadequate democratic oversight and accountability at EU level; calls for a future-oriented vision of how to shape and optimise law enforcement data-sharing in the EU while guaranteeing fundamental rights, including a robust level of data protection; notes the need to boost law enforcement authorities’ confidence in one another so as to step up the exchange of information;

67.

Rejects the concept of predictive policing without an initial suspicion, in particular the EU passenger name record proposal and the idea of an EU terrorist finance tracking system; calls on the Commission to repeal the Data Retention Directive (20);

68.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the Member States to set up aid centres in areas notorious for prostitution in order to provide victims with immediate psychological and physical assistance;

69.

Calls on the Commission to come forward quickly with proposals for bringing cross-border police cooperation instruments adopted under the former third pillar — such as the Prüm Decision and the Swedish Initiative — under the legal framework of the Lisbon Treaty;

70.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal for the new Europol regulation, based on the new legal basis provided for in the Treaty of Lisbon, and hopes that this important legislative file will advance quickly, in full accordance with the principles of the Treaty, so that Europol can fulfil its role more effectively in fighting organised cross-border crime;

71.

Regrets the fact that the EU does not yet have the proper resources to prevent and respond to natural or man-made disasters;

72.

Welcomes the conclusion of the negotiations on the Schengen Governance Package; calls on the Commission to play its role fully as coordinator of the Schengen evaluations and as guardian of the Treaties, in order to avoid any situation that could endanger the functioning of the Schengen area; recalls that the Schengen area depends on mutual trust and that each Member State fulfils its obligations, including the control of external borders, in accordance with the provisions of the Schengen Borders Code, comprising also the use of available technologies; highlights the importance of tackling trafficking and smuggling at borders, including the trafficking of migrants; reiterates its position that the Schengen area should, without further delay, be enlarged to include Romania and Bulgaria;

73.

Considers the absence of controls at internal borders as one of the major achievements of European integration; asks the Commission to pay particular attention to the absence of controls at internal borders, and firmly rejects all attempts to limit the free movement of people which are not in line with the acquis;

74.

Acknowledges that the Schengen area is unique and has so far been developed step by step; takes the view, however, that long-term reflection on its further development is necessary; believes that the Schengen external borders should in the future be guarded with the support of European border guards whose training includes human rights standards;

75.

Welcomes the reform of the mandate of Frontex and the agreement on Eurosur; welcomes the new rules on the surveillance of sea borders with which saving the lives of migrants as well as respect for the human rights of migrants and asylum-seekers, including the principle of non-refoulement, have also become priorities; recalls that international law, the acquis and, in particular, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights should be observed by the Union and its Member States in the context of interventions on the high seas or when carrying out the surveillance of the Union’s external borders;

76.

Expresses deep sadness and regret at the tragic loss of life at the borders of the EU, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea; reiterates its opinion that the events off Lampedusa should be a turning point for the EU, and that the only way to prevent another tragedy is to adopt a coordinated approach based on solidarity and responsibility, supported by common instruments;

77.

Calls on the Commission to provide information on the situation at detention centres, including as regards respect for human rights, and to bring forward initiatives concerning the operation of such centres in the future;

78.

Expresses alarm at the increasing number of deaths, particularly at sea, and of human rights abuses in the course of irregular migrants’ attempts to enter the EU; asks the Commission to inform Parliament prior to the conclusion of any agreement between Frontex and a third country; insists that such agreements must provide for stringent safeguards to ensure full respect for human rights standards, including with regard to return, joint patrolling, search and rescue, and interception operations;

79.

Recalls the key role of Frontex and the European Police College in training law enforcement personnel and border guards to execute European judicial and law enforcement which respects migrants’ human rights;

80.

Strongly endorses the European Council’s call for Frontex’s role to be reinforced in accordance with the Stockholm Programme in order to increase its capacity to respond more effectively to changing migration flows;

81.

Regrets the late migration to the Schengen Information System II and the increased costs incurred; welcomes the continued roll-out of the Visa Information System and the setting-up of the eu-LISA agency to handle their operational management; stresses that these new systems now need to stand the test of everyday use; reiterates its request that ‘new border management instruments or large-scale data storage systems should not be launched until the existing tools are necessary, fully operational, safe and reliable’; expresses deep concern at the reported hacks into the Schengen Information System and believes that the issue of outsourcing activities related to the management and operation of large-scale European IT systems should be discussed; calls on the Commission to present the evaluations of these systems provided for in the respective legal instruments in time; deplores the lack of progress regarding the use of secure breeder documents;

82.

Welcomes the progress made in the field of the visa acquis, but also calls for better implementation of existing rules; considers that common visa application centres have proven to be a useful tool which could become the standard in the future; believes that an interinstitutional discussion on the objectives of the common visa policy should define the steps to be taken towards further harmonisation of visa procedures, including common rules on the issuing of visas; calls for the conclusion of further visa facilitation agreements and the monitoring and improvement of existing ones;

83.

Calls on the Member States to make use of the current provisions of the Visa Code and the Schengen Borders Code allowing the issuing of humanitarian visas, and to facilitate the provision of temporary shelter for human rights defenders at risk in third countries;

84.

Calls on the EU institutions and the Member States to increase workers’ mobility by allowing temporary visas and facilitating the re-application process for those already in the system; considers that this would increase worker mobility effectively by guaranteeing legal certainty and increasing internal mobility within the EU;

85.

Calls on the Commission to further improve existing visa facilitation agreements between the Union and its eastern neighbours and to work towards a visa-free travel area enabling people-to-people contact;

86.

Recalls that in the Stockholm Programme the European Council stressed ‘that well-managed migration can be beneficial to all stakeholders’; expects further progress to be made in the adoption of legislation in the field of legal migration, and calls for greater efforts in the future, given the demographic challenges and the needs of the economy; believes, at the same time, that the integration of migrants requires greater attention;

87.

Calls on the European institutions and Member State governments to raise awareness among the wider public and employers of the EU Immigration Portal; calls on the Commission to monitor the transposition of the Blue Card Directive and to report on its application as provided for in the directive;

88.

Calls as a matter of urgency for greater transparency, requiring each Member State to report annually on the progress of each specific minority group in matters of labour market integration and equality policy impacts; encourages the European Commission to deliver an ‘annual trend report’ reflecting the comparable indicators on social cohesion that have been agreed upon and put forth as targets, including EU-wide monitoring of the situation of newcomers, long-term residents, naturalised migrants and the children of migrants, broken down by equality grounds (i.e. ethnic/racial, religion/belief, gender, age, sexual orientation and disability), so as to measure progress in social inclusion policies over time; considers that the Open Method of Coordination should be applied to this end;

89.

Acknowledges that the recent changes and turmoil in Northern Africa and the Middle East have intensified the pressure on the EU’s eastern and southern borders;

90.

Welcomes the adoption of the asylum package; calls on the Commission to monitor the correct implementation of the package by the Member States as from the date of application and to take the necessary steps to ensure that national legislation is in line with the case law; suggests that henceforth the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) include this new legislation in its training programmes;

91.

Calls for the establishment of a gender focal point in the EASO;

92.

Regrets the continuing and systematic practice of detaining migrants in detention centres as recently underlined by the UN Human Rights Council; calls for alternatives to detention to be further developed and implemented, including regularisation of undocumented migrants on the basis of clear criteria;

93.

Believes that, in the context of the Dublin system, the possibility of suspending transfers to Member States under significant pressure should be considered in the future;

94.

Deeply deplores the failure to make the principles of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, as laid down in Article 80 TFEU, a reality; believes that accentuated, more concrete measures will be necessary in the future, in particular for Member States receiving higher numbers of migrants and asylum applications; calls for the introduction of a coherent, voluntary permanent intra-EU relocation scheme for beneficiaries of international protection;

95.

Believes that the external dimension of asylum policy in relation to resettlement and protected entry procedures should be expanded; regrets the so far limited involvement of Member States in resettlement;

96.

Expresses deep concern about the fate of third-country nationals (TCNs) and stateless persons readmitted under EU readmission agreements (EURAs), including cases of indefinite detention, legal limbo or refoulement to their country of origin, and requests the exclusion of TCN clauses from these agreements; underlines the importance of implementing the recommendations made in the Commission’s evaluation of readmission agreements;

97.

Notes the importance of a strengthened external dimension for European policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, and calls for cooperation with third countries to be strengthened at all levels in the areas of security, migration, fundamental rights and border management;

98.

Points out that the European Union and the Member States should continue to integrate immigration into development cooperation and strengthen their partnership agreements, with a view to promoting cooperation with third countries of origin and transit on tackling people-trafficking and irregular immigration, the restoration of family ties, return and readmission, in the context of the regular dialogue which the European Union conducts with these countries and the action carried out by the European External Action Service (EEAS); calls for solidarity with third countries located near countries experiencing civil conflict that take in refugees who are fleeing this conflict;

99.

Stresses the need to encourage voluntary return policies;

100.

Stresses that the Treaty on European Union (TEU) places human rights, democracy and the rule of law at the centre of both internal and external EU policies, as provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 21 TEU, and consequently believes that respect for, and the protection and promotion of, these values should be developed in a coherent manner, so that the EU is credible on the world stage; views as regrettable the Commission’s continued refusal to draft a Human Rights Action Plan to promote EU values in the external dimension of freedom, security and justice policies, as called for in the Stockholm Programme;

101.

Urges the Commission and the EEAS to take practical steps to ensure greater coherence and consistency between internal and external EU policies;

102.

Strongly believes that the EU and its Member States should not sign agreements with third countries in the field of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) where there is a serious risk of human rights violations and where the rule of law is not upheld; stresses that any agreements in this field should be concluded after a careful human rights impact assessment and should include a suspension clause relating to human rights;

103.

Expresses concern at the increasing demands being placed on neighbourhood countries in connection with the EU’s migration and border management policies; calls for a human-rights-based approach to EU migration and border management such that the rights of regular and irregular migrants and other vulnerable groups are always the first consideration; recalls the extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the implementation of EU migration policy, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights;

104.

Calls for better coordination between the human rights dialogues and the subcommittees on ‘justice, freedom and security’ established under agreements with third countries, in particular the countries covered by in the European Neighbourhood Policy and, more generally, all those affected by readmission agreements;

105.

Calls on the Commission to propose actions to protect and provide assistance to women who are victims of trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation through measures including the development of compensation schemes, safe return, reintegration aid in the host country in cases of voluntary return, assistance and aid during their stay in the EU, and cooperation with the authorities in the countries of origin in order to protect the families of victims of trafficking and sexual exploitation;

106.

Believes that the policy-making process needs to be of the highest standard possible; considers that the definition of problems, the discussion of possible solutions and the choice between possible options should follow a sequential order; notes that a greater research effort is required at European level and that closer cooperation and better information-sharing between the European institutions and agencies and the Member States would improve the creation and implementation of policy;

107.

Deplores the absence of an objective evaluation of progress towards an area of freedom, security and justice and of reliable information on the Member States’ implementation of the acquis;

108.

Proposes a systematic, objective and independent ex-post evaluation of legislation and its implementation, which should also assess the continuing need for legislation in this area; points out, in particular, the importance of conducting impact assessments at the Commission, Parliament and the Council for this purpose, while maintaining standards and avoiding excessive bureaucracy;

109.

Welcomes the initiative of the Commission in drawing up the EU Justice Scoreboard, which aims to ensure a high-quality justice system in the area of civil, commercial and administrative law, since at the end of the day the concrete application of laws is in the hands of the courts;

110.

Stresses that high-quality justice systems can play a key role in restoring confidence, bringing about a return to growth, and contributing to trust and stability; points out that predictable, timely and enforceable judicial decisions are important structural components of an attractive business environment, as outlined in the Commission communication entitled ‘The EU Justice scoreboard, a tool to promote effective justice and growth’ (COM(2013)0160);

111.

Asks the Commission to put more emphasis on overseeing and ensuring the concrete implementation of EU legislation by the Member States; considers that this must be a political priority in view of the wide gap which is often observed between policies adopted at European level and their implementation at national level; points out that any strategic planning must draw on the experience of past implementation and that such planning must therefore not consist merely of a list of objectives and priorities but must, rather, plan ahead with a view to assessing implementation; notes that, where the rights of citizens and residents are concerned, this needs to be done as of the first day an act enters into force; considers that more needs to be done to achieve proper implementation, including by means of coordination and cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and agencies, and of assisting Member States via guidelines, practical support and exchange of best practice; takes the view that the reasons for any failure to implement EU legislation should be identified and addressed, if necessary through infringement procedures;

112.

Is of the opinion that improving the quality of EU legislation in the area of freedom, security and justice requires a joint effort by the Member States and the European institutions in order to improve the exchange of information on each national system and to provide accurate legal information (on national/regional applicable legislation and standards), as well as information on implementation and practices; calls for better interinstitutional coordination;

113.

Regrets the fact that the Council does not involve Parliament more closely in the drawing up of strategy documents, such as the drugs strategy and the internal security strategy;

114.

Considers that the development of a European judicial culture is a key prerequisite for making the area of freedom, security and justice a reality for citizens and ensuring better application of EU law; calls, with this in mind, for much greater emphasis on, and funding for, EU judicial training for all legal professionals; notes the importance of using a ‘bottom-up’ approach for judicial training schemes, of ensuring greater accessibility of European law information resources via web technology (i.e. an e-justice portal), of improving knowledge of European law and language skills among the judiciary, of establishing and maintaining networks in this field, and of any other measures to facilitate judicial cooperation on a day-to-day basis in order to ensure mutual trust and consequent cooperation and mutual recognition;

115.

Is of the opinion that guidance, coherence and benchmarks for the area of freedom, security and justice are necessary; considers that such objectives require a proper programming to be prepared in the spirit of the Treaty of Lisbon in a joint exercise between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

116.

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

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/21

—

having regard to the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy,

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 21, 24 and 36 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

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

—

having regard to Article 21(3) TEU, which stipulates that the High Representative shall assist the Council and the Commission in ensuring consistency between the different areas of the Union’s external action,

—

having regard to Article 24(3) TEU, which states that the Member States shall support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area, that they shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations and that the Council and the High Representative shall ensure compliance with these principles,

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 14 December 2012,

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Common Security Defence Policy of 6 September 2013,

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the HR/VP to the European Parliament and the Council of 11 December 2013 on the EU's comprehensive approach to external conflict and crises (JOIN(2013)0030),

—

having regard to its recommendation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission, to the Council and to the Commission of 13 June 2013 on the 2013 review of the organisation and functioning of the EEAS (1) and to the EEAS Review 2013 presented by the High Representative in July 2013 (2),

—

having regard to Parliament’s resolutions on the CFSP and the CSDP, in particular its resolution of 22 November 2012 on the Role of the Common Security and Defence Policy in cases of climate-driven crisis and natural disasters (3),

—

having regard to the European Consensus on Development,

—

having regard to the report of 15 October 2013 by the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission on the Common Security and Defence Policy,

—

having regard to the EEAS report on the revision of CSDP crisis management procedures, adopted by the Political and Security Committee (PSC) on 18 June 2013,

—

having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0138/2014),

A.

whereas it is already a requirement of the Lisbon Treaty and the current decision-making processes to ‘ensure consistency between the different areas of the Union’s external action and between these and its other policies’; whereas this objective would benefit from Parliament playing a greater role in external relations;

B.

whereas comprehensiveness refers not only to the joined-up deployment of EU instruments and resources, but also to the shared responsibility of EU-level actors and Member States, whose policies, actions and support should contribute to more coherent and more effective EU external action;

C.

whereas with the Lisbon Treaty the EU has recently acquired new instruments of external action which enable it to develop a more active, unified and genuine EU foreign policy;

1.

Considers that significant geostrategic changes are taking place, owing in particular to the rise of a multipolar international scene with new actors pursuing competitive regional and global ambitions, growing interdependency, the rise of multidimensional asymmetric threats, the refocusing of US security policy towards the Asia-Pacific, the growing struggle over energy and resource security, the increasingly serious effects of climate change and a severe and long-lasting global financial and economic crisis affecting all EU Member States;

2.

Stresses that in such a geopolitical climate, the EU must preserve and promote its values, interests and stability on the global stage, as well as protect the security and prosperity of its citizens; stresses that this demands a fresh approach to shaping, in cooperation with our strategic partners, a new multipolar world order that is inclusive, credible, just, cooperative, underpinned by respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy and aims to achieve the resolution of differences without recourse to armed conflict;

3.

Emphasises that the strength of the EU lies in its potential to mobilise resources across the full range of diplomatic, security, defence, economic, trade, development and humanitarian instruments — in full compliance with the provisions of the UN Charter — and that using these instruments in a comprehensive approach (CA) gives it a unique flexibility to effectively address the most challenging international issues and achieve its own policy goals;

4.

Stresses the importance of effective coordination and coherence in the European Union’s external action; agrees with the view that the development, political and security spheres are interdependent and that the added value provided by the EU in responding to complex emergencies lies in its ability to create cross-sectoral and interinstitutional synergies in order to deliver sustainable results on the ground and achieve long-term strategic objectives;

5.

Stresses that the CA is today considered by all relevant international actors (including multilateral organisations and states) to be the best way to frame an efficient response to multidimensional crises and to promote human security globally, directly coming from long-standing recognition that attempting to bring stability by means solely of a single approach is likely to fail;

6.

Recalls notably that the United Nations has developed, since 2006, the concept of an ‘integrated approach’ to conflict and post-conflict situations and that NATO's members adopted, at the 2010 Lisbon Summit, a new Strategic Concept calling for a comprehensive approach to crisis management;

7.

Underlines the fact that the Lisbon Treaty provides the framework for the Union to achieve a more coherent, joined-up and comprehensive approach for the effective pursuit of the Union’s external relations, including by creating the triple-hatted High Representative (HR) of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, who is also Vice-President of the Commission and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Council, and by establishing a unifying and effective European External Action Service (EEAS);

8.

Regrets that, despite the Lisbon Treaty innovations, lack of progress in the consistency of the Union’s external action persists in areas relating to security, humanitarian matters, development, trade, energy, environment, migration and other global issues; is concerned that the Commission often takes a restrictive approach, protecting its own competences in these areas and minimising coordination functions with the EEAS;

9.

Urges the Member States to meet their Treaty-based commitments to support the Union’s external relations and security policy actively and in a spirit of mutual solidarity and to comply, in conducting their own policies, with the Union’s action in this area; calls on the Member States to play a constructive role by promoting strategic policy coordination at EU level; stresses that the EU foreign policy can only be effective if the Member States are willing and able to formulate common policy lines, particularly within multilateral organisations, such as the United Nations;

10.

Welcomes the joint communication on the EU’s comprehensive approach to external conflicts and crises of 11 December 2013; regrets, however, that it relies more on existing processes rather than trying to explore new concrete ways to facilitate institutional and practical cooperation;

11.

Insists that the CA is the common responsibility of all EU actors in EU institutions, in EU Member States and on the ground in third countries, and that, at the same time, it must fully respect the specific competencies of each institution and actor;

12.

Calls for active engagement and dialogue with citizens and civil society to ensure legitimacy and a common understanding of the CA and the EU foreign policy in general;

13.

Believes that as a basis for moving from concept to action in the pursuit of a CA, the following four areas must be addressed;

14.

Believes that the concept of a CA should be understood as the coordinated work of all relevant institutions (the EEAS and the Commission’s relevant services, including ECHO, DEVCO, TRADE and ELARG, but also Parliament and the Council) pursuing common objectives within an agreed framework designed at EU level, and mobilising its most relevant instruments, including the CSDP when the security situation so requires; believes that, so far, institutional and procedural shortfalls have largely prevented such coherent EU external action in most crisis areas where the EU has acted damaging the EU’s credibility as a global actor and security provider;

15.

Recalls that the Lisbon Treaty created the EEAS and the triple-hatted HR/VP to provide unity, consistency, visibility and effectiveness to the EU’s external action; underlines the fact that, so far, the potential of all three roles has not been fully exploited; calls for the vital coordinating role of the HR/VP as Vice-President of the Commission to be reinforced within the Commission itself, through institutionalised regular meetings of the RELEX college of Commissioners, chaired by the HR/VP and enlarged to include other relevant Commissioners; calls for an immediate reform of the EEAS based on the 2013 review and Parliament’s guidelines in order to make the best use of scarce financial resources;

16.

Stresses that whilst cooperation is essential, the competencies and procedures of all institutions and Member States must be fully respected; calls, therefore, on all EU actors to act in good faith and to do their best to allow the pursuit of a CA;

17.

Believes that a CA requires responsive, flexible and efficient structures in the EEAS; recalls its view that the EEAS institutional set-up should be streamlined to ensure effective decision-making and use of its instruments, including CSDP civilian and military instruments, as requested in Parliament’s 2013 report on the matter;

18.

Underlines that the development of the CA should also ensure gender mainstreaming and balance in the formulation, development and implementation of all Union external actions;

19.

Stresses the important role of mediation and dialogue in preventing and resolving conflicts peacefully; commends the progress the EEAS has made in strengthening its mediation capacities, reiterates its support for further enhancing Europe’s capacities in this field and calls for mediation to be made an important standard feature of any future CA for a specific crisis region; stresses Parliament’s role in formulating and monitoring common foreign policy and calls on the next Parliament to ensure its effectiveness and, above all, its coherence; draws attention to Parliament’s engagement to actively participate in election observation, mediation and democracy support; believes that Parliament’s involvement in mediation processes in Ukraine and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) has demonstrated the important role parliamentarians can play in this field;

20.

Recalls that special attention must be paid to respecting the principles of humanitarian aid (independence, impartiality, neutrality); believes that safe access to affected populations and the security of humanitarian workers rely above all on how they are perceived by influential actors in the field, and that they should be seen as independent from any partisan political consideration; points out, however, that the Commission’s humanitarian aid and civil protection (ECHO) service is still part of the EU and, consequently, strongly believes that more should be done to enhance cooperation and coordination between ECHO and the EEAS;

21.

Welcomes the Joint Communication of 11 December 2013, ‘The EU’s comprehensive approach to external conflict and crises’ (JOIN(2013)0030), which represents an opportunity to clarify and operationalise this approach in the new post-Lisbon institutional setting, as well as to consolidate the EU’s commitment to a comprehensive framework for its work in the field of external relations; acknowledges the considerable challenges inherent in promoting and implementing such an ambitious policy; welcomes, in particular, the emphasis it places on the link between security and development, which should be a key underlying principle in the application of a comprehensive EU approach;

22.

Strongly supports the notion of a more coherent external action; stresses that the EU should not adopt a narrow definition of the comprehensive approach; welcomes the fact that the Joint Communication promotes an understanding of the comprehensive approach that covers all stages of the cycle of conflict or other external crisis through early warning and preparedness, conflict prevention, crisis response and management to early recovery, and stabilisation and peace-building to help countries get back on track towards sustainable and long-term development; recalls that foreign policy objectives should not be placed in opposition to development principles and principled humanitarian action, as all three policies are complementary;

23.

Recalls that Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishes the principle of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD), and emphasises the potential for tension between PCD on the one hand and the comprehensive approach to crisis management outside the EU on the other; stresses that the main goal of the EU’s development policy is the eradication of poverty and that it is therefore essential that anti-poverty objectives are not marginalised in EU foreign policy and that the comprehensive approach does not erode the civilian character of development cooperation; takes note of the fact that the Joint Communication entrusts the HR/VP and the President of the Commission with the responsibility to ensure strategic and operational coherence in external relations, including regarding the external impact of internal policies; calls on the HR/VP and the President of the Commission to commit to doing so;

24.

Points out that both Article 214 TFEU and the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid of 2008 protect principled humanitarian action; calls for the safeguarding of the humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence which are crucial for both the effectiveness of humanitarian action and the safety of its actors; stresses firmly that counter-terrorism and security agendas must not undermine the ability of humanitarian actors to deliver assistance, and that humanitarian aid should under no circumstances serve political ends or be considered a crisis management tool; points out that to obtain access to populations in need humanitarian aid must not only be neutral but also be perceived as such; while acknowledging that a needs-based humanitarian delivery should be given some freedom of manoeuvre, calls for wider engagement with humanitarian actors in order to define better the parameters of their relationship with the comprehensive approach;

25.

Is of the view that there is a strong link between development and conflict prevention, as poverty is often a prime source and outcome of conflict; stresses that prevention contributes to peace, security and sustainable development; welcomes the focus on prevention in the Joint Communication, and calls for the enhancement of the EU’s early warning systems; calls on the EU to continue to support countries in situations of fragility, in order to address the root causes and establish functioning and accountable institutions that can deliver basic services and support poverty reduction; underlines the need to draw up an EU strategy for fragile states, which would integrate into the EU system both the OECD-DAC fragile states principles and the objectives of the ‘New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States’ agreed in Busan in December 2011;

26.

Welcomes the commitment to a long-term strategy expressed in the Joint Communication, since only a long-term engagement together with sustainable development can promote peace and security; calls for better coordination of the short-term and long-term objectives of EU policies, paying due regard to the views of the stakeholders at local level;

27.

Stresses that, in order to be effective, the EU comprehensive approach should be based as fully as possible on joint analysis, assessment and planning across the EU system, with a clear division of responsibilities; points out, in this context, the importance of joint programming as a tool to achieve coherence in external action;

28.

Believes that the CA must be rooted in a vision shared by all EU actors of the evolving strategic context in which EU action takes place; calls, therefore, for more regular and transparent information-sharing, policy co-ordination and teamwork between EU actors through all phases of EU action; calls, further, for the development of formal structures in which those exchanges could take place and where early warning, situation analysis and crisis and post-crisis monitoring could be conducted, potentially integrating existing structures (such as the EU SitRoom, the Emergency Response Coordination Centre and ARGUS); reiterates the need for a ‘Crisis Response Board’ within the EEAS, to be chaired by the HR/VP and bringing together all actors relevant to crisis management;

29.

Believes that pursuing a CA also requires improving coordination, under the VP/HR’s leadership, with the EU’s internal policies that have a significant foreign policy dimension such as the internal market, migration, environment and energy;

30.

Calls for better alignment between trade policy and common foreign policy, including human rights and development;

31.

Stresses that poor coordination and policy planning amongst the relevant institutions is partly responsible for the weak implementation of the EU’s foreign policies on the ground; takes note that it is improving since the EU delegations took over the coordination function in the field, but more progress needs to be made to further enhance implementation of the EU’s foreign policies on the ground, particularly when it comes to crisis regions and when linked with CFSP activities;

32.

Calls for the strengthening of the EU’s capacities for dealing with global challenges, notably climate diplomacy; calls on the EEAS to identify political trade-offs and strike political bargains by linking climate and other aspects of the EU’s relations with partner countries; hopes that in the run-up to the Paris UN climate conference in 2015, the EEAS will start using its extensive network of EU delegations around the world in order to deepen European understanding of the interests and domestic politics of climate action in partner countries;

33.

Underlines Parliament’s determination to ensure that the Union’s external financial instruments for the period 2014 to 2020 are designed so as to facilitate the pursuit of a CA to the Union’s external relations, in particular, by creating instruments that work across the nexus of conflict prevention, crisis management, peace-building, development cooperation and the strengthening of strategic partnerships; stresses that the new Partnership Instrument also provides the EU with a tool to accompany foreign policy activities with third countries financially; underlines its determination to exercise in full its democratic control of the implementation of these instruments to ensure that the Union’s important but finite resources are used in an efficient and cost-effective way to achieve results; underlines Parliament’s right, as part of the Mid-Term Review of the external financial instruments, to review the implementation of the instruments and make any necessary changes;

34.

Regrets the lack of ambition in the EU budget for external action for the period 2014-2020; calls for better anticipation of the funding needed for the implementation of EU strategies; regrets that in some cases, the EU’s actions have been delayed because of financial matters; calls for such structural problems to be remedied in future, including by making use of the new provisions on strengthening capacities for participation and deployment in civilian stabilisation missions (Article 4c) provided by the Instrument for Stability and Peace (ISP); recalls also the need to review the financing mechanism for military CSDP operations (known as the ATHENA mechanism), so as to allow for a more adequate and fairer burden-sharing of the costs of EU military operations, thus enabling all Member States to contribute through force generation or financing the supporting costs;

35.

Reminds the HR/VP that Parliament has revised the Union’s External Financial Instruments for the period 2014 to 2020 to provide scope for strengthening the capacity of like-minded international, regional, governmental and civil society actors who are willing to work with the Union in the pursuit of objectives, whilst upholding our fundamental values such as the promotion of democracy;

36.

Welcomes the EU’s recent development of regional strategies to define political priorities, communicate policy objectives, coordinate policy responses, build partnerships and focus on the implementation of resources; calls for the systematic elaboration of EU strategies to frame and give coherence to the EU’s action on the ground, drafted jointly by the EEAS and the relevant services of the Commission (notably DEVCO and ECHO), and under the lead of the HR/VP; calls on the Commission to be actively involved in its areas of competence from the very beginning of this coordination;

37.

Insists that such strategies should clearly set out the EU’s objectives and priorities and the specific timeframe for implementation and determine what instruments are best suited for action (ranging from inter alia humanitarian and development aid to diplomatic action and mediation, economic sanctions, and the CSDP); insists that the role and contribution from the CSDP should be part of the initial political analysis and definition of policy objectives, thereby facilitating early involvement of CSDP planners and the relevant parliamentary bodies at European and national level; welcomes in that context, the positive development of a Political Framework for Crisis Approach for CSDP missions and operations and calls for this to be extended for all crisis response initiatives;

38.

Welcomes, in particular, the EU’s Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa, which aims to bring stability to this strategic region by fighting piracy and its underlying causes, establishing legitimate authorities in Somalia and promoting regional cooperation through the simultaneous use of the EU’s external instruments, in cooperation with relevant partners in the field; recalls, however, that EU action in the region has been built up on the basis of pioneering CSDP initiatives (namely EUNAVFOR Atalanta and EUTM Somalia) that have then been followed by other EU instruments, making the CA in the Horn of Africa more of an ex-post empirical and pragmatic achievement rather than a well-designed and planned strategy; believes strongly that, in future, EU strategies must be drawn up before the EU engages in a region, not after;

39.

Regrets that, even when strategies are defined, the EU often does not manage to implement them, and is instead forced to take contingency and emergency action; recalls that this has notably been the case in the Sahel region, for which a very comprehensive and well-prepared EU strategy document (the 2011 EU Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel) had been unanimously approved but did not lead to satisfactory implementation until the situation in Mali deteriorated dramatically; calls for a lessons-learned analysis of this particular case, as well as — more broadly — for improved early warning analysis of key volatile regions, in order to establish concrete conflict-prevention and mediation initiatives and thereby improve upstream action by operating a policy shift from reactive-centric approaches to a more adequate and efficient prevention-focused approach;

40.

Points out that many current national, regional and international conflicts are also climate-driven and that, as a consequence, the CA needs to incorporate the concept of human security; recalls the analysis published by UNEP in December 2011 on the situation in the Sahel region, where it is stated that rising temperatures have led to water shortages and have specifically put local populations, whose livelihoods are dependent on natural resources such as farming, fishing and herding, under strong pressure, resulting, in some cases, in violence and armed conflict;

41.

Is convinced that, in cases where crises cannot be avoided, the EU must be able to plan and deploy the appropriate civilian and military assets, as well as mobilise complementary EU instruments, rapidly and effectively across the whole spectrum of crisis management operations, including in cases of humanitarian crises; calls for the implementation of the relevant Treaty articles in the field of rapid response, including Article 44 TEU; underlines, in that context, the need for political and security experts within the relevant EU delegations;

42.

Insists that the EU should be able to consolidate peace and stability over the longer term; calls for clear transition strategies to be determined long in advance between short-term crisis-response instruments (notably diplomatic, CSDP, ECHO instruments, and the new ISP) and post-crisis instruments (notably ISP and development assistance) in order to sustain progress achieved in the field; welcomes — as a major first step — the effective cooperation between the EEAS and the Commission in support of the CSDP mission in Mali, and the consideration, at an early stage, of an exit strategy for EUTM Mali;

43.

Calls on the EU to make further progress on acting as one at country level, with a clear division of responsibilities and under the leadership of a Head of Delegation, responsible for implementing the EU’s external policy in the country, while coordinating locally with Member States as well as the host government, civil society and other international partners; calls on the Member States to commit to unified EU action in third countries and to make sure that coordination and articulation of actions on the ground are duly concerted with the EU institutions, namely the Commission and the EEAS; regrets in this regard that autonomous action by Member States in third countries, especially post-conflict and democratising societies, without proper articulation between them and the EU local Delegation has proved damaging to the EU’s goals and interests, as well as to its credibility vis-à-vis the third state and other international partners;

44.

Stresses that a successful CA also requires developing partnerships outside the Union’s institutions and Member States, to include other international and multilateral partners, strategic partners, host countries, regional organisations, civil society actors and the private sector, with due respect for the decision-making autonomy of the EU;

45.

Urges the EU to ensure that the EU participates effectively in the work of the UN General Assembly, making use of all the powers conferred on it by its status as a regional integration organisation;

46.

Reiterates the view, in keeping with the purposes of the Lisbon Treaty in enhancing EU foreign policy and the role of the EU in global peace, security and regulation, that an EU seat in an enlarged UNSC remains a central, long-term goal of the European Union; calls on the VP/HR to take the initiative to develop a common position of the Member States to that end; suggests, in order to achieve that goal in the future, working on prior coordination of positions in the Council of the EU on the introduction of new members of the UNSC and reform of the UNSC’s decision-making towards the possible use of a super-qualified majority;

47.

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

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/28

—

having regard to its resolutions on previous annual reports of the Commission and of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 24 July 2013 entitled ‘Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud — 2012 Annual Report’ (COM(2013)0548) and its accompanying documents (SWD(2013)0283, SWD(2013)0284, SWD(2013)0285, SWD(2013)0286 and SWD(2013)0287),

—

having regard to OLAF’s 2012 annual report,

—

having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2012, together with the institutions’ replies (1),

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (COM(2013)0534),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 17 July 2013 entitled ‘Improving OLAF’s governance and reinforcing procedural safeguards in investigations: a step-by-step approach to accompany the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’ (COM(2013)0533),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 17 July 2013 entitled ‘Better protection of the Union’s financial interests: setting up the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and reforming Eurojust’ (COM(2013)0532),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 May 2011 on the protection of the financial interests of the European Union by criminal law and by administrative investigations — An integrated policy to safeguard taxpayers’ money (COM(2011)0293),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 24 June 2011 on the Commission Anti-Fraud Strategy (COM(2011)0376),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 December 2012 entitled ‘An Action Plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion’ (COM(2012)0722),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 September 2013 entitled ‘Protection of the European Union budget to end 2012’ (COM(2013)0682),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 December 2013 entitled ‘Application of net financial corrections on Member States for Agriculture and Cohesion Policy’ (COM(2013)0934),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘EU anti-corruption report’ (COM(2014)0038),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2013/43/EU of 22 July 2013 amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax, as regards an optional and temporary application of the reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud (2),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2013/42/EU of 22 July 2013 amending Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax as regards a quick reaction mechanism against VAT fraud (3),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (COM(2012)0363),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 250/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 establishing a programme to promote activities in the field of the protection of the financial interests of the European Union (Hercule III programme) and repealing Decision No 804/2004/EC (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (5),

—

having regard to Article 325(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (6),

—

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 (7),

—

having regard to Opinion No 1/2014 of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on OLAF Investigation Policy Priorities,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the Annual Report 2011 on the protection of the EU’s Financial Interests — Fight against fraud (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2011 on the EU’s efforts to combat corruption (10),

—

having regard to its declaration of 18 May 2010 on the EU’s efforts in combating corruption (11), and to the Commission Communication of 6 June 2011 entitled ‘Fighting corruption in the EU’ (COM(2011)0308),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (12),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0195/2014),

A.

whereas, according to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen;

B.

whereas protection of the financial interests of the EU is a key element of the EU policy agenda to strengthen and increase the confidence of citizens and ensure that their money is used properly;

C.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon has substantially strengthened the instruments available to protect the financial interests of the EU, requiring both the EU and its Member States to combat all forms of illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU;

D.

whereas the wide diversity of legal systems and traditions within the EU means that protection of its financial interests against fraud and any other illegal activity is a particularly demanding and unavoidable challenge;

E.

whereas, to protect the financial interests of the Union and combat fraud it is necessary to adopt an integrated approach, including strategies for fighting fraud and corruption by means of legal, effective, consistent and equivalent measures throughout the Union; whereas this is a responsibility shared by the EU and the Member States and close cooperation between the Commission and the Member States is even more essential at a time of budgetary constraint;

F.

whereas the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has the responsibility to protect the Union’s financial interests by investigating fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities and whereas its supervisory committee was established in order to reinforce and guarantee OLAF’s independence by regularly monitoring the implementation of OLAF’s investigative function;

G.

whereas the Member States have primary responsibility for implementing approximately 80 % of the Union budget;

H.

whereas the Member States are responsible for calculating the harmonised basis of assessment for value added tax (VAT), amending the VAT rates applied and collecting the Union’s own resources, and whereas these three functions impact on its budget;

I.

whereas, at Parliament’s request, the Commission has recently taken a number of important initiatives on strategic anti-fraud measures;

J.

whereas the scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union; whereas greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending are necessary;

1.

Emphasises that it is incumbent on both the Commission and the Member States to do everything in their power to fight fraud, corruption and all other forms of illegal activity detrimental to the Union’s financial interests, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; points out that close cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States are essential in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively, and hence such cooperation and coordination must, as a matter of priority, be strengthened and made as effective as possible; points out that protecting the Union’s financial interests demands an equally vigilant approach to both resources and expenditure;

2.

Stresses that fraud is a deliberate unlawful act, which may constitute a criminal offence, while an irregularity is a failure to comply with a rule; finds it regrettable that the Commission’s report fails to consider fraud in detail and focuses largely on irregularities; points out that Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) relates to fraud, not irregularities, and calls for a distinction to be made between fraud and errors or irregularities;

3.

Takes note of the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud — Annual Report 2012 (‘the Commission’s annual report’); notes that, in response to a request from the European Parliament, the report includes two new elements:

4.

Calls on the Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year, and give a reasoned explanation regarding those which it has not considered or with which it has been unable to comply; calls on OLAF to do the same in respect of measures being sought by Parliament in this report;

5.

Welcomes the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy, and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, which aims to clarify and harmonise Member States’ provisions in criminal law on offences related to the EU budget (COM(2012)0363), the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (COM(2013)0534), and the proposal for a regulation on the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust) (COM(2013)0535), as well as the amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and stronger legal rights for persons concerned by OLAF investigations; recognises the importance for these different pieces of legislation to be well calibrated and thoroughly evaluated; calls on the Council to take the necessary time and not to finalise negotiations in a rush, in order to develop a robust European legal framework and strengthen the existing institutional tools for protecting the Union’s financial interests; stresses that a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure should be avoided; welcomes also the action plan to step up the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, as well as VAT reform in the EU, both efforts having been initiated in 2011;

6.

Notes that there was virtually no change in 2012, compared with 2011, in the number of fraudulent irregularities, with 1 231 cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent, while their financial impact decreased slightly to a total of EUR 392 million; notes that the incidence of fraud was highest in the areas of cohesion policy and agriculture — especially as regards rural development and fisheries — which remain the two sectors of greatest concern, suffering an estimated financial impact from fraud of EUR 279 million and EUR 143 million respectively; highlights, however, the general point that the number of fraudulent irregularities reported and the corresponding sums of money reflect the notion of fraud in its broadest sense and should not be seen as a reliable yardstick for levels of fraud; calls for clear distinctions to be made between cases of fraud, cases of error and cases of irregularity in the 2013 Annual Report on protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Fight against fraud;

7.

Notes that the number of cases of non-fraudulent irregularity reported to the Commission in 2012 increased by approximately 6 % compared with 2011, with an associated financial impact of approximately EUR 2 900 000 000 (more than double the corresponding figure for 2011 and affecting in particular cohesion policy and direct expenditure); is concerned that while the increase is chiefly due to the impact of irregularities involving large sums of money, it also reflects systemic irregularities reported when programmes close;

8.

Notes the considerable increase in 2012, to a value of EUR 3 700 000 000, in corrective measures adopted by the Commission vis-à-vis Member States, chiefly in the field of cohesion policy, and the fact that this reflects, inter alia, the close of the 2000-2006 programming period;

9.

Observes that the recommendations made by the Commission to Member States in 2011 — in particular on reported fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities, the recovery of amounts improperly paid, the monitoring of the results of criminal investigations and the improvement of national fraud statistics — were generally appropriate, and regrets that a number of concerns were not fully addressed; calls on Member States to follow-up on the Commission’s recommendations made in 2011 and 2012 and to ensure that recommendations made to them in its 2012 report are followed in full, and that where action on recommendations cannot be taken they submit a reasoned explanation;

10.

Proposes looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities;

11.

Acknowledges that in the area of traditional own resources the amount to be recovered following fraud and other irregularity cases in 2012 reached EUR 444 million, of which EUR 208 million had already been recovered by the Member States; notes that a further EUR 83 million was recovered in 2012 relating to cases detected between 1989 and 2011;

12.

Regrets that own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, making up 20 % of it, with the result that the proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers; recalls that, according to Commission estimates, tax evasion and tax fraud are costing the EU around EUR 1 trillion annually, that is to say around EUR 2 000 for every EU citizen;

13.

Welcomes the Commission action plan to step up the fight against fraud and tax evasion; stresses that both the Commission and the Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion, for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission to allow for better use of existing instruments, consolidation of existing legislation, adoption of pending proposals and administrative cooperation; notes that enhanced cooperation between the tax, police and legal authorities within a single country is likewise essential; calls for special attention to be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection, evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring, this being one of the areas still affected by the highest rates of systemic corruption in Europe; calls on the Commission and the Member States to be more active at international level so as to establish standards of cooperation based chiefly on the principles of transparency, good governance and exchange of information;

14.

Calls on the Commission periodically to carry out a comparative analysis of differences in the effectiveness of national systems for the collection of traditional own resources, including the identification and dissemination of best practices regarding efficient recovery process in all Member States, and to propose suitable measures where necessary;

15.

Expresses concern that although the number of non-fraudulent irregularities reported to be affecting income from traditional own resources in 2012 has remained stable, the total remains 20 % above the average for the period 2008-2012;

16.

Calls for a closer analysis of the shortfalls between estimated levels of VAT revenue and the actual levels of revenue collected, and for this to be included in the Commission report in order to give a clearer picture of the loss to the Union envelope; reiterates that the Commission and the Member States must make combating tax evasion and the underground economy a constant objective;

17.

Is satisfied that 98 % of total identified traditional own resources is collected in accordance with the rules, but asks the Commission to sustain its efforts in pursuing the 2 % affected by fraud and irregularities;

18.

Notes that increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed by enforcement agencies; believes that there is a lack of physical controls of goods being transported under the EMCS; stresses that additional investment in controls may result in an increase in collected taxes, and an increase in prevented tax evasion; notes, furthermore, that according to Articles 21(3) and 24(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC, the competent authorities of the dispatching and destination Member State will carry out an electronic verification of the data in the draft e-AD and in the report of receipt; strongly believes that criteria should be established according to which goods which are ready for dispatch and/or received must be inspected physically by the competent institution of the Member State;

19.

Understands that increased inspections might also have the additional benefit of removing those businesses, or front companies, that were created by criminals only to facilitate their fraud; notes that up-to-date information on dispatch and receipt of excise goods is confirmed under the EMCS by business actors themselves; asks the Commission to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves; asks the Commission to present the results of current investigations concerning the need to amend Directive 2008/118/EC;

20.

Demands that verification checks conducted by Member States on people and companies applying to the register be more robust and comprehensive; understands that goods can be easily mis-declared in order to evade excise duties; demands, in this connection, a higher degree of cooperation with tax authorities;

21.

Considers that time limits allowed for the excise movements between authorised warehouses are unrealistically long; understands that such time limits allow for multiple movements on the same declaration and diversion before the delivery date is entered in the system; demands that the competent authority of the Member State declared as the destination and the new destination must be informed about changes immediately by the consignor; demands, furthermore, that the maximum allowed time for submission of the report on the receipt of the excise goods be one working day and, furthermore, that journey time be calculated and established for each delivery in accordance with the type of the means of transport used and distance between places of dispatch and destination;

22.

Finds that the guarantees required to establish bonded warehouses are too low in comparison with the value of the excise goods; believes that a variable should be established depending on the type of goods and the level of trade that actually occurs;

23.

Is concerned that Member States have implemented their own EMCS systems based on broadly defined requirements by the Commission; asks the Commission, in this connection, to take initiative for a more uniform system across the EU;

24.

Takes note that, according to the new study on the VAT gap published in 2013 and financed by the Commission as part of its drive to reform the VAT system in the Union and put a stop to tax avoidance, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1,5 % of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery; stresses, however, that the VAT gap is the product not only of fraud but also of other factors, including bankruptcy and insolvency, statistical errors, late payment and tax evasion; points out, in this connection, that effective action to close the VAT gap obviously requires a concerted, multidisciplinary approach; stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously;

25.

Welcomes the fact that the VAT reform process launched in December 2011 has already delivered important tools for ensuring better protection against VAT fraud; welcomes, in this regard, the fact that the directives on a quick reaction mechanism against VAT fraud and on an optional and temporary application of the reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud were finally adopted in July 2013, and calls on Member States to implement them without delay;

26.

Believes also that there should be a focus on the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe; welcomes, in this connection, the new measures designed to facilitate electronic invoicing and the special provisions for small companies, which came into force in 2013, and looks forward to the introduction of the standard VAT declaration form for the entire EU; hopes that the one-stop shop for e-services and telecoms businesses, which will become operational in 2015, will have a real effect in promoting compliance by simplifying VAT procedures for these businesses;

27.

Calls on Member States to reform their national tax systems, making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection; also asks Member States to take heed of the country-specific recommendations made by the Commission in 2013; welcomes the Commission’s renewed call to Member States to extend their national tax bases and to restrict tax exemptions and deductions, thus enabling them not only to simplify their tax systems but also to avoid increasing their standard VAT rates;

28.

Notes that, in terms of both numbers of cases and impact, the levels of fraudulent irregularity reported in 2012 were virtually the same as those of the previous year;

29.

Notes that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; notes, furthermore, that another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission; is concerned that guidelines on the times at which Member States report fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF, if such guidelines exist in a Member State at all, differ not only across the individual Member States, but also across policy areas; expects the Commission to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF; recalls that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties;

30.

Notes that, on the revenue side, the number of cases of fraud reported in 2012 was 20 % below the average for the years 2008 to 2012; welcomes the fact that the Commission’s analyses show a clear downward trend in the numbers of fraud cases over that period;

31.

Observes that, on the expenditure side, both the number of cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent and their value are low, that they involve already identified forms of irregularity and that over the period 2008 to 2012, fraud accounted for 5 % of the cases reported; notes that, as in previous years, cohesion policy was the field in which most of the fraudulent irregularity — 50 % of all cases and 63 % in terms of value — was detected; stresses that, out of the 1 194 cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent, 9 related to corruption and that all cases were detected in the cohesion policy area; is concerned that the incidence of such cases is rising; highlights with concern the trend towards simpler forms of fraud, probably reflecting the phenomenon of beneficiaries who would not normally break the law engaging in attempted fraud because of the economic crisis; believes that those trends should be monitored and studied in the years ahead;

32.

Calls for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report on the protection of the European Union’s financial interests — fight against fraud;

33.

Notes that, in the area of natural resources (agriculture, rural development and fisheries), there was an increase from 2011 to 2012 of almost 50 % in cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent, as the result of a single country reporting 56 cases, all involving the same modus operandi and linked to the same inquiry, and affecting the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund exclusively; notes that the rate of established fraud is slightly higher in agriculture — approximately 6 % of all cases reported in the 2008-2012 period — than it is overall;

34.

Acknowledges that in the agriculture and rural development area, Member States recovered EUR 169,4 million from beneficiaries during the financial year 2012, while EUR 1 216,8 million remains to be recovered from beneficiaries from the end of that financial year; notes that the recovery rate of 43 % is significantly affected by the low recovery rates (below 30 %) displayed by six Member States (13); calls on those Member States to take adequate measures to ensure a significantly higher rate of recovery;

35.

Recognises that cohesion policy has, over several financial years to date, proven to be the most critical sector, with regional development policy in particular being affected, but that at least the number of irregularities reported as fraudulent has been stable for the past three years; notes that the proportion of cases of established fraud — 4 % over the period 2008-2012 — is lower than the overall average; welcomes the fact that the efforts made by the Commission with the national authorities in recent years to raise awareness about fraud in this sector appear to have borne fruit and that Union legislation contributed in 59 % of cases to the detection of fraudulent irregularity; asks the Commission to step up and consolidate the joint anti-fraud strategy initiated in 2008; welcomes also the fact that cases of fraud are being reported sooner after they are detected;

36.

Regrets, however, the lack of information on the amounts to be recovered and the recovery rates related to cohesion policy for the financial year 2012; calls on the Commission to provide detailed information in this respect in its future annual report;

37.

Welcomes the fact that the number of cases of irregularity reported in relation to pre-accession assistance (PAA) has fallen steadily over the past three years and notes that EU-12 Member States have made a phased exit from PAA programmes, which are virtually complete; observes, however, that there was a significant increase in monetary terms, due to two cases reported by the same Member State; notes also that that there has been a slight decrease in the current programming period in the reported incidence of fraudulent irregularity in connection with the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA), most likely a reflection of the delay in its implementation;

38.

Highlights the ever-increasing wide divergence in Member States’ approaches to fraud, reflecting chiefly legal and organisational differences, both among Member States and between administrations in the same country, but also the fact that fraud detection is approached in a variety of ways; is greatly concerned that in cases of fraudulent irregularities some Member States limit their actions to the application of financial corrections instead of investigating the potential criminal offence; emphasises that such failure to investigate criminal offences could encourage fraudulent behaviours, thereby undermining the fight against fraud and fraudsters; calls on those Member States concerned to invest more resources to combat fraud, including through criminal proceedings; asks the Commission to continue to monitor closely the workings and effectiveness of Member States’ current surveillance and control systems and stresses how important it is that the Commission should establish uniform reporting principles for all of the Member States; calls on the Member States to implement the Commission’s recommendations, in particular with regard to early detection, simplification of rules and rapid reporting;

39.

Points out, furthermore, that Member States are still failing to forward data on time or are supplying inaccurate data; recalls, moreover that Member States use different definitions for similar types of offence and do not all collect similar and detailed statistical data following common criteria, thereby making it difficult to collect reliable and comparable statistics at EU level, thus impeding comparison and objective country-by-country evaluation of the scale of fraud; reiterates its regret that as a consequence, Parliament, the Commission and OLAF cannot properly fulfil their task of assessing the actual overall scale of irregularities and fraud in individual Member States and formulating recommendations; regrets that this situation prevents the identification and discipline of those Member States with the highest level of irregularities and fraud, as has been repeatedly requested by Parliament; notes that the Commission invited Member States to improve upon their fraud statistics and committed itself to placing greater emphasis on the issue; stresses how important it is that the Commission establish uniform reporting principles in all Member States in order to ensure that the data collected are comparable, reliable and sufficient; calls, therefore, on the Commission to inform Parliament on the measures initiated to introduce a higher degree of uniformity and comparability between the statistical data gathered at national level; urges the Member States to submit in a timely manner exhaustive information which adequately reflects the actual level of fraud; asks the Court of Auditors to follow up on its previous special reports on the performance of OLAF in order to determine the effects of the reorganisation;

40.

Underlines the fact that greater transparency allowing for proper scrutiny is key to detecting fraud schemes; recalls that in previous years Parliament urged the Commission to take action to ensure one-stop transparency for all beneficiaries of EU funds from all Member States by publishing on the Commission’s site a list of all beneficiaries, independent of the administrator of the funds and based on standard categories of information to be provided by all Member States in at least one working language of the Union; calls on the Member States to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States; regrets that this measure has not been implemented and calls on the Commission to implement it as a matter of urgency;

41.

Notes that in 2012 OLAF made 54 recommendations for judicial action which were sent to national authorities and it was recommended that roughly EUR 284 000 000 be recovered; regrets the lack of information on the number of judicial proceedings launched and the amounts actually recovered based on OLAF recommendations, as well as the conviction rate for cases involving offences detrimental to the Union’s budget; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the effective and timely implementation of the recommendations made as soon as cases have been investigated by OLAF;

42.

Is, however, seriously concerned that in some instances OLAF dismissed cases and transferred them back to directorate-generals for appropriate action to be taken, even though the latter do not have any investigative competencies;

43.

Is satisfied that the reform of the rules governing the functioning of OLAF has finally been adopted, and welcomes the Commission Communication on ‘Improving OLAF’s governance and reinforcing procedural safeguards in investigations: a step-by-step approach to accompany the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office’; notes the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures which are supposed to lead to a clarification of the procedural rights of those who are subject to investigation, better cooperation and dialogue with OLAF’s partners, more efficient investigation procedures and a shortening of the average length of time for processing investigations, in particular at the stage of case selection; notes, nevertheless, that on 1 February 2012 a total of 421 cases were opened all at once and later closed during 2012, with most of them not carrying any recommendations; notices, furthermore, that many cases older than 24 months were closed in 2012, with the risk that recommendations may not have been made at the time of closing; notes, furthermore, that this one-time effect is responsible for a shorter average duration of investigations;

44.

Notes that since 2012 OLAF has established investigation policy priorities (IPPs) on a yearly basis in order to improve its investigation selection procedure; observes significant changes between the IPPs selected in 2012, 2013 and 2014, and is therefore concerned over the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure; is of the opinion that future IPPs should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs; calls on OLAF to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs;

45.

Takes note of the OLAF 2012 annual report and notes that, over this period, OLAF opened 431 investigations and 287 coordination cases, closed 465 cases, recommended legal proceedings to the national authorities in 54 cases and recommended the recovery of almost EUR 284 million (EUR 165,8 million in revenue and EUR 118,2 million in expenditure), and:

46.

Takes note of Opinion 1/2014 of the supervisory committee on OLAF’s IPPs and endorses its recommendations, especially with regard to establishing guidelines on the application of financial indicators as a proportionality criterion which would provide the unit responsible for case selection with clearer guidance in this respect; expects, furthermore, that the future evolution of the IPPs will involve regular dialogue between the Director-General of OLAF and the directors-general whose policy areas are covered by the IPPs and the financial indicators therein;

47.

Takes note of the supervisory committee’s remarks as regards OLAF’s de minimis policy; recalls that the de minimis policy is not the only criterion for case selection and that its objective is to ensure that OLAF concentrates its efforts and resources on more serious and complex cases, and that human resources are allocated in order to maximise the recovery of the amounts unduly spent from the EU budget; calls on the Director-General to take the supervisory committee’s views into consideration when reviewing OLAF’s de minimis policy; expects to be duly informed of the Director-General’s decision in this respect;

48.

Calls for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes; emphasises, in this connection, that it attaches particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations;

49.

Welcomes all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties, complementing the efforts directed at prevention and detection; sees the introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement as a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption;

50.

Recalls that under Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 of 14 December 2006, Member States must provide information on the initiation or abandonment of any procedures for imposing administrative or criminal sanctions related to the reported irregularities as well as of the main results of such procedures; recalls, furthermore, that this information must also indicate the character of the sanctions applied and/or whether the sanctions in question relate to the application of Community and/or national legislation, including a reference to the Community and/or national rules in which the sanctions are laid down; requests to be informed in detail with a comprehensive analysis on the reports received under Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006; notes that Member States must introduce anti-fraud monitoring procedures and that statistics regarding criminal cases and their outcome are incomplete, making it difficult to evaluate fraud investigation and prosecution procedures in the Member States and the effectiveness of future basic policies;

51.

Welcomes the publication in February 2014 of the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission, which indicates that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually, and also welcomes all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level; stresses, in this connection, that European citizens require guarantees of total integrity and transparency in public spending, especially given the current challenges arising from the underlying economic and financial crisis; agrees with the Commission that the results of the initiatives are very much uneven and that more should be done to prevent and punish corruption; regrets, however, that the content of the report presents a limited overview of corruption in the EU; calls for further efforts to be made, commensurate with the major social and economic issues at stake, to prevent and sanction efficiently corruption, which corrodes the European economy and social model, harms Member States’ revenue from taxation and undermines citizens’ trust in their institutions;

52.

Calls on the Court of Auditors to study the problem and make recommendations based on its own perspective and experience, in the form of one or more reports on the main issues identified by the Commission report on corruption, taking account, in particular, of findings for individual countries;

53.

Welcomes the proposal for a regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office; stresses the need to establish a consistent, complementary system for protecting the Union’s financial interests; urges the Commission to provide a clear EU-level definition of the roles of the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust and OLAF, delimiting their respective remits;

54.

Welcomes the publication of the Commission study entitled ‘Identifying and Reducing Corruption in Public Procurement in the EU’, upon Parliament’s request, which develops a methodology to measure the costs of corruption in public procurement as regards EU funds; notes that the overall direct costs of corruption in public procurement for 2010 was estimated at EUR 1,4 to 2,2 billion for the five sectors studied in 8 Member States (14); underlines the fact that the study recommended, inter alia, further transparency in public procurement, improved audit and evaluation mechanisms, the development of a central collection system for public procurement data, an update of the Tenders Electronic Daily database, and enhanced protection for whistle blowers; calls on the Commission to provide information on the policies and measures implemented in order to address those recommendations;

55.

Notes that according to official estimates, Member States lose over EUR 11 billion per year in tax revenue as a result of cigarette smuggling to the benefit of organised crime networks, and insists that the levels of resources and expertise applied in this area in the past within OLAF should be restored; supports strongly the Commission and OLAF on the introduction of an action plan to combat cigarette smuggling; demands, in this connection, better cooperation between OLAF and Europol;

56.

Considers essential the development of OLAF’s network of liaison officers for the countries at highest risk from smuggling;

57.

Requests to be informed of any developments in the discussions of possible re-negotiation of the existing agreements, and calls for an independent study of the agreements with the tobacco industry, with a view to quantifying the impact of illicit tobacco sales on own resources, and a possible extension of the existing agreements to include manufacturers not currently covered by them, with the aim of making tobacco products more easily traceable from manufacture to distribution;

58.

Welcomes the adoption of the regulation establishing the Hercule III programme for the financial period 2014-2020; notes that with a budget of over EUR 104 million, the programme will provide co-finance for measures such as scanning equipment for the identification of smuggled goods in trucks, automated container-code and number-plate recognition systems in order to reinforce the fight against smuggling and counterfeiting; regrets the lack of transparency observed during the implementation of the Hercule II programme on the purchase and utilisation of technical equipment by the beneficiaries and recalls that the situation led Parliament to hold in reserve a certain amount of OLAF’s appropriations from the Union’s budget for 2013 and 2014, pending the receipt of appropriate information on the matter; calls on OLAF to continue providing this information, including details on the current status and impact of the financed equipment and to demonstrate greater transparency in the implementation of Hercule III;

59.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Auditors, the OLAF Supervisory Committee and OLAF.

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/39

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on Iran, in particular those of 10 March 2011 on the EU’s approach towards Iran (1), of 17 November 2011 on recent cases of human rights violations in Iran (2), of 2 February 2012 on Iran and its nuclear programme (3) and of 14 June 2012 on the situation of ethnic minorities in Iran (4),

—

having regard to the joint statement made by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Catherine Ashton, and the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on 24 November 2013 in Geneva, and to the statement by the VP/HR of 12 January 2014,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 15 October 2012 and of 16 December 2013, and to the amendments to the restrictive measures in place against Iran, as decided by the Council at its meeting of 20 January 2014,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 21 March 2011 announcing the implementation of restrictive measures targeting those responsible for grave human rights violations in Iran,

—

having regard to the statement by the VP/HR of 19 September 2013 on the liberation of Nasrin Sotoudeh and other prisoners of conscience in Iran,

—

having regard to the report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran of 4 October 2013, to his recent statement of 22 January 2014 warning of the ‘sharp increase in hangings in Iran’, and to the report of the UN Secretary-General of 10 September 2013 on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy (6),

—

having regard to the Declaration on Criteria for Free and Fair Elections, unanimously adopted on 26 March 1994 by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, of which the Iranian parliament is a member,

—

having regard to the UN General Assembly resolution of 18 December 2013 on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (7), which ‘expresses deep concern at serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran’, including but not limited to the arbitrary, frequent and ongoing use of the death penalty,

—

having regard to the UN General Assembly resolution of 18 December 2013 on a world against violence and violent extremism (8),

—

having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas on 24 November 2013 in Geneva VP/HR Catherine Ashton, together with the foreign affairs ministers of the E3/EU+3, reached an interim agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter referred to as Iran) on the nuclear issue (detailed in the Joint Plan of Action); whereas on 10 January 2014 the E3/EU+3 reached an agreement on the implementation modalities for the Joint Plan of Action; whereas the six-month implementation period for the Joint Plan of Action is crucial and requires simultaneous and reciprocal action from both sides;

B.

whereas the presidential elections were not held in accordance with the democratic standards valued by the EU; whereas, however, President Hassan Rouhani has signalled readiness for more open and constructive relations between Iran and the West; whereas, in addition to the nuclear deal, various topics — including human rights and regional security — need to be discussed by the EU and Iran;

C.

whereas the commitments made in the Joint Plan of Action are only a first step towards a more complete solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and aim to reduce immediate tensions, creating more time and space for a comprehensive diplomatic solution; whereas Iran’s nuclear activities were in contradiction to previous UN Security Council resolutions;

D.

whereas internal political developments in Iran and the interim agreement on the nuclear issue have opened a window of opportunity for both reforms within Iran and an improvement of its external relations with the EU;

E.

whereas negotiations on a comprehensive trade and cooperation agreement and on a political dialogue agreement between the EU and Iran started in 2002; whereas this process was interrupted in 2005 as a result of revelations concerning Iran’s clandestine nuclear activities and the country’s refusal to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

F.

whereas the human rights situation in Iran is still characterised by the continued, systematic violation of fundamental rights;

G.

whereas Iran has one of the youngest populations in the world, including more than 7 million children under the age of six;

H.

whereas Iran still refuses to cooperate with several UN bodies on the issue of human rights, for instance by denying a visa to the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and preventing him from fulfilling his mandate in an independent manner;

1.

Welcomes the Geneva interim agreement between the E3/EU+3 and Iran on Iran’s nuclear programme; considers it vital that all parties continue to engage constructively in the negotiating process so that the final comprehensive agreement can be concluded within the agreed timeframe;

2.

Stresses that there can be no alternative to a peaceful negotiated solution that addresses the international community’s concerns regarding the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme and regional sensitivities as well as Iran’s security sensitivities;

3.

Welcomes the decisions taken by the Council at its meeting of 20 January 2014 with a view to implementing the Joint Plan of Action, in particular the provisions on partial sanction relief; stresses the crucial importance of reliably monitoring Iran’s implementation of its commitments under the Joint Plan of Action; believes that, once a comprehensive agreement ensuring the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme is reached, nuclear-related sanctions against Iran should be gradually removed;

4.

Stresses that more constructive relations with Iran are contingent on progress in the full implementation of Iran’s commitments under the Joint Plan of Action; hopes that the progress in the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action and in the negotiations for the Geneva agreement will pave the way for more constructive relations between the EU and Iran, including as regards issues of regional concern such as the civil war in Syria and the fight against all forms of terrorism and its causes, but also in areas such as economic development, trade agreements, the rule of law and the promotion of human rights;

5.

Calls on the European External Action Service (EEAS) to carry out all the preparatory work for the opening of a Union delegation in Tehran by the end of 2014; strongly believes that this would be an efficient tool for influencing Iranian policies and would also support the dialogue on issues such as human and minority rights;

6.

Invites the Council, subject to substantial progress being made in the negotiations on the nuclear issue, to start a discussion on specific steps that could lead to an improvement in bilateral relations between the EU and Iran, including a possible future contractual framework for these relations and the development of sectoral cooperation, focusing for example on the development of civil society and the private sector in Iran, as well as on the areas of the fight against narcotic drugs (while ensuring that suspects receive a fair trial and are not subjected to the death penalty), environmental cooperation, technology transfer, infrastructure development and planning, education and culture, child protection and health, and common initiatives to promote and protect human rights; is concerned about the possible outbreak of infectious diseases such as polio and measles, especially among children, and urges the EU to ease access to relevant medication which has otherwise been difficult to obtain because of the sanctions;

7.

Notes with particular concern the worsening environmental situation in Iran, in particular when it comes to water shortages, desertification and air pollution, and invites the EU to facilitate cooperation between European and Iranian research institutes, environmental organisations and cities;

8.

Notes the importance of trade with Iran for many medium-sized European companies and underlines the fact that such trade should make a positive contribution to the implementation of the Joint Plan of Action;

9.

Invites the Commission and the EEAS, in the meantime, to use all tools available to the EU to make a concerted effort to empower and develop civil society in Iran and to increase the number of exchanges for students, artists and other visitors, as well as cultural and academic exchanges, and to promote youth participation and civic engagement; calls, to this end, for greater exchange and cooperation between the EEAS and relevant branches of the Commission, such as its Directorate-General for Development Cooperation — EuropeAid;

10.

Calls for the EU to pursue a more independent policy towards Iran, while coordinating with allies and partners;

11.

Considers that Iran should use its considerable influence in Syria to stop the bloody civil war and calls on Iran’s leadership to adopt a constructive role in the international efforts to find a solution to the Syrian crisis; considers that Iran should be involved in all discussions to that end, provided that it shows commitment to finding a diplomatic solution to the crises in Syria and in the region;

12.

Considers that greater engagement between the EU and Iran on the basis of credible implementation of the Joint Plan of Action and, in the future, of the comprehensive agreement, could be beneficial in terms of stabilising the situation in the Middle East; encourages the EU, in particular, to facilitate dialogue between Iran and members of the Gulf Cooperation Council;

13.

Takes the view that the EU, the US and Iran should develop their cooperation in Afghanistan, in particular on the issue of drug trafficking and on humanitarian issues such as the protection of refugees, and with a view to ensuring the protection of human rights gains in order to achieve a sustainable peaceful solution to the conflict; recalls that Iran is hosting approximately 3 million Afghan refugees, and calls on Iran, UN agencies and the international community to ensure respect for their basic rights;

14.

Welcomes the release of several prisoners of conscience in Iran, including the human rights lawyer and Sakharov Prize winner Nasrin Sotoudeh, and calls on the Iranian authorities to release all imprisoned human rights defenders, political prisoners, trade unionists and labour activists, and those detained after the 2009 presidential elections; notes with interest President Hassan Rouhani’s initiative of formulating a Charter of Citizens’ Rights; expresses continued grave concern, however, regarding the human rights situation in Iran, in particular the widespread allegations of torture, unfair trials –– including of lawyers and human rights defenders — and impunity for human rights violations; expresses alarm with regard to the high number of executions in 2013 and 2014, including of minors; notes that most of the 2013 executions were carried out during the last five months of the year; condemns the restrictions on freedom of information, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, academic freedom, freedom of education and freedom of movement, as well as the repression and discrimination on the basis of religion, belief, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation that persist, inter alia against the Baha’i community, Christians, apostates and converts;

15.

Takes the view that the Charter of Citizens’ Rights should comply fully with Iran’s international obligations, particularly as regards non-discrimination and the right to life, strengthening the prohibition of torture, ensuring full freedom of religion and belief, and guaranteeing freedom of expression, which is currently restricted by the vaguely formulated provision on the ‘national-security-related offence’;

16.

Calls, therefore, for the EU to mainstream human rights in all aspects of its relations with Iran; believes that a high-level and inclusive human rights dialogue with Iran should be part of the future policy framework for bilateral EU–Iran relations; calls for the EU to start a human rights dialogue with Iran that includes the judiciary and security forces and establishes clearly defined benchmarks against which progress can be measured; calls for the EU to support fully the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and calls on Iran to grant him an immediate and unconditional entry visa; encourages UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay to take up the Iranian authorities’ invitation to visit Iran; calls on Iran to declare a moratorium on the death penalty;

17.

Underlines the fact that any future Parliament delegations to Iran should be committed to meeting members of the political opposition and civil society activists, and to having access to political prisoners;

18.

Emphasises the importance of creating an environment conducive to the proper functioning of civil society organisations, including a reformed legal framework; calls for the EU to make maximum global use of the EU human rights guidelines, including the EU Guidelines on human rights defenders, of the new flexibility provided by the European Instrument for the Promotion of Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) 2014-2020, and of the potential of the European Endowment for Democracy newly established by the EU and its Member States, in order to support Iranian human rights defenders and civil society organisations;

19.

Joins the urgent call of 772 Iranian journalists on the Iranian President to live up to his promise and allow the reopening of the Association of Iranian Journalists;

20.

Encourages the EU to explore the possibility of extending technical assistance, in partnership with international organisations, to Iran with a view to assisting in the reform of the Code of Criminal Procedure currently envisaged by the Iranian parliament; expresses concern, in particular, over detainees’ inability to access an attorney during interrogations, over the serious allegations of abuse during pre-charge and pre-trial detention, and over the trials of civilians before revolutionary courts; stresses that independence from political interference and ensuring a free trial are key in developing a modern code of criminal procedure and essential in addressing human rights issues;

21.

Calls on Iran to cooperate with international human rights bodies and its own NGOs by acting upon the recommendations of the UN and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and enabling international human rights organisations to carry out their missions;

22.

Takes the view that women’s rights should, without fail, remain an area of special focus in any dialogue between the EU and Iran; considers that, despite the progress already made, the situation of women in Iran remains marred by unacceptable discrimination, in particular on legal matters, as well as with regard to family law and women’s participation in economic and political life;

23.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Government and Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/43

—

having regard to Article 215 TFEU,

—

having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Guy Verhofstadt and Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group, on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (B7-0473/2013),

—

having regard to its recommendation of 2 February 2012 to the Council on a consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures (1),

—

having regard to its recommendation of 23 October 2012 to the Council on establishing common visa restrictions for Russian officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case (2),

—

having regard to the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Catherine Ashton, of 20 March 2013 on the Magnitsky case in the Russian Federation,

—

having regard to the statement by the spokesperson of VP/HR Catherine Ashton of 12 July 2013 on the case of Sergei Magnitsky,

—

having regard to the resolution and recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 28 January 2014 on refusing impunity for the killers of Sergei Magnitsky,

—

having regard to the decisions by the United States to impose travel restrictions on a number of officials involved in the Sergei Magnitsky case and to similar considerations in a number of other countries,

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 December 2013 on the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2012 and the European Union’s policy on the matter (3),

—

having regard to Rule 121(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0215/2014),

A.

whereas the arrest and subsequent death in custody of Sergei Magnitsky represent a well-documented and significant case of disrespect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Russia, have cast doubt on the independence and impartiality of its judicial institutions, and serve as a reminder of the many documented shortcomings in respect for the rule of law in Russia;

B.

whereas two independent investigations, conducted respectively by the Public Oversight Commission for Human Rights Observance in Moscow Detention Centres and by the Russian Presidential Council on the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, have revealed that Sergei Magnitsky was subjected to inhumane conditions, deliberate neglect and torture;

C.

whereas Russia, as a member of several international organisations such as the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations, has committed itself to the protection and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help Russia to modernise and abide by its constitutional and legal order, in line with Council of Europe standards;

D.

whereas there is an increasing need for a firm, coherent and comprehensive EU policy towards Russia, supported by all the Member States, with support and assistance backed up by firm and fair criticism, including sanctions and restrictive measures where necessary;

E.

whereas visa restrictions and other restrictive measures are not traditional judicial sanctions per se but nevertheless constitute a political signal of the EU’s concern to a greater target audience and thus remain a necessary and legitimate foreign-policy tool;

F.

whereas the High Representative has failed to place this issue on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council and whereas the recommendation by the European Parliament of 26 October 2012 has not received any official follow-up;

1.

Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

2.

Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and the Commission, to the governments of the Member States, and to the State Duma and the Government of Russia.

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/46

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 21 and 34 thereof,

—

having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council on the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) by Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, on behalf of the ALDE Group (B7-0014/2014),

—

having regard to the 68th Session of the UNGA,

—

having regard to its recommendation to the Council of 11 June 2013 on the 68th Session of the UNGA (1),

—

having regard to the EU’s priorities for the 68th Session of the UNGA, as adopted by the Council on 24 June 2013 (2),

—

having regard to the UNGA resolution of 3 May 2011 on the participation of the European Union in the work of the United Nations (3), and to the European Parliament resolution of 11 May 2011 on ‘the EU as a global actor: its role in multilateral organisations’ (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on the 10th anniversary of UN Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on ‘Women, Peace and Security’ (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2011 on ‘EU external policies in favour of democratisation’ (6),

—

having regard to UN Security Council resolution 2106 of 24 June 2013, on ‘increasing the efforts against impunity for perpetrators of sexual violence’ and the previous resolutions on this topic (7),

—

having regard to its recommendation to the Council of 18 April 2013 on ‘the UN principle of the Responsibility to Protect’ (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2013 on ‘corruption in the public and private sectors: the impact on human rights in third countries’ (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 February 2013 on the 22nd session of the UN Human Rights Council (10),

—

having regard to Rules 121(3) and 97 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0250/2014),

A.

whereas the commitment to effective multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, is an intrinsic element of the EU’s external policy, grounded in the belief that an effective multilateral system is required in order to reach common goals and address global crises, challenges and threats;

B.

whereas together the EU and its Member States are the single largest financial contributor to the UN system (regular budget, programmes and UN funds, and peacekeeping budget);

C.

whereas a solid and stable EU-UN partnership is fundamental to the work of the UN under all three pillars — peace and security, human rights and development — and is also key to the EU’s role as a global actor;

D.

whereas human rights and democracy are founding values of the EU and principles and objectives of European external action; whereas respect for, and the promotion and safeguarding of, the universality and indivisibility of human rights are cornerstones of European unity and integrity;

E.

whereas current emission trajectories are likely to lead to a 2 oC warming within 20 to 30 years and a 4 oC warming by 2100, according to the World Bank report ‘Turn Down the Heat’; whereas UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited Heads of State to the Climate Summit in September 2014 with a view to making clear commitments to further action on climate change;

F.

whereas, as the world’s leading donor, the EU supports both intensified efforts to meet the 2015 Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) deadline and a joint approach targeting poverty eradication and sustainable development;

G.

whereas the priority theme of the 58th session of the Commission on the Status of Women will be the challenges and achievements in the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals for women and girls;

H.

whereas corruption in the public and private sectors perpetrates and aggravates inequalities and discrimination when it comes to equal enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and it is proven that acts of corruption and human rights violations involve the misuse of power, a lack of accountability and various forms of discrimination;

I.

whereas the development of the principle of Responsibility to Protect is an important step towards anticipating, preventing and responding to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity; whereas this principle should be applied as consistently and uniformly as possible;

J.

whereas the ratification of both Kampala amendments by States and the granting of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression to the International Criminal Court will further contribute to ending impunity for the perpetrators of this crime;

K.

whereas in situations where Responsibility to Protect is applied, it is of the utmost importance to maintain the distinction of mandates between military and humanitarian actors, in order to safeguard the perception of the neutrality and impartiality of all humanitarian actors and avoid putting at risk the effective delivery of aid and assistance;

1.

Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

(a)

to actively promote the specific follow-up and implementation of the declaration of the High-level Meeting on the Rule of Law at National and International Levels of 24 September 2012, and explore to what extent the Rule of Law can be linked to the ongoing reflections on the post-2015 MDGs;

(b)

to strengthen international efforts aimed at ensuring that all human rights agreed under UN conventions are considered universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, and that their respect is being enforced; to promote the mainstreaming of human rights and basic freedoms in all aspects of the UN’s work;

(c)

to seek to strengthen the process of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) by embedding recommendations in bilateral and multilateral dialogues with UN members, particularly human rights dialogues; to foster an environment enabling NGOs to provide their input into the various stages of the UPR process;

(d)

to promote the extensive contribution of civil society to the different UN human rights mechanisms, including to the various stages of the Universal Periodic Review process; with a view to counter-pressure or even reprisals, and while closely monitoring such potential cases regarding NGOs and civil society, to provide support for capacity building for human rights institutions;

(e)

to reiterate its full support for the International Criminal Court, and remain vigilant regarding any attempts to undermine the legitimacy, universality and integrity of the Rome Statute system; to actively engage States not yet party to this system with a view to swift signature and ratification; to campaign for the ratification of the 2010 Kampala amendments on the crime of aggression, including by all Member States;

(f)

to actively campaign for the ratification of the UN Convention Against Corruption and the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime by all UN members; to step up efforts to conclude the negotiations on a comprehensive convention on international terrorism; to support the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on financial crime, corruption and human rights;

(g)

to call on the members of UNGA to make full transparency of corporate reporting and the combating of corruption, money laundering, tax havens, illicit financial flows and harmful tax structures an overriding priority in the agendas of international finance and development institutions;

(h)

to stress that development gains will not be sustainable without good governance and accountable and democratic institutions and the rule of law; to ensure, therefore, that a clear commitment to democratic governance is reflected in the new framework;

(i)

to promote the prevention of atrocities and other grave violations by transforming the UNHRC into an early warning and preventive mechanism, rather than a purely reactive body to prevent further escalation of human rights violations;

(j)

to introduce theme-specific initiatives, promoting accountability for human rights violations and taking relevant actions targeting key human rights concerns, including efforts towards the abolition of the death penalty and the protection of the rights of people in vulnerable situations, such as children, women, LGBTI persons or indigenous peoples;

(k)

to condemn the systematic human rights abuses in the Islamic Republic of Iran;

(l)

to reiterate the importance of fighting against torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and the priority that the EU places on this issue, especially with regard to children; to renew the Special Rapporteur’s mandate for another three years, and to ensure effective follow-up of past resolutions on torture; to demonstrate a common commitment to eradicating torture and supporting victims, notably by continuing or, where applicable, starting to contribute to the UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture and the Special Fund established by the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture;

(m)

to continue fighting against the use of the death penalty and to strongly support the moratorium as a step towards abolition; to continue to push for abolition worldwide; to strongly urge countries still carrying out capital punishment to publish clear and accurate figures on the number of sentences and executions;

(n)

to express concern about the recent increase in discriminatory laws and practices, and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; to encourage close monitoring of the situation in Nigeria and Uganda, where new laws seriously threaten the freedom of sexual minorities; to reaffirm its support for the continuing work by the High Commissioner on Human Rights to combat these discriminatory laws and practices, and the work of the UN more generally on this issue; to recommend active participation in combatting the attempts to undermine these rights;

(o)

to support international efforts to promote greater transparency and accountability in the use of armed drones in line with the established international legal framework, and to continue supporting investigations into targeted killings; to carry on assisting inquiries into targeted killings and to follow up on the recommendations by the UN Special Rapporteurs on Extra-Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and Countering Terrorism;

(p)

with a view to equipping the UN with more efficient de-escalation tools, to support peace enforcement and peacekeeping missions by providing, where necessary, increased EU support (technical, financial, equipment or EU forces);

(q)

to ensure that peacekeeping mandates reflect long-term needs for state and institution building and democracy support, thereby focusing on a comprehensive approach in order to target the roots of conflict and state fragility;

(r)

to cooperate in strengthening the role and capacity of regional organisations in peacekeeping, conflict prevention, civilian and military crisis management, and conflict resolution;

(s)

to demand of all parties to an armed conflict that they fully respect their obligations under international law, including unhindered access to humanitarian assistance;

(t)

to ensure that the post-2015 development framework promotes sustainable peace by addressing key drivers of conflict in order to create the enabling conditions required for development and rights fulfilment;

(u)

to focus on ending terrorism, whether state sponsored or otherwise;

(v)

to ensure that the UN conference on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, which did not take place in 2012 as decided at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, takes place in 2014;

(w)

to support UNGA resolutions on depleted uranium weapons and to develop an EU Common Position that better reflects Parliament’s repeated calls for a precautionary global moratorium and the developing global consensus on the potential civilian health risks, complex post-conflict management burden and financial costs associated with their use;

(x)

to ensure that the 2015 review process of the UN peace-building architecture promotes the principle of Responsibility to Protect and the role of women in peace-building;

(y)

to work towards establishing Responsibility to Protect as an international norm, while maintaining the delicate balance between the role of the states concerned and the international community, and while keeping at its core the principle of prevention of conflict and the use of armed force as a last resort;

(z)

to ensure, in this regard, that responsibility to prevent and stop genocide and mass atrocities lies primarily with the state concerned, but that the international community also has a role that supersedes the invocation of sovereignty;

(aa)

to promote the key concept that prevention requires apportioning responsibility to and promoting collaboration between the states involved and the international community;

(ab)

to ensure, in cooperation with all international partners, the full compliance and consistency of possible further developments of the Responsibility to Protect concept with international humanitarian law;

(ac)

to work towards the inclusion of the protection of civilians in the mandates of the peacekeeping missions conducted under the auspices of the UN;

(ad)

to reaffirm its commitment to the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security (11), which recognise the disproportionate impact of war on women, but also their cardinal role in conflict management, conflict resolution and sustainable peace;

(ae)

to strongly support and promote the full implementation of UN resolution 2106 on fighting impunity in conflict-related sexual violence, and to ensure the consolidation of further accountability and preventive measures, preventive measures regarding sexual crimes and abuses, and support to victims thereof;

(af)

to prioritise ending child marriage;

(ag)

to ensure that women are represented at all stages of peace processes, and involved in preventive diplomacy, early warning and security monitoring, and commissions of inquiry in post-conflict situations;

(ah)

to ensure a focus on education for girls;

(ai)

to actively participate in the 58th session of the Commission on the Status of Women in order not to undermine the ‘acquis’ of the UN Beijing Platform for Action, such as, for example, access to education and health as a basic human right; to strongly condemn the use of sexual violence against women as a tactic of war, including crimes such as mass rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, gender-based forms of persecution including female genital mutilation, trafficking, early and forced marriages, honour killings and all other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity; to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence;

(aj)

to call on Member States to ratify the 3rd Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which will allow children to submit their complaints to the Committee;

(ak)

to recognise that significant and substantial progress has been made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals; to make the best use of the preparatory phase ahead of the September 2015 Summit on the post-2015 agenda, to ensure coherence and coordination between EU Member States on focus areas and goals the EU wants to promote, with a view to avoiding the inconsistency and illegibility stemming from too wide a list of objectives; to emphasise that special focus has to be directed towards the needs of the least developed countries and of conflict and post-conflict countries; to ensure ownership of these goals by developing countries;

(al)

to highlight the fact that the global efforts towards the achievement of the MDGs should be strengthened during the remaining time before the 2015 deadline, and focused on areas where the process is lagging behind the most;

(am)

to ensure that poverty eradication remains a priority in the new single and integrated framework, along with the fight against inequality, the promotion of sustainable development, food security and gender equality;

(an)

to work towards the adoption of a single, comprehensive and integrated post-2015 framework for the MDGs, with clear benchmarks incorporating the key development and sustainability issues; to make sure that this framework is universal and global in nature, promoting prosperity, human rights and well-being for all;

(ao)

to pursue a human rights-based approach and ensure that human rights in their universality will be at the core of the post-2015 framework;

(ap)

to call for a coherent and comprehensive international approach to financing beyond 2015, addressing in a predictable manner all dimensions of sustainable development, and, in line with the Council conclusions from December 2013, to further promote within the UN system reflections on alternative sources of financing and on other means of implementing assistance, especially private investment and non-financial means;

(aq)

to make sure that new ambitious goals will be backed up by equally ambitious and innovative development financing;

(ar)

given the fact that environmental and development issues tend to be dealt with separately at global level, to seek new ways to overcome this split and build bridges between these closely interlinked areas, including from an institutional point of view;

(as)

to recall the commitment made by the developed countries at the COP16 in Cancún (2010) to provide USD 100 billion in ‘new and additional’ financing annually by 2020, in order to address climate change needs in developing countries; to point out that this funding should ensure a balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation;

(at)

to take all necessary legislative and administrative measures to fully implement the recommendations of the UNGA resolution (12), in order to guarantee that citizens have the same rights offline and online, and in particular the review of procedures, practices and legislation, and the establishment of independent and effective oversight mechanisms, stressing the importance of data protection;

(au)

with a view to reaffirming the commitment of the EU on this issue on a worldwide scale, to actively promote specific follow-up of the resolution by all UN members;

(av)

to actively promote the swift signing and ratification of the Arms Trade Treaty by all UN members, including all EU members, in order to enable the international community to effectively address the negative repercussions of lack of transparency and badly regulated trade in conventional arms and ammunition and dangerous technologies, which foment global armed conflicts and are used to breach human rights; to engage other relevant States, regional and international organisations and civil society with a view to promoting, in this respect, a further broadening of the scope of the Arms Trade Treaty;

(aw)

to actively support a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system, and especially its Security Council, in order to strengthen its legitimacy, regional representation, accountability and effectiveness; to work towards the long-term goal of the EU having a seat in an enlarged UNSC;

(ax)

to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of the EU as a global actor, with the aim of acting in a swift and comprehensive manner and delivering a ‘one-voice message’, by improving coordination of Member States’ positions and the cooperation between the EEAS and the Member States; in this regard, to encourage the EEAS, in particular through the EU delegations in New York and Geneva, to work towards greater EU coherence;

(ay)

to support the role of parliaments and regional assemblies in the UN system and global parliamentarism;

(az)

to continue the fruitful cooperation in support of multilateralism and global governance, and to highlight the importance of the strategic partnership between the EU and the UNDP, which celebrated its 10th anniversary in February 2014;

(ba)

to raise awareness of the fact that 2015 will be declared the European Year for Development, which will create an unprecedented momentum for improving public knowledge in Europe about the global challenges and the importance of the new development goals to be agreed upon;

(bb)

to point out that global challenges remain and are expected to increase, and that climate change and environmental degradation are threatening to reverse the progress made in achieving the MDGs; to enhance action on climate change, therefore, at the 2014 UN Climate Summit, in order to build a solid foundation which will inform successful negotiations and sustained progress towards reducing emissions and strengthening adaptation strategies at the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; to set an example and adopt an ambitious binding climate policy framework with targets in time for the Summit, to have a positive influence on the negotiations;

(bc)

to participate actively in the debate on the term ‘climate refugee’, including its possible legal definition in international law or in any legally binding international agreement;

(bd)

to reiterate, on the occasion of the Third International Conference in September 2014, the EU’s support to Small Island Developing States;

(be)

to work towards bringing about a sustainable political solution for Syria which will stop the violence and promote a democratic transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people; to support the full implementation of the conclusions of the Geneva I Conference and, bearing in mind the importance of the Geneva II Conference as a unique forum enabling direct negotiations for peace and democratic transition between parties in the conflict, to keep the Geneva II process going;

(bf)

to work towards including all relevant global and regional players in the Geneva II Conference, recognising that many different actors play a decisive role in the Syrian crisis;

(bg)

to convene an international conference on the Syrian refugee crisis focusing on humanitarian efforts, with priority being given to supporting host countries in the region and strengthening the EU’s involvement in the diplomatic efforts to end the conflict;

(bh)

to work urgently towards the rapid implementation of UNSC resolution 2139 on the humanitarian situation in Syria, so that safe, unhindered and immediate access to all people in need, including across conflict lines and borders, will at last be facilitated; to ensure that the removal, transfer and destruction of chemical weapons found in Syria take place in a fully transparent manner;

(bi)

to foster international cooperation as regards the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, and call for full implementation of the decision of the Executive Council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons of 27 September 2013;

(bj)

to support all efforts to ensure accountability for the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Syria and to actively promote the referral by the Security Council of the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court;

(bk)

to encourage all parties to respect the cessation of hostilities agreement (ceasefire) signed on 23 January 2014, including provisions requiring conflict actors to refrain from attacks against civilians and ensure safe access by humanitarian workers to conflict-affected areas of South Sudan; to underline that this agreement is only the first step towards peace and reconciliation when taking into consideration the situation in South Sudan, including the political fight for leadership in the country, which has provoked increasing ethnic clashes and led to the displacement of over 650 000 people;

(bl)

to support the state-building agenda regarding South Sudan, as well as a genuine reconciliation and inclusive peace process to ensure lasting stability; to offer assistance in tackling the issue of corruption, which is an obstacle to the prospects of establishing a free and fair democracy, stability, sustainable development and economic growth;

(bm)

to condemn the widespread human rights violations and abuses committed; to welcome and support the efforts of the EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, Alexander Rondos, the UN Special Representative, Hilde Johnson, and the African Union, and the strengthening of the human rights investigation capacity of the UN Mission in the Republic of South Sudan;

(bn)

to condemn the attacks on aid workers and assets, the interference in relief activities and the large-scale looting of supplies that have taken place in South Sudan and that severely hamper efforts to reach civilian populations in need;

(bo)

to call for an independent international commission of inquiry to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law since the conflict erupted; to insist that those responsible be held accountable;

(bp)

to ensure good cooperation and complementarity of the international efforts required to stabilise the Central African Republic, and to work towards the adoption of a comprehensive approach to this multifaceted crisis; to support the process of political transition and contribute to putting in place functioning democratic institutions capable of fighting human rights violations, protecting citizens, ending violence and calming sectarian tensions in the country; to continue providing the necessary financial support in order to create viable economic development; to spearhead efforts aimed at responding to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis by providing adequate financial assistance;

(bq)

to support the efforts deployed by the international community, in particular the African Union, the UN and France, and by the Central African authorities to stabilise the country; to swiftly implement the EU decision of 20 January 2014 establishing EUFOR CAR and to accelerate the procedures to deploy the forces on the ground;

(br)

to support the ongoing negotiation process and current attempts to find solutions to the conflict, while working towards the Palestinian reconciliation process, in order to reunite Palestinians living in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip;

(bs)

to make certain the UNGA provides, in cooperation with the EU and the USA, all instruments to ensure that a two-state solution, on the basis of the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as capital of both States and with the State of Israel, with secure and recognised borders, and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security, is sustainable and effective;

2.

Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the High Representative/Vice-President, the EU Special Representative on Human Rights, the Council and, for information, the Commission.

30.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/54

—

having regard to Articles 2 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

having regard to Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948 and to all relevant international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

—

having regard to Protocol No 29, annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon, on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 11 thereof,

—

having regard to the EU guidelines on human rights,

—

having regard to the Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy adopted by the Council on 25 June 2012 (1),