PRÉSIDENCE DE MME ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-présidente

  La Présidente - Je déclare ouverte la session 2013-2014 du Parlement européen.

(La séance est ouverte à 8 h 30)

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration de la Commission sur les problèmes dans la chaîne d'approvisionnement alimentaire dans le contexte de la récente affaire de la viande de cheval.

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, in recent weeks I have addressed both Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on 20 and 28 February 2013 respectively, on the subject of the discovery of horsemeat labelled as beef in certain processed food products in a number of Member States. I am now glad to update you on the measures we have taken, or are planning to initiate in the near future.

Let me emphasise that today – just over one month after the first findings came to light – the situation remains that this scandal does not point to a public health or food safety crisis. I am adding ‘up till now’ of course because, as I shall say later, we are also carrying out further inspections on the health aspect. So this scandal, serious though it is, is not up till now a food safety issue like the food safety issues we have had in the recent past. The issue remains one of fraudulent labelling, not one of safety.

As you will know, food business operators are primarily responsible for ensuring that the requirements of European food law are met, while Member States are responsible for ensuring the proper day-to-day enforcement of EU rules. It is the responsibility of Member States to check whether or not the product presents a risk and whether it complies with applicable legislation. We then have other tools, like the EU’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, popularly known as RASFF, through which any notification or alert made by any Member State is immediately communicated to all Member States – as has happened with this issue.

In the current scandal, findings of horsemeat labelled as beef in certain processed food products were immediately communicated to all Member States through the EU’s Rapid Alert System. So our traceability systems worked well – enabling Member States’ authorities to establish quickly who had done what, where and when.

All Member States are carrying out now the agreed DNA testing for horsemeat in beef products and testing for the absence of phenylbutazone, popularly known as bute, in horsemeat – in accordance with the recommendation supported by the Member States and adopted by the Commission on 19 February 2013. The first alert was given on 8 February by the British authorities. On 13 February there was an emergency meeting of the Member States affected by this issue. On 15 February there was the recommendation before the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and the Member States agreed to these inspections, and the recommendation was adopted on 19 February 2013.

These tests will continue throughout the month of March and the Member States will inform the Commission immediately of any positive findings and provide an overview of the results by 15 April 2013. Finally, a report will be published shortly afterwards. I said immediately when this crisis erupted that, to regain credibility, we have to not only carry out the inspections but also to commit ourselves, before the inspections, to making the results public.

In addition, fraud investigations are being coordinated by Europol – and all Member States have been asked to keep Europol contact points fully informed of developments. Let me stress that only the strictest and most complete transparency can begin to repair the damage done to consumer confidence.

Looking at the broader picture, it is evident that our legislation is fundamentally sound. The existence of fraud does not question the validity or the essence of the rules themselves. The problems lie in the implementation of the legislation and not in the legislation itself.

As with any food-related scandal, crisis or scare, we are duty bound to learn lessons and, if necessary, consider appropriate changes in the light of experience. The horsemeat scandal will be no exception. Public confidence has been badly shaken. Part of the reassurance that we can provide lies in the way we respond: swiftly using the effective tools at our disposal, and analysing data without delay. Indeed, the Commission is already considering how we might further strengthen our rules and controls in three areas that have attracted particular attention: sanctions, the level of controls and origin labelling.

Firstly, the importance of proper controls and dissuasive sanctions to enforce our legislation has come to the forefront. Under the current directives, the old requirement is that Member States have to apply appropriate and dissuasive sanctions.

The forthcoming proposal, which was drafted long before the scandal, to review the rules on official controls across the food chain will require Member States to establish financial penalties applicable to intentional violations of food chain rules – but I believe that these penalties should reflect the economic gain which is made by those who fraudulently violate EU legislation. In other words, only the prospect of losing more than what the illicit activities could bring can serve as an effective deterrent.

Secondly, some have called for more official controls along the food chain. The forthcoming proposal on the official control rules will indeed bring significant improvements and will include not only the possibility for the Commission to require Member States to implement coordinated control plans of limited duration to ascertain the existence of shortcomings along the chain, but also the powers necessary to establish permanent specific control requirements in cases of newly-identified risks. Even in the current scandal, all the Commission could do was recommend a control plan which I know most Member States or all Member States are implementing, but it is not actually legally binding.

Thirdly, as we know, some Member States and also Members of this Assembly are calling for mandatory country of origin labelling. I have made it absolutely clear publicly that this issue is not directly related to this scandal. This scandal would have erupted even if we had country of origin labelling. However, there is a swelling number of Member States which believe that we should grasp this opportunity to introduce mandatory country of origin labelling not only for fresh beef and fresh meat products which already exist, but also for processed food.

Incidentally, long before this scandal erupted, the Commission was already obliged under EU legislation to study this issue by the end of the current year. A report is due by the end of this year. I have undertaken to accelerate the publishing of this report, which will now be made available at the beginning of the autumn. This report must take on origin labelling of processed food as well. This report must take into account the need for the consumer to be informed, the feasibility for a mandatory origin indication, and an analysis of the costs and benefits, as well as the impact on the internal market and on international trade.

As I said before the committees, I have an open mind on this issue even though it is not the direct cause of this scandal and I will react accordingly after the report is out. So even though ‘country of origin labelling’ would not have prevented the current horsemeat scandal, I shall consider this report as soon as possible. I shall try and get the report published as soon as possible and then communicate any developments to this Parliament.

Let me conclude by emphasising that public confidence is a fragile concept which can all so easily evaporate. Therefore, I have urged Member States to step up their investigations – and there have been some results in the criminal investigations which have been conducted – and to ensure the immediate circulation of any new information, so we can establish the full facts of this matter as quickly as possible. I must say that up till now I am satisfied with the level of cooperation by the Member States.

I cannot overemphasise how important it is that we take on board the relevant lessons arising out of this scandal, and I am sure you share my determination to restore full confidence in our food chain as soon as possible. I have publicly stated that we have one of the best food safety systems in the world and I keep on saying so. This does not mean that we cannot fine-tune, and this does not mean that we cannot learn lessons from crises past and present. We should never rest on our laurels, because the fact that we have one of the best food safety systems in the world does not mean that we might not lose that pole position if we are complacent. I count on the cooperation and support of this Parliament and the Member States to this end.

  Richard Seeber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, ich teile Ihre Meinung, wenn Sie sagen, wir haben eines der besten Lebensmittelrechtssysteme weltweit. Trotzdem ist es auch ein Faktum, dass wir in den letzten Jahren immer wieder von Lebensmittelskandalen erschüttert wurden. Auch der aktuelle Skandal zeigt, wie groß eigentlich das Ausmaß und die Probleme in diesem Sektor sind. Darum sollten wir jetzt nicht sagen: „Wir haben ein Supersystem, an dem kleine Änderungen zu machen sind“, sondern wir müssen schon prüfen – und ich hoffe, das macht die Kommission jetzt auch in ihrem Bericht –, was jetzt wirklich verbesserungswürdig ist. Es ist auch nicht klug, jetzt zu sagen: „Die Mitgliedstaaten sind zuständig für die Kontrolle, wir machen hier die grundsätzlichen Regelungen“. Wir – und insbesondere die Kommission – tragen hier auf europäischer Ebene besondere Verantwortung, damit es in diesem Sektor funktioniert.

Unser größtes Problem ist, dass wir so viel Vertrauen der Konsumenten verloren haben. Das ist das eigentliche Problem, das wir jetzt haben. Dieses Vertrauen wiederherzustellen, wird sehr schwierig und sehr kostspielig werden. Darum ist sicher der erste Schritt, den Sie auch genannt haben, dass wir aufklären müssen. Es waren kriminelle Machenschaften, auch hier haben Sie Recht. Das kann nicht vollständig verhindert werden. Aber wir müssen uns doch überlegen, welches Kontrollsystem wir einführen können, damit es potenziell uninteressant wird, vor allem wirtschaftlich uninteressant wird, dass solche Dinge geschehen. Hier sollte sich die Kommission einmal mit Mathematikern zusammensetzen und ausrechnen, wie teuer es wirklich wäre, diese Kontrollen stichprobenartig vorzunehmen, vielleicht da und dort zu verstärken, damit wir hier ein möglichst günstiges, aber sehr effektives und effizientes Kontrollsystem aufbauen können. Hier ist die Kommission gefordert, diese Vorgaben zu machen.

Zum Zweiten ist sicher zu prüfen, wie der Strafrahmen in den verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten ist. Manche Staaten sind sehr streng, andere sind sehr lax. Auch das muss angepasst werden, damit es in Europa überall das gleiche Strafmaß gibt.

Zum Dritten: Das Konsumentenvertrauen herstellen. Hier ist der Bericht, den die Kommission nunmehr ausarbeitet, sicher das Fundament, auf dem wir jetzt aufbauen sollen. Die geforderte Ursprungskennzeichnung, die Kennzeichnung, wo Tiere gemästet werden, wo sie geschlachtet werden und wo sie dann in die Lebensmittelkette eingespeist werden, ist für den Konsumenten sehr hilfreich, wenn er seine Konsumentscheidung trifft. Es ist gerade im Lebensmittelsektor natürlich sehr gefährlich, eine Geiz-ist-geil-Mentalität zu haben, weil das tendenziell dazu führt, dass die Qualität gesenkt wird. Es muss im Interesse Europas sein, der Kommission und natürlich auch des Parlaments und des Rates, dass wir hier möglichst hohe Standards setzen, möglichst sichere Lebensmittel auf den Tisch bringen und unseren Konsumenten das auf den Tisch geben können, was sie eigentlich haben wollen, nämlich sichere und vor allem auch richtig deklarierte Lebensmittel!

  Linda McAvan, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I welcome much of what the Commissioner has said this morning. In particular, Commissioner, what you have said about accelerating the study on the labelling of meat in processed food. Now, you have said that this was not the cause of the crisis; of course it was not, but when Parliament voted for this two years ago we did so because we wanted companies to take responsibility for their own supply chains, to understand their supply chains. By labelling they would not be able to pass the buck as they are at the moment.

I think consumers have been genuinely shocked at the nature of the current supply chain: abattoir in one country, meat-cutting somewhere else, sent across Europe, back again. It seems that there are too many middlemen, too many people in the middle, and we have lost the ‘farm to fork’ controls we thought we had after the BSE crisis. So I hope that you will look very seriously at this. When we asked for this before, the Commission and the Council said it would be too costly: but how much have governments now spent and companies now spent since the horsemeat scandal erupted?

Commissioner, you have also told us that the current system is fundamentally sound, yet many people are saying to me that the changes made in 2006 by the meat hygiene laws actually reduce the number of inspections, particularly in meat-cutting plants, and that since 2006 we no longer have everyday inspections by meat inspectors. Instead, we only have announced inspections and only three-monthly or six-monthly inspections of meat-cutting plants. It is in meat-cutting plants where it seems this scandal erupted.

Now, you are supposed to be bringing out a new food-hygiene revision this year, Commissioner, and I want to know from you what is going to be in that revision, because in the newspapers in Britain they are saying that you are going to propose further self-regulation by the food industry, that you are going to give them even more responsibility. Can consumers have confidence? This is a crisis of consumer confidence, Commissioner, and we look to you to make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

  Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, one of my first acts as a Member of Parliament here some 14 years ago was to host a meeting about another food crisis, between some Cumbrian beef farmers from my region and your predecessor, who was entirely sympathetic to their cause and wanted to support them in getting Member States to take action, but pointed out that the Commission had no army, had no police force. It was, as you said, dependent upon the Member States to enforce the law in the first instance.

Now, I have reflected upon this many times over the years, and I keep thinking of those words which we see in so many pieces of legislation: effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Your Director-General has said to the committee that we have the best food labelling laws in the world, but they do not count for very much unless Member States actually put them into practice. We have penalties in different Member States that differ. We have procedures for ensuring compliance that differ. We have a different approach being taken to potential prosecutions, and we have sentences being laid down by national courts that differ.

Now on the one hand, I think the public expects European laws to be enforced equally and effectively in every Member State. Otherwise people say ‘why should I comply if they are not?’ On the other hand, we have the difficult problem that the European Union should not be imposing common criminal penalties upon Member States. This is not just an issue, of course, for your department – it is one for many other sectors of the Commission – but it needs to be brought into the open. There needs to be more discussion and more analysis of the way in which Member States are actually putting legislation into effect, not simply in terms of the Statute, but also in the way in which their courts and their prosecuting bodies then interpret that Statute. This is because, unless we do this, unless we bring this out into the open and unless we decide to name and shame and have discussions in the Council and the Parliament, then we will not ensure equal application of the law. Failure to do so brings the law into disrepute and frankly renders the work of all us invalid.

  Carl Schlyter, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Tack kommissionär Tonio Borg för att Ni tar upp en hel del av de förslag som vi driver t.ex. att vi måste ha bättre och mer fungerande sanktioner.

Titta på mitt eget land. Vad har hänt bara det senaste året? Vi har haft tjugo år gammalt, konserverat beredskapskött från försvaret som såldes och sedan ommärktes som betydligt färskare och de blev inte dömda. Vi har haft färgat oxfilé som i det fallet kom från Ungern och som såldes som oxfilé, men som var färgad fläskfilé – och hittills har ingen dömts för detta. Vi har flera andra skandaler och hästskandalen kommer till.

Med så många skandaler som hela tiden kommer upp är det ett systemproblem att folk tycker att det lönar sig att fuska i stället för att vara ärlig. Det måste vi sätta stopp för och då måste sanktionerna vara tillräckligt kraftfulla och kontrollerna vara tillräckligt många för att det ska vara en tillräcklig stor risk för att upptäckas. Därför är det bra med dessa förslag.

Jag är också orolig för kommissionens preliminära förslag om kontroller att låta slakthus ha egna inspektörer i stället för offentligt anställda inspektörer. Jag vill att det ska vara offentliga inspektörer i hela kedjan.

Det är myndigheter som ska kontrollera företagen och företagen ska själva ha interna kontrollsystem men dessa ska verifieras av myndigheterna precis som kontoret för livsmedels- och veterinärfrågor. Vi vill att de ska kontrollera myndigheternas kontrollsystem och göra stickprov så att vi ser att det fungerar och också ge tips om vad som fungerar och inte fungerar.

Som ni vet vill vi också ha ursprungsmärkningen. Vi har jobbat för det i flera år och kommissionen har beställt studien och jag hoppas att ni är snabba med att komma med ett förslag så snart studieresultaten kommer. För konsumenterna vill gärna ha detta. De vill veta vad de köper och att vi bygger det på nötköttslogiken om född, uppfödd och slaktad.

Dessutom vill vi gärna att ni underlättar och tillåter lokal marknadsföring och lokala märkningar eftersom det gör det lättare att ha en så kort kedja som möjligt mellan bonde och konsument.

Samma sak gäller när vi nu håller på med upphandlingsreglerna: Vi ska underlätta, inte försvåra, för lokal upphandling av färska livsmedel, så att vi får minskade kedjor, för hela problemet bygger egentligen på den inre marknadens ogenomskinlighet; att man inte har en tydlig kontroll och att det är för många led mellan konsument och producent. Är det väldigt många led så finns det alltid någon i det långa ledet som ser en chans att blanda in en billigare eller farligare produkt för att tjäna en extra euro.

Därför är det viktigt att vi underlättar för dem som vill vara seriösa och berättar för sina konsumenter exakt vad det är de har i och försöker minska dessa långa kedjor mellan producent och konsument. Först då blir vi av även med fusket.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I think there is no doubt that consumer confidence has been seriously shaken by this horsemeat scandal. As always in these types of situations, there can be a good point as well, and the good point is that in many areas people are returning to the local butcher’s shop. They are clearly sending the message that when they buy, they want to know what they are buying. I think this is to be welcomed.

I am in favour of better and effective labelling, but I have to say that, with all the labelling in the world, if the criminals are out there and they want to beat the system, it will not matter what labelling you put on it unless you have the proper inspections as well.

In my opinion, this happened for two reasons: because the processing chain is far too long, and because of the pressure by retailers on the food industry to bring down prices and provide so-called ‘cheap food’. Let me say this very clearly in this House today: there is no such thing as cheap food. Good food costs money.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, thirteen years ago the British Government stupidly allowed the EU to have competence in all aspects of food law. What has been uncovered in recent weeks is a demonstration of gross incompetence which has resulted in British people eating the meat of horses when they believed they were eating beef.

The paper trail system that the EU has adopted to ensure the provenance of produce is wide open to fraud, and as the EU becomes ever larger it expands into countries where fraud and corruption are a simple fact of life. Under our previous system in the UK, where food was regularly tested and inspected, the substitution of horse for beef would have been quickly detected.

It is depressing to note that many of our own British Members of Parliament assumed that our Secretary of State for Agriculture had the authority to act decisively in this matter, when in reality he is as impotent as a bullock or a gelding.

  Martina Anderson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the Commission has stated that, regardless of the legislation in place, there will always be criminals seeking to cheat the system in the pursuit of cheap profit. Doubtless this is true – but that does not mean that, as regulators, we should allow it to continue. We have, as you have said, a responsibility to make any criminal activity – especially in the food supply chain – as difficult as possible to do. Although the EU can claim to have one of the most developed traceability systems in the world, it is clearly not 100% fit for purpose in the processing sector, as other Members have outlined.

The report you mentioned should deal with mandatory country- as well as region-of-origin-labelling systems for meat products, including frozen or processed meats. I say this because such a process would ensure that there was a stronger onus on supermarkets to take responsibility for their supply chain.

We need to take full account of the specific characteristics of the Member States, thereby allowing beef for regions in the North of Ireland to be identified as Irish if producers so wish, or Scottish beef to retain its Scottish labelling, which would aid traceability in general and prevent scandals such as this from occurring again.

  Lucas Hartong (NI). - Voorzitter, in Nederland hebben we sinds kort een nieuw gezegde: 'paarden voor runderen verkopen'. Het is ongelofelijk, maar de consument kan er vandaag de dag niet meer van op aan wat er werkelijk voor vlees in de winkel ligt. De enorme winsten gaan naar de vleesproducenten die paardenvlees als rundvlees verkopen. Het is fout.

Maar het wordt nog erger. EFSA, het Europees voedselveiligheidsagentschap, en dus het paradepaardje dat aan had moeten slaan bij dit schandaal, deed het niet. Het was te danken aan de nationale voedsel- en warenautoriteiten dat het schandaal in volle omvang duidelijk werd. Het waren de nationale lidstaten die het direct hebben aangepakt.

De conclusie moge duidelijk zijn. Zoals de PVV al jaren achtereen betoogt, zo snel mogelijk de overbodige EFSA afschaffen, die nog geen paard van een rund kan onderscheiden. Laten we vooral de nationale keuringsinstanties koesteren. Dan weet de consument ten minste weer wat voor vlees hij of zij in de kuip heeft. Immers je bent een rund als je met de voedselveiligheid stunt.

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, most of the interventions hovered around two or three points, and I will try and reply to them. First of all the sanctions: I agree that even though the legislation we have is based on directives – and we do not have a regulation as we have in environmental criminal law where specific sanctions are specified in the regulation – we should be more specific in the directives when we are drafting them. This is why I believe that it should be made extremely clear in such a sensitive issue that crime does not pay.

I said that enforcement is in the hands of the Member States and that the Commission has no control, as Mr Davies said, over the decisions of the courts and tribunals which implement the legislation. I have heard of cases of meat producers whose licences were not suspended even after having been found guilty of certain criminal actions. So I believe that the financial criminal sanctions should be equal to the financial gain made from committing the crime; otherwise crime will pay. If the benefit received from violating EU legislation is much higher than the penalty that might be received then these violations will continue.

When I have said in the past and even today that the fact that there is a law does not mean that it will not be violated – in the same way as we have a law against robbery but I am sure that right now somewhere in the European Union someone is robbing someone or something – I was not being complacent, saying that once a law exists you can expect it to be violated. I am just trying to give a realistic point of view that nothing can be perfect. But this does not mean that we should not do our utmost to make the penalties a deterrent and the inspections as effective as possible.

The inspection system can be improved, but the way it is structured has to remain the same. It is not only food safety legislation or food labelling legislation that is implemented by Member States; all legislation in the European Union is implemented by the Member States. Concerning labelling it is first of all implemented by the food producer, who is primarily responsible for labelling on food products being honest and not deceptive.

Then there is the control system by the Member States, which have their national authorities. I would remind this Assembly that it was the Irish enforcement agency which conducted an investigation into the cheapest beef burgers in a supermarket, and it was through that inspection that it was discovered that some beef products labelled as beef meat contained 80% horsemeat. So it was a Member State, not through a report but through a random inspection of the cheapest meat products on the market, which discovered the scandal towards the end of January.

Then we have the Commission which, through its Food and Veterinary Office in Ireland, inspects the inspectors to see that the control system works. This mostly concerns food safety issues, because I would remind this Parliament that DNA testing for the animal species of meat products is a relatively recent thing. Before, all inspections used to be done purely on the food safety issue. It was only through the scientific development of DNA testing even on food that we started testing food not only for safety purposes but also to see whether the label reflects the ingredients of the meat products themselves.

Also, as Mrs McAvan said, it is important to have unannounced inspections, and in the new legislation we will try and put forward a proposal to oblige Member States not to announce the inspections but to have random unannounced inspections along the food chain to improve the inspection of the food chain itself.

On the question of country of origin labelling, I can give you five reasons put forward by Member States in the past – because this has been discussed in the past – why this should not be introduced, and I can give you another five reasons from another group of Member States which oppose this country of origin labelling. Some have switched from one side to the other because of this issue.

Please understand that this is not an easy matter. I have an open mind on this issue, but please do understand that there are issues pertaining to costs and there are issues pertaining to the complexity of the subject, because it is one thing labelling fresh beef and quite another thing labelling different meats from different places of origin which are processed in one meat product. One has to be very careful not to attack the single market. There should be no elements of protectionism in this legislation. But, as I said, I have an open mind on this. I note that there is a swelling number of Member States who are in favour of this legislation and as soon as I have the report I will accordingly act immediately and swiftly.

It is important not to undermine the internal market through this scandal and, in reply to certain comments about reintroducing barriers to trade owing to this food issue on labelling, I would remind the House that fraud is not exclusive to any one particular country. Recently we discovered, or the national authorities discovered, meat from the United Kingdom which was being exported to France which was illegal because it was mechanised beef, which is illegal under EU legislation.

The internal market is a cornerstone of the European Union, it is something positive, but when you have an internal market, without any barriers, of 500 million consumers, one of the disadvantages this can cause is that the moment someone violates a law in one country the ripple effect affects other countries as well. However, this is like Schengen. The fact that sometimes Schengen is abused by persons with criminal records moving from one country to another does not mean that we should not have Schengen. The internal market is something positive, but because we have an internal market we should have stricter legislation, stricter penalties and better inspections.

So I agree with all the Members of Parliament that we would be putting our heads in the sand if we were to say that this scandal has not rocked consumer confidence in recent weeks. Clearly we must make every effort to learn the lessons of this regrettable episode and do our utmost to restore confidence in our food supply as soon as possible. After all, most of the legislation which we sometimes have in different areas is the result of lessons learnt through incidences, through scandals and through issues, and we cannot accept that a few rogue operators can do serious damage to the way the European public views the entire food chain.

So in conclusion, Madam President, I look forward to working with Parliament towards our shared aim of ensuring as far as possible that similar fraudulent practices do not arise in the future.

  La Présidente. - Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (article 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), i scríbhinn. – A Uachtaráin, tá an-dochar déanta do mhuinín tomhaltóirí san earnáil talmhaíochta Eorpach ag an gcamscéim bhia a nochtadh le déanaí.

Is léir dúinn anois go bhfuil laigí sa chóras inrianaitheachta, go bhfuil sé fíor-éasca camscéimeanna bia a chur i bhfeidhm agus slabhra an tsoláthair bhia a chur i mbaol. Níl sé maith go leor gur faoi údaráis na hÉireann a bhí sé aird a tharraingt ar an bhfadhb seo. Ba cheart go mbeadh córas faireacháin agus deimhnithe i bhfad níos déine i bhfeidhm don slabhra soláthair uile in AE. Ní mór dúinn bearta leathana a chur i bhfeidhm chun cáil, ardchaighdeán agus inrianaitheacht táirgí Eorpacha a atógáil.

Aontaím gur chóir ainm feirmeoirí a chosaint ón smál atá á chur ar an earnáil ag gníomhaíochtaí calaoiseacha, coiriúla atá á ndéanamh ag daoine agus ag grúpaí áirithe. Tá an-chuid oibre déanta ag feirmeoirí agus páirtithe leasmhara na hearnála chun a chinntiú go féidir an bia a tháirgeann siad a leanúint ón bhfeirm go dtí an forc. Ní mór dúinne, lucht déanta beartais AE, comhoibriú anois leo siúd chun a chinntiú nach dlí fíorúil atá sna bearta dlíthiúla atá i bhfeidhm chun tacú leo ach gur fíordhlí é a thabharfadh cosaint dóibh agus dá slí bheatha.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – La chaîne de supermarchés Champion Mestdagh, sur ordre de marques, a ordonné de détruire tous les lots de nourriture contenant de la viande chevaline, qu'il s'agisse de produits surgelés comme Igloo ou de conserves comme les raviolis Buitoni. Il est scandaleux de constater que des marques préfèrent jeter de la nourriture saine aux ordures plutôt que d'en faire don à des associations ou de la vendre au rabais à des familles ayant du mal à boucler les fins de mois. Des supermarchés préfèrent donc nourrir les rats plutôt que les gens: affolant!

Le mensonge des étiquettes mentionnant "bœuf" à la place de "cheval" doit être sévèrement puni afin que les coupables sachent ce qu'il en coûte de se moquer de 500 millions d'Européens. Mais je maintiens qu'à partir du moment où ces produits sont sains, il faut les redistribuer aux plus démunis ou les vendre au rabais. Il est tout aussi criminel de mentir sur le contenu de la nourriture que de jeter celle-ci. Si les responsables veulent se racheter, il n'est pas trop tard mais il est temps

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle la discussion commune sur:

- le rapport de Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, au nom de la commission du marché intérieur et de la protection des consommateurs, sur la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil relatif au règlement en ligne des litiges de consommation (règlement relatif au RLLC) (COM(2011)0794 - C7-0453/2011 - 2011/0374(COD)) (A7-0236/2012), et

- le rapport de Louis Grech, au nom de la commission du marché intérieur et de la protection des consommateurs, sur la proposition de directive du Parlement européen et du Conseil relative au règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges de consommation et portant modification du règlement (CE) n° 2006/2004 et de la directive 2009/22/CE (directive relative au RELC) (COM(2011)0793 - C7-0454/2011 - 2011/0373(COD)) (A7-0280/2012).

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, sprawozdawczyni. − Dziękuję bardzo Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu, drogie Koleżanki i Koledzy! Bardzo się cieszę, że mogę Państwu przedstawić końcowy efekt niemal rocznej pracy nad rozstrzyganiem sporów konsumenckich. Rozporządzenie i dyrektywa, które – przekonana jestem – dzisiaj przyjmie Parlament Europejski, będą lekarstwem na wiele problemów, z którymi zmagają się dziś konsumenci i przedsiębiorcy u nas, na europejskim rynku.

Projekt, który opracowaliśmy wspólnie z kontrsprawozdawcami (dziękuję), DG SANCO Komisji Europejskiej (dziękuję), prezydencją polską, duńską i cypryjską (również dziękuję), jest naprawdę europejski. Zależy nam przecież na tym, aby i konsumenci, i przedsiębiorcy – tzn. 500 mln obywateli – korzystali z całego europejskiego rynku, z ogromnego wyboru towarów z 27 krajów. Tymczasem w ostatnich 12 miesiącach zaledwie 10% konsumentów kupiło jakikolwiek towar lub jakąkolwiek usługę przez internet z zagranicy. Jednym z głównych powodów takiego stanu rzeczy jest brak zaufania, ale dzięki platformie rozstrzygania sporów konsumenckich, czyli ODR, konsumenci nie będą już musieli obawiać się kupowania towarów i usług na zagranicznych stronach www, bo nawet jeżeli coś pójdzie nie tak, możemy być pewni, że rozwiążemy sprawę we własnym języku. Przecież nie ma dobrze funkcjonującego rynku bez zaufania konsumentów do przedsiębiorców i odwrotnie. To zaufanie, szczególnie w transakcjach transgranicznych, będzie stopniowo rosło. Pozasądowe rozstrzyganie sporów konsumenckich, czyli tzw. ADR, znakomicie opracowane przez mojego kolegę, pana Louisa Grecha – jemu również bardzo dziękuję za współpracę – budujemy w oparciu o istniejące fragmenty systemów arbitrażowych, mediacyjnych czy sądownictwa polubownego w państwach członkowskich. Zgodnie z zapisami dyrektywy systemy te zostaną uzupełnione we wszystkich sektorach, podwyższy się także ich jakość, a szybkość rozwiązywania sporów będzie biła na głowę systemy sądownicze w państwach członkowskich. Dziś w Europie oczekuje się średnio około 450 dni na rozstrzygnięcie przez sąd sporu w obrocie gospodarczym, podczas gdy w nowym systemie zabierze to najwyżej 90 dni. Przewaga systemów pozasądowych nad tradycyjnymi polega m.in. na ich polubownym charakterze, gdyż po zapadnięciu rozstrzygnięcia strony mogą wrócić do relacji handlowych i nie ma zwycięzców i przegranych, jak to często zdarza się w sądach.

Cieszę się bardzo, że udało się nadać tej inicjatywie charakter bardziej federacyjny i bardziej europejski niż to, co proponowała Komisja. Platforma będzie obsługiwała nie tylko spory transgraniczne, ale również spory krajowe. Dzięki temu platforma będzie bardziej przystawała do rzeczywistości wirtualnej, gdzie przecież granice fizyczne nie istnieją. Nie tylko konsumenci, ale i przedsiębiorcy będą mogli z niej korzystać. Absolutnie kluczowe było dla mnie uproszczenie funkcjonowania platformy dla konsumentów i uczynienie jej bardziej zrozumiałą i łatwiejszą w użyciu. W jakim stopniu się to udało, zobaczymy w praktyce za kilkanaście miesięcy, ale cieszę się, że zgodziliśmy się, że zanim obywatele jej użyją, Komisja ma obowiązek przetestować jej funkcjonowanie razem z organizacjami przedsiębiorców, konsumentów i przedstawić sprawozdanie Parlamentowi Europejskiemu. Liczę na to, że dzięki temu wspólnie zadbamy, aby narzędzie, które obywatele dostaną do użycia, w pełni odpowiadało ich oczekiwaniom.

I na zakończenie: dla sukcesu tego projektu konieczna jest informacja dla konsumentów. Nasi obywatele muszą wiedzieć, gdzie znaleźć informację na temat internetowego rozstrzygania sporów. Musimy się wszyscy zaangażować w ten proces: usługodawcy internetowi, my – parlamentarzyści, strona Komisji Europejskiej „Twoja Europa”, aby obywatele rzeczywiście korzystali z tego nowego instrumentu. Dziękuję Państwu i oczekuję ciekawej debaty.

  La Présidente. - Mme Gebhardt va parler au nom de M. Grech, qui a été élu au parlement maltais. Nous l'en félicitons.

  Evelyne Gebhardt, in Vertretung des Berichterstatters. − Frau Präsidentin! Tatsächlich hat mich der Kollege Grech gebeten, ihn heute zu vertreten. Er soll wohl stellvertretender Premierminister in Malta werden und hat jetzt natürlich sehr viel zu tun. Es tut ihm sehr leid, das nicht selber hier vortragen zu können, weil ihm dieses Thema sehr wichtig war und wirklich am Herzen lag.

Tatsächlich gibt es sowohl für Verbraucher als auch für die Unternehmer und Händler, die grenzüberschreitend arbeiten, immer wieder Probleme. Und sehr viele Bürger und Bürgerinnen haben auch Ängste: Was passiert denn eigentlich, wenn ich etwas im Internet in einem anderen Staat einkaufe und es ein Problem mit dem Produkt oder mit der Dienstleistung gibt? Wie komme ich denn eigentlich zu meinem Recht? Das ist eines der großen Hindernisse, warum viele Leute dann doch davor zurückschrecken, etwas grenzüberschreitend zu kaufen.

Deswegen ist es – denke ich – sehr wichtig, dass wir den Bürgern mit diesen Streitbeilegungsmöglichkeiten, dieser Alternative zu einem Gerichtsverfahren, ein Mittel an die Hand geben, wie auch sie schnell und bequem – soweit man von bequem sprechen kann – zu ihrem Recht kommen können. Das ist eine Win-Win-Situation, sowohl für den Händler als auch für den Verbraucher. Mit diesem ADR-System, wie es abgekürzt heißt, haben wir die Möglichkeit, ein neutrales, transparentes, effektives, unabhängiges, schnelles und faires Streitbeilegungsverfahren zu schaffen. All diese Stichwörter sind in diesem Zusammenhang von großer Wichtigkeit.

Mit diesem System, das wir heute hoffentlich auch verabschieden werden – und darauf vertraue ich –, werden wir innerhalb von 90 Tagen ein Ergebnis haben. Das ist ganz wichtig für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen. Zum anderen müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass das System auch billig ist, möglichst ohne Gebühren für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen, damit ihr Zugang zu einem Schlichtungssystem erleichtert wird. Und wir haben in diesem Gesetz auch dafür gesorgt, dass ein Verfahren vor einem solchen Streitbeilegungsgremium nicht bedeutet, dass der Weg zum Gericht – sollte es doch noch notwendig sein – versperrt oder verhindert wird. Das ist eine der ganz großen Errungenschaften.

Sehr viele Bürger und Bürgerinnen werden hoffentlich auch über diese Möglichkeit informiert werden. Denn das, was Frau Thun und Hohenstein gerade gesagt hat, ist ja genau eines der ganz großen Probleme: Sehr viele Verbraucher und Verbraucherinnen haben gar keine Ahnung davon, welche Rechte sie haben, welche Möglichkeiten es gibt. Deswegen wird es auch notwendig sein, sie transparent und schnell zu informieren. Auch durch die Kommission: über eine Website, aber auch über andere, bereits bestehende Informationskanäle, damit die Bürger und Bürgerinnen von diesen Möglichkeiten erfahren. Und deswegen ist im Gesetzestext auch vorgesehen, dass die Händler die Bürger und Bürgerinnen darauf hinweisen müssen, dass für den Streitfall dieses Verfahren existiert, wenn sich Verbraucher und Händler nicht einigen können.

Sehr verehrte Damen und Herren, ich denke, dass Louis Grech und Frau Thun und Hohenstein sehr gute Arbeit geleistet haben. Das Trilogverfahren hat gezeigt, dass das Ergebnis tatsächlich für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen einen großen Mehrwert, einen Gewinn aus europäischer Politik darstellt, und ich glaube, das ist das Beste, was wir für unsere Bürger und Bürgerinnen tun können!

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, just over a year ago the Commission put on the table two legislative proposals. One was a directive on consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), and the other was a regulation on consumer Online Dispute Resolution (ODR).

Today, we stand on the verge of a first reading agreement, and may I say that it was a very swift process. Both Parliament and the Council have worked very hard on these proposals. Let me heartily congratulate the two rapporteurs, Ms Thun and Mr Grech. I phoned Mr Grech yesterday to congratulate him on his electoral success. He was extremely sad not to be here, but I am sure that he is very happy with his personal electoral performance, being elected from two constituencies in Malta, and probably tomorrow he will be appointed deputy Prime Minister, so I also congratulated him on this possibility, because I occupied this post three months ago in my own country.

Let me congratulate the two rapporteurs, Mr Grech and Ms Thun und Hohenstein and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) and its Chair, as well as the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI), for cooperating effectively with the Danish and Cypriot Presidencies, and on reaching a political agreement in December last year.

A first reading agreement will be a great achievement for all concerned. We managed to comply with the requirements of the Single Market Act I, which called for a fast-track adoption of the proposals, and the proposals have been adopted very swiftly. We also managed to fulfil one of the obligations set out in the Digital Agenda for Europe. The path towards this agreement serves as an excellent model of political will and engagement, even overcoming some divergent points of view.

The Commission stands fully behind this agreement and is very pleased with the outcome of the negotiations. These two legislative acts will bring tangible benefits to consumers and traders in the internal market. We know that about one in five EU consumers encounters problems when buying goods or services in the internal market. Recently, I held a press conference on a sweep exercise on online purchasing of videos, downloading videos, DVDs and music, and there was a 73 % rate in all Member States inspected of deficiencies in implementing certain legislation as regards online trading. Only a small fraction of these consumers, the one in five who encounter problems, currently seek and secure effective redress. The ADR and ODR legislation will enable them to solve their disputes out of court in a simple, fast and low-cost way. This will not only save consumers from often overburdening court proceedings, but will also motivate them to seek redress in the first place. The cheaper it is and the swifter it is, the more enticing it would be to seek a remedy.

Let me briefly outline the breakthrough elements that these two measures will introduce. First, with the exceptions of health and education, we have secured full ADR coverage. This means that consumers, regardless of sector and of geographical location, can address their dispute to an ADR entity. Second, we set minimum requirements for the quality of ADR entities, which have to respect certain principles, such as those of impartiality, independence, effectiveness and fairness. Furthermore, we will enhance consumer information. Despite the fact that the final agreement on this point does not entirely reflect the original hopes of the Commission, it certainly marks a step forward, as traders who commit to using ADR will inform consumers accordingly.

Finally, we shall be introducing the innovative ODR platform for online disputes. Both consumers and traders will be able to submit their dispute online, in any official EU language, and have it dealt with entirely online. This will boost the confidence of both consumers and traders in trading online and across borders.

Before I finish, let me stress that the Commission’s work is not over. We are committed to delivering a well-functioning and user-friendly ODR platform. We will also help Member States by issuing implementation guidelines on ADR.

Finally, in cooperation with stakeholders, Members of this Parliament and Member States, we shall undertake a series of flanking measures to promote ADR and ODR across the European Union. The adoption of the ADR and the ODR legislation is a milestone for the re-launching of the internal market. This agreement will improve citizens’ everyday lives and we should all give it our full-hearted and whole-hearted support.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi, Raportor pentru aviz, Comisia pentru afaceri juridice. − Doresc să le mulţumesc celor doi raportori, dnei Róża Thun şi, în special, dlui Louis Grech, cu care am cooperat extrem de eficient. Doresc, de asemenea, să mulţumesc Consiliului pentru eforturile depuse în vederea adoptării cât mai rapide a acestei directive extrem de importante.

Pentru a garanta încrederea consumatorilor în procedurile de soluţionare alternativă a litigiilor, avem nevoie de standarde minime la nivel european. În primul rând, este nevoie ca persoanele responsabile de soluţionarea alternativă a disputelor să dispună de expertiza şi experienţa necesară. În al doilea rând - şi acesta este unul dintre aspectele cele mai importante - trebuie asigurată independenţa şi imparţialitatea persoanelor responsabile cu soluţionarea litigiilor.

Din punctul meu de vedere, compromisul la care s-a ajuns împreună cu Consiliul este unul pragmatic, pentru că stabileşte criterii clare de imparţialitate şi independenţă, obligaţii stricte de transparenţă, permiţând menţinerea organismelor de soluţionare alternativă existente. Sper că va avea sprijinul unanim al Parlamentului şi că statele membre o vor transpune cât mai curând, în interesul consumatorilor europeni.

  Hans-Peter Mayer, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die ADR-Richtlinie ist ein großer Meilenstein auf dem Weg zu einer weiteren Befreiung des Binnenmarkts und zu einer weiteren Stärkung des Verbraucherschutzes.

Immer handelt es sich um Streitigkeiten zwischen Unternehmen einerseits und Verbrauchern andererseits. Hier bedauere ich eine Sache, Herr Kommissar, dass nur die Verbraucher die ADR-Stelle anrufen können, nicht aber die Unternehmen, obwohl es immer um eine Streitigkeit zwischen Unternehmen und Verbrauchern geht. Im Grunde darf es keine Rolle spielen, wer den Streit beginnt, sondern dass solche Streitigkeiten im Rahmen von einfachen, effektiven, kostengünstigen außergerichtlichen Maßnahmen geregelt werden können. Also hier gibt es Nachbesserungsbedarf, denn auch Unternehmen sollten im Sinne des Verbraucherschutzes eine solche Stelle anrufen können und nicht gleich vor Gericht marschieren müssen.

Das Zweite ist die Art der ADR-Stellen. Es gibt berechtigte, gute hauseigene ADR-Stellen. Die müssen natürlich erhöhte Transparenz, erhöhte Unabhängigkeit, erhöhte Selbständigkeit haben, da bin ich auch dafür. Aber wenn jetzt eine erfahrene Person eine ADR-Stelle unterstützt, unterschreibt sie damit gleichzeitig ihre Kündigung. Denn nach Ablauf dieser ADR-Tätigkeit darf sie drei Jahre nicht mehr in demselben Unternehmen tätig sein, das Fachwissen nicht mehr anwenden, auch nicht in angeschlossenen Unternehmen tätig sein. Das halte ich für deutlich übertrieben, denn wir brauchen erfahrene Leute in diesen ADR-Stellen, und nicht jemanden, der sagt: „Na ja, mir ist es egal, wenn ich auch nachher gekündigt werde, ich mache das jetzt mal.“ Diese zwei Punkte müssen bei der nächsten Möglichkeit nachgebessert werden.

Ansonsten ist diese ADR-Richtlinie eine hervorragende Sache. Ich kann nur alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen bitten, diesen Antrag, diese Richtlinie zu unterstützen. Ich danke nochmals den beiden Berichterstattern, Louis Grech und Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein.

  Mitro Repo, S&D-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, minulla on ollut ilo ja kunnia tehdä varjoesittelijänä yhteistyötä niin esittelijän kuin sittemmin komission ja neuvoston edustajien kanssa.

Arvoisat kollegat, minun pitää sanoa, että olemme ajan hermolla, sillä Euroopan kuluttajakeskuksen mukaan verkkohuijauksia koskevat yhteydenotot ovat vain lisääntyneet viime vuosina. Jos me emme pysty puuttumaan verkossa tapahtuviin huijauksiin ja lisäämään kuluttajien luottamusta verkkokauppaa kohtaan, me emme kyllä pysty millään saavuttamaan myöskään digitaalisille sisämarkkinoille asettamiamme kasvutavoitteita.

Olen itse moneen otteeseen prosessin aikana kantanut huolta juuri riidanratkaisumenetelmän maksullisuudesta, yksityisyyden suojasta ja heikoimmassa asemassa olevien kuluttajien asemasta. Lisäksi olen itse pieneen kieliryhmään kuuluvana ollut huolissani kuluttajien mahdollisuuksista käyttää ODR-foorumia tarvittaessa omalla äidinkielellään.

Tästä syystä olenkin erittäin tyytyväinen, että ehdotuksen mukaan ODR-foorumi tulisi olemaan kuluttajille maksuton, että se olisi käytettävissä kaikilla EU:n virallisilla kielillä ja että siinä huomioitaisiin myös käytettävyyteen, tietosuojaan ja kuluttajien yksityisyyteen liittyvät asiat. Toivon, että tätä hienoa systeemiä ei tarvitsisi käyttää vaan tietysti, että pääsisimme ilman riitoja eteenpäin.

  Robert Rochefort, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Présidente, obtenir réparation pour un consommateur, après un litige, est un droit fondamental, mais c'est aussi une condition pour qu'il soit en confiance, pour qu'il fasse tourner la machine économique, ce dont nous avons bien besoin dans ces temps de crise et dans tous nos pays.

Mais aller devant le tribunal en toutes circonstances est une procédure lourde, impressionnante et longue qui en effraie beaucoup. C'est pourquoi, grâce à ces textes, que nous allons voter aujourd'hui, j'en suis sûr, toutes les procédures d'intermédiation vont se généraliser grâce à des arbitres, des conciliateurs, des médiateurs. En procédant ainsi, et sans retirer au consommateur le droit d'aller malgré tout devant le tribunal s'il le souhaite réellement, on permet que des accords gagnant-gagnant soient trouvés rapidement, c'est-à-dire sans que cela signifie forcément que l'une des parties a tous les torts tandis que l'autre partie est exempte de toute responsabilité.

Mais s'il est garanti que ces textes législatifs sont clairs en ce qui concerne les compétences, l'indépendance et l'impartialité des médiateurs, il nous faudra cependant rester très vigilants dans l'application à venir de ces dispositions. Il faut tout d'abord que tous les consommateurs soient réellement informés de ces nouveaux droits dont ils vont disposer. Mais pour cela, il faut que les professionnels, en particulier les PME elles-mêmes, le soient aussi.

Ce sera un gros effort à fournir et la mobilisation devra être générale. Il faudra s'assurer que l'information est claire et figure bien sur le site internet du commerçant ou dans les conditions générales de vente. Il faudra ensuite vérifier que la mise en place de médiateurs, là où il n'en existe pas aujourd'hui, ne se fera pas au détriment de la qualité de ce que l'on doit légitimement attendre, et que l'on veillera à écarter tous les conflits d'intérêt. Il faudra aussi que la plateforme internet, qui devra être créée pour permettre de traiter ces médiations en ligne, soit vraiment très accessible, notamment à partir du portail "L'Europe est à vous", comme l'a dit Mme Thun.

Ce sera, Monsieur le Commissaire, un travail important pour vos services, comme vous l'avez dit d'ailleurs vous-même.

Enfin, je me félicite que les médiateurs internes aux entreprises, dans les États membres qui en possèdent – c'est le cas en France –, soient pleinement reconnus. Nous renforcerons dans ces textes aujourd'hui les critères propres à garantir qu'ils soient réellement indépendants et impartiaux.

  Ashley Fox, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, may I thank our rapporteurs, Louis Grech and Róża Thun, for their work on ADR and ODR. I would also like to thank them on behalf of my colleague, Malcolm Harbour, who apologises for not being with us today.

These reports add value to the single market, ensuring proper coverage of consumer redress across the EU. We have made sure that procedural rules do not endanger existing systems, such as the successful UK Financial Services Scheme. Indeed, the ADR directive and ODR regulation will complement them, not replace them. ADR offers a low cost alternative to formal legal action for both traders and consumers alike. It is an efficient way of resolving disputes, and I hope coverage across the EU improves rapidly.

Both reports were improved during the committee stage and during trialogue. Procedural rules have been made more flexible, to respect existing systems, and Member States have more discretion on implementation. My group is pleased with these reports and we will support them in the vote later today.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich glaube, wie auch schon mehrfach angesprochen wurde, dass die Verabschiedung der Richtlinie zur außergerichtlichen Streitbeilegung und die Schaffung einer einheitlichen europäischen Online-Regelungsplattform in der Tat einen wirklichen Fortschritt für den Binnenmarkt bedeutet.

Ich sage das ganz bewusst auch an die Adresse unseres Kommissars, der ja vor Einbringung dieser Richtlinie durch die Kommission an verschiedenen Stellen von Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die gesagt haben, wir brauchen gerichtliche Verfahren, unter Druck gesetzt wurde. Ich glaube, es war ein weiser Schritt zu versuchen, den Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern – was von vielen Kolleginnen und Kollegen auch schon angesprochen wurde – zu ersparen, vor Gericht zu gehen, weil eine außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung in der Welt des Internet schneller, kostengünstiger und einfacher ist. Klar ist, dass eine solche außergerichtliche Streitbeilegung nicht automatisch gelingt. Klar ist, dass sie nicht einfach ist. Aber wenn sie gelingt, ist sie für die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher mit Abstand das einfachste, was es gibt. Deswegen freue ich mich sehr, Herr Kommissar, dass die Kommission an dieser Stelle der EVP-Fraktion gefolgt ist und diesen Weg eingeschlagen hat!

Wir müssen jetzt gemeinsam evaluieren, was die Vorteile dieses neuen Weges sind, der – wenn er gelingt – im Interesse aller Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher in Europa ist.

Unsere Berichterstatterin Róża Thun hat gesagt, dass wir natürlich Wert darauf legen müssen – und ich bitte Sie, Herr Kommissar, auch darauf zu achten –, dass die Plattform, die die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher künftig im Internet informieren soll, tatsächlich auch sehr einfach zugänglich und verständlich abgefasst ist, und aus unserer Sicht muss sie auch in allen Sprachen der Europäischen Union verfügbar sein.

Unser Schattenberichterstatter Hans-Peter Mayer hat darauf hingewiesen, dass wir damit auch einen erheblichen Schritt im Binnenmarkt vorankommen, weil natürlich der grenzüberschreitende Handel zunehmend an Bedeutung gewinnt und sich die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher glücklicherweise immer weniger Gedanken darüber machen, woher eine Ware kommt, sondern immer stärker darauf achten, welche Qualität und welche Eigenschaften sie hat.

Wir haben in Baden-Württemberg vor einigen Jahren eine Regelung eingeführt, mit der wir einen Online-Schlichter für alle Streitigkeiten im Internet eingesetzt haben. Wir haben damit sehr gute Erfahrungen gemacht, und ich hoffe, dass wir damit ein Stück weit auch Trendsetter für diese Entwicklung in Europa sein können.

  Συλβάνα Ράπτη (S&D). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σήμερα είναι μια μεγάλη μέρα για την Ευρώπη, σήμερα είναι μια μεγάλη ημέρα για την ενιαία αγορά. Θεωρώ ότι οι δύο εκθέσεις του συναδέλφου Louis Grech και της συναδέλφου Róża Gräfin von Thun προχωρούν πιο πέρα την Ευρώπη. Δημιουργούν συνθήκες εμπιστοσύνης για τον καταναλωτή είτε αγοράζει και καταναλώνει μέσα στην ίδια τη χώρα όπου κατοικεί είτε επιλέγει να αγοράσει προϊόντα από άλλες χώρες μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Η σημαντική συμβολή αυτών των δύο εκθέσεων είναι ότι μπορεί ο καταναλωτής, χωρίς τον φόβο ότι θα χάσει τα χρήματά του αν ένα προϊόν είναι ελαττωματικό, να προχωρήσει στην αγορά. Είναι ένας μηχανισμός που εξασφαλίζει φτηνή επίλυση διαφορών μέσα σε λογικά πλαίσια. Και κυρίως είναι ένας μηχανισμός στον οποίο κάποιος προσφεύγει, εάν θέλει.

Εάν ο μηχανισμός αυτός δώσει αποτελέσματα μέσα σε 90 ημέρες, όλα βαίνουν καλώς. Αν όμως αυτός ο μηχανισμός δεν λειτουργήσει, υπάρχει πάντα το θέμα της προσφυγής στη δικαιοσύνη. Το απευχόμεθα αλλά, αν χρειαστεί, το επόμενο βήμα είναι οι συλλογικές προφυγές. Ας το έχουμε στο μυαλό μας.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – Chciałbym podziękować bardzo serdecznie posłance Thun za to sprawozdanie. Wprowadzenie alternatywnych metod rozstrzygania sporów konsumenckich jest wysoce pożądane w obliczu coraz bardziej intensywnej wymiany handlowej pomiędzy podmiotami z różnych państw członkowskich. Dotyczy to w szczególności transakcji online. Dziś liczy się przede wszystkim szybkość i łatwość dochodzenia roszczeń. Dlatego doskonałym pomysłem jest utworzenie internetowej platformy rozstrzygania sporów, umożliwiającej przeniesienie znacznej części spraw do cyberprzestrzeni, co podniesie komfort działania i pozwoli zaoszczędzić cenny w biznesie czas. Warto odnotować, że możliwość wnoszenia skarg obejmuje również przedsiębiorców.

Niezmiernie istotne dla zapewnienia pełnej sprawności i skuteczności takiej platformy jest to, aby zachęcała ona konsumentów do korzystania z jej rozwiązań. Zagwarantowanie nieodpłatności systemu i dostępu we wszystkich językach Unii jest tutaj sprawą fundamentalną. Pozytywny wymiar miałoby ewentualne rozszerzenie zakresu rozporządzenia również na spory krajowe, szczególnie w państwach takich jak Polska, gdzie ochrona konsumentów wciąż pozostawia wiele do życzenia. Mam nadzieję, że to narzędzie szybko się upowszechni z wymierną korzyścią dla obywateli.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, ringrazio i due relatori per l'ottimo lavoro svolto, perché le proposte in esame permetteranno di potenziare il funzionamento del mercato unico, migliorando e rafforzando il livello di protezione e fiducia dei consumatori.

La direttiva ODR consentirà di moltiplicare i benefici e le sinergie dei metodi presenti nel mercato interno, tra i quali un'importante prassi eccellente italiana, ovvero quella della conciliazione paritetica. Una procedura gratuita, di natura volontaria e negoziale, basata su un accordo tra le associazioni dei consumatori e le imprese pariteticamente rappresentate nel procedimento.

Ritengo quindi particolarmente importanti alcune disposizioni della direttiva che mirano a rafforzare l'equità e la correttezza delle procedure: tra queste le norme che disciplinano la competenza, l'imparzialità, l'indipendenza delle persone indicate e incaricate della risoluzione della controversia, la definizione del principio di libertà in base al quale le decisioni non sono vincolanti senza il previo consenso delle parti e l'affermazione del principio di legalità, che garantisce al consumatore la tutela delle disposizioni di legge del proprio paese di residenza.

  María Irigoyen Pérez (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, señor Comisario, sabemos bien que estas dos propuestas que hoy debatimos son un paso fundamental para la adquisición de bienes y servicios, especialmente si se realiza en otro país y en línea, y para ampliar la protección y la seguridad de los consumidores.

No obstante, de nada servirá la aprobación de estas medidas si no se transponen en las legislaciones nacionales de forma rápida; si, además, no se promueve su conocimiento y su utilización, así como el suministro de la información necesaria, tanto para consumidores como para comerciantes; y si no se pone fin a las disparidades en cuanto a la cobertura y la calidad de los sistemas de resolución alternativa de litigios.

Por eso, hago un llamamiento a los responsables gubernamentales para que apliquen con éxito esta normativa, con el fin de garantizar el cumplimiento del principio de independencia y, además, la resolución alternativa de litigios con la plena accesibilidad de la plataforma europea.

Por último, quiero llamar la atención sobre la importancia de que se proporcione a los consumidores vulnerables un acceso al menor coste posible.

  Barbara Weiler (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dieser Tag ist in der Tat ein interessanter und guter Tag für die Verbraucher. Gute Neuigkeiten für Verbraucher, schlechte für Anwälte? Mitnichten! Diese Gesetzgebung ist eine intelligente Ergänzung zu Gerichtsverfahren.

Die Kultur der alternativen Streitschlichtung ist nicht neu in Europa. Neutrale Dritte – Schlichter, Mediatoren, Ombudsleute – gibt es in vielen Mitgliedstaaten. Diese Verfahren sind billiger, schneller und einfacher. Die unterschiedlichen Traditionen in Europa wollen wir aufnehmen und nicht abschaffen. In Deutschland gibt es z. B. gute Erfahrungen im Handel und im Handwerk. Darauf bauen wir auf. Denn bisher waren viele Verfahren und auch die Kenntnis davon unvollständig. Es gab leider auch unterschiedliche Qualitäten. Es gibt nur 750 Stellen in Europa und wenige Branchen, die sie nutzen. Das ist viel zu wenig. Das sind alles Punkte, warum diese Gesetzgebung nützlich und sinnvoll ist.

Mir liegt sehr daran, dass die Unabhängigkeit und Unparteilichkeit der Schlichter gewährleistet ist, ebenso die Freiheit, während des gesamten Prozesses aus dem Prozess auszuscheiden und eine alternative Möglichkeit zu suchen. Das ist für Verbraucher eine gute Chance. Wir werden daher diesen Gesetzen auch zustimmen.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D). - Madam President, thank you to the rapporteurs for their hard work. I welcome this first reading agreement. Although I would have preferred the proposal to go further, this is a compromise and a fair conclusion.

The rapporteur and other speakers have rightly emphasised the need for one set of rules reflecting both the offline and online realities covering our 27 Member States and empowering our 500 million citizens: one set of rules, 27 countries, 500 million people. Therefore, we should firstly attempt to ensure that we reduce, year by year, the figure of one in five EU citizens incurring problems when they buy goods and services, before we look at ODR and ADR. If a consumer has to go down the ODR or ADR route, they require clear information, and that has been broadly spoken about today.

People have spoken about the issue of language access, but I also want to emphasise that it is accessible in all formats – examples for people who are partially sighted. Once the ODR/ADR system is in place, I think we should also monitor what cases are coming before it in order that we can analyse that and see if there are any patterns where we can also improve our action. I welcome these proposals and I thank those who have been involved in creating them.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! Wenn wir den grenzüberschreitenden Handel mit Waren und Dienstleistungen vorantreiben wollen, brauchen wir auch kostengünstige und effiziente Mittel zur Rechtsdurchsetzung. Gerichtliche Prozesse, vor allem in einem grenzüberschreitenden Kontext, können sich häufig nur große Unternehmen leisten. Verbraucher und kleine und mittlere Unternehmen haben es da schon schwerer. Auch ich wäre skeptisch, ein Geschäft in einem anderen Land abzuschließen, wenn ich im Streitfall einen zeit- und kostenintensiven Prozess anstrengen müsste.

Das gilt besonders für den wachsenden Online-Handel. Ohne angemessenen Rechtsschutz werden Verbraucher und kleine und mittlere Unternehmen misstrauisch bleiben. Streitbeilegungsstellen im Bereich der elektronischen Geschäfte könnten hier durchaus Abhilfe schaffen. Auch eine ergänzende Plattform zur Online-Streitbeilegung wäre daher sinnvoll.

Interventions à la demande

  Erik Bánki (PPE). - Tisztelt Biztos Úr! A Bizottság kitűnő anyagot készített, a trialógus gyors és eredményes volt, a jelentéstevők pedig kitűnő javaslatokkal egészítették ki az anyagot, ezért engedjék meg, hogy mindenkinek gratuláljak, aki részt vett ebben a folyamatban. Egy nagyon széles problémakörről beszélünk, hiszen Európában a fogyasztók 20%-a ütközik valamilyen problémába online vásárlásai során. Az új eljárási mód gyors és egyszerű, hiszen elkerülhetővé teszi a drága, költséges és nehézkes bírósági utat, éppen ezért reményeink szerint sokan veszik majd igénybe. Olyanok, akiket ez eddig távol tartott ettől. Olyan innovatív online platformról beszélhetünk, amit a fogyasztók tömegei tudnak elérni.

Gyors, hiszen 450 napról 90 napra csökkenti az eljárás időtartamát. Nagyszerű, hiszen minden tagországban – így az én országomban, Magyarországon is – mindenki a saját nyelvén tudja igénybe venni, ami megint csak könnyíti a hozzáférési lehetőséget. És rendkívül széles körű, hiszen az oktatás és az egészségügyi ágazat kivételével valamennyi területet lefedi. Gratulálok tehát, és azt gondolom, hogy egy nagyon sikeres szavazásnak nézünk elébe.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Madam President, I would also like to congratulate Louis Grech on his wonderful appointment. He is a good colleague.

I would like to agree with other speakers in relation to goods and services regarding consumers. 500 million is a lot of people. I think this gives us an opportunity to do something really positive for consumers in relation to this legislation because – as has been previously stated – a lot of people are very put off by the cost of going to court. Once we get an agreed resolution process, this could be very much used. It will be up to every MEP of the 27 – soon to be 28 – Member States to put out the word that shoddy practices will no longer be acceptable to people.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Problémom s tovarom alebo poskytnutím služby sa nikto nevyhne, no väčšina z nás nemá silu uplatňovať svoje právo v klasickom súdnom spore, ktorého náklady môžu vysoko presiahnuť hodnotu tovaru alebo poskytnutej služby. Alternatívne riešenie sporov predstavuje jednoduchšiu možnosť vymoženia práva alebo iné ukončenie sporu v krátkom časovom období, a to bez zbytočne vynaložených nákladov. Je úlohou Únie prijať také opatrenia, aby sa zabezpečil rovnomerný prístup k alternatívnemu riešeniu sporov a hlavne informovanosť verejnosti a podnikateľov o tejto možnosti.

Súhlasím s tvrdením, že obchodníci z členských krajín, v ktorých nie je alternatívne riešenie sporov dostatočné, sú v nevýhode oproti obchodníkom, ktorí môžu riešiť spory rýchlejšie a jednoduchšie, pretože nie sú natoľko dôveryhodní. Táto nevyváženosť je naozaj zbytočnou prekážkou jednotného trhu.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). - Vážená paní předsedající, každý spotřebitel by měl mít zajištěn přístup k jednoduchému, levnému a rychlému řešení vzniklých sporů při nákupu zboží nebo služeb, což jsou hlavní výhody mechanismu alternativního řešení sporů. Podmínkou důvěryhodnosti těchto systémů je zajištění jejich nestrannosti a transparentnosti. Důvěra spotřebitelů se nebuduje jen na kvalitě výrobků a služeb, ale i na přesvědčení, že v případě problémů budou existovat jasná pravidla, účinné a rychlé mechanismy, jak se domoci spravedlivé nápravy.

Věřím, že podmínky odbornosti, nestrannosti a nezávislosti, které směrnice zavádí, pomohou zvýšit důvěru ze strany spotřebitelské veřejnosti v systém alternativního řešení sporů. Považuji za nezbytné, aby oba dokumenty patřičně transponovaly i ty státy, například Česká republika, v nichž systémy alternativního řešení sporů dosud spíše nefungovaly, mimo jiné i kvůli nedostatku komplexní právní úpravy. Přeji si, aby využily možnosti přijmout i přísnější pravidla a zajistily tím vyšší úroveň ochrany svých spotřebitelů.

A na závěr poděkování Louisi Grechovi a Róze Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein za skutečně vynikající práci.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, dispute resolutions are self-evidently beneficial. Most disputes with retailers over goods and services would not be worth taking to court, which means, of course, that consumer complaints would not be considered and unscrupulous traders would take advantage of this. Of course, of the various forms of ADR, arbitration is undoubtedly the best, because at least it guarantees an early conclusion.

I have a greater problem with the underlying motive for these measures. It is not primarily to improve consumer rights, but to facilitate online cross-border trade in manufactured goods. This will undoubtedly affect adversely the manufacturing sectors of the higher wage economies of the West and the retail sectors of the West. Nevertheless, they will benefit consumers buying products at home as well as abroad.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I share all the views which have been expressed. I am very happy that everybody has realised that we are taking a positive step today, because most consumers, when there is a problem regarding the purchase of goods, whether online or otherwise, find it difficult to seek redress.

I spent 15 years in Malta working as a lawyer in the arena, in the law courts, and I remember how difficult it was sometimes, even psychologically, for someone to attend a court sitting; ordinary people who used to tremble the moment they crossed the threshold of the law courts.

So creating swifter, cheaper, low-cost redress is something which will improve consumer legislation and protect the European consumer in the internal market of 500 million consumers. I am happy that the Commission’s proposals, and the compromises which have been made throughout the legislative proposal, have led to this legislation being adopted so far by both the Council and Parliament, and tomorrow we will have the plenary vote in this Assembly.

May I just state, in replying to a particular question, why business-to-business relations and transactions have not been included in this legislation. This is a piece of consumer protection legislation, so it emphasises protection for consumers when a problem arises after a consumer has purchased something, online or otherwise. This is why we have not regulated the business-to-business commercial relationship. There is nothing in the legislation to stop Member States, if they so wish, from extending ADR or ODR to business-to-business transactions but, since this was consumer protection legislation, the emphasis was of course on protecting the consumer rather than businesses. But there is nothing to stop the beneficial effects of this legislation being extended to business-to-business transactions.

In conclusion, I am very glad to hear that we share similar and positive views on the importance of ADR and ODR for the internal market. I trust that the plenary vote will confirm that we are working together to ensure that all citizens have access to effective online and offline out-of-court redress. I am confident that consumers and traders will use ADR and ODR and will benefit greatly as a result of this legislation. Sometimes we think only about consumers, but a business trader who has a dispute with a consumer will benefit through low-cost proceedings as well.

As I said earlier, the Commission will continue to work intensively to further promote ADR and ODR across the EU. There is still much work to be done to ensure that what we are approving here will not be a dead letter, but will be effectively implemented.

Finally, I would like once again to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Grech and Mrs Thun und Hohenstein, as well as the shadow rapporteurs, for their efforts and commitment towards reaching a rapid but consistent agreement with the Council.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein, sprawozdawczyni. − Dziękuję Wam – drodzy Koledzy i drogie Koleżanki – za tę debatę. Zakończę tak refleksyjnie. Dzisiaj Europę budujemy i wzmacniamy takimi konkretnymi projektami, jak ten właśnie, o pozasądowym rozstrzyganiu sporów.

Obywatele przyzwyczaili się bardzo szybko do pokoju, demokracji i kontynentu otwartego, bez wewnętrznych granic, i to również w tej części Europy, z której ja pochodzę. Dla następnej generacji ważne jest to, o czym mówimy dzisiaj. Dzisiaj oczekuje się od nas – od Parlamentu Europejskiego, od Komisji Europejskiej – że szybko zniesiemy pozostałe bariery, które utrudniają nam – konsumentom, przedsiębiorcom – pełne korzystanie z jednolitego rynku. A tych barier jest jeszcze wiele i przed nami jeszcze mnóstwo roboty. Nawet tylko w handlu internetowym, o którym dzisiaj tutaj tak dużo mówiliśmy, nie mamy europejskiego rynku paczek, co czyni zakupy transgraniczne trudnymi i drogimi. Ciągle jeszcze płacimy za drogo za roaming, chociaż udaje nam się jego cenę odczuwalnie obniżać, i jeszcze wiele innych barier przed nami.

Dziś jednak, przyjmując to rozporządzenie i dyrektywę o pozasądowym rozstrzyganiu sporów – ADR i ODR – stawiamy „a milestone for the relaunching of the internal market”. Dziękuję Panie Komisarzu za te słowa. W pełni się z nimi zgadzam i wierzę w dalszą dobrą pracę na rzecz konsumentów i przedsiębiorców w Unii Europejskiej.

  Evelyne Gebhardt, in Vertretung des Berichterstatters. − Frau Präsidentin! Tatsächlich gibt es Zahlen, die besagen, dass bis zu 0,4 % des Bruttoinlandsprodukts der Europäischen Union für die Verbraucher und Verbraucherinnen verlorengehen, weil sie – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – nicht zu ihrem Recht kommen. Deswegen ist dieses Mittel des ADR/ODR von so großer Bedeutung für die Verbraucher und Verbraucherinnen.

Lassen Sie mich auf zwei Punkte eingehen, die die EVP auch angesprochen hat, die allerdings auch sehr wichtig in der Diskussion waren. Zum Ersten: Es ist uns ganz wichtig, dass die Verfahren so weit wie möglich durch ADR, durch alternative Streitbeilegung, geklärt werden. Allerdings war es uns auch ganz wichtig, dass dadurch nicht der Weg zum Gericht verschlossen bleibt, weil es eben immer wieder einmal Fälle geben kann, in denen diese Verfahren zu keinem Ergebnis führen. Das war uns in diesem Zusammenhang ganz wichtig. Ich bin sehr froh, dass wir uns in dieser Frage durchgesetzt haben.

Der zweite Punkt, der noch angesprochen wurde, ist, warum dies eigentlich nur für die Verbraucher auf europäischer Ebene angeboten werden soll. Der Kommissar hat es gerade auch noch einmal aufgegriffen. Ganz wichtig: Hier geht es um Verbraucherschutz! Die Unternehmen haben sehr viele Chancen, Möglichkeiten und Ressourcen, um sich durchzusetzen. Das schwächere Glied in den Verhandlungen ist ja in der Regel der Verbraucher, die Verbraucherin. Wir müssen ihnen die Mittel an die Hand geben, sich zu wehren, wenn es notwendig ist, um auch wirklich eine Chance zu haben, zu ihrem Recht zu kommen. Deswegen war dies so wichtig. Wir bleiben als Sozialdemokraten dabei, dass wir das eben in erster Linie für die Verbraucher anbieten, dass es nicht so notwendig war, auch die Unternehmen da mit einzubeziehen.

Wie wichtig die Frage für uns Sozialdemokraten ist, haben Sie auch daran gesehen, wie viele Redner und Rednerinnen aus unserer Fraktion heute gesprochen haben. Heute ist wirklich ein sehr positiver Tag für die Bürger und Bürgerinnen Europas!

(La séance est suspendue pour quelques instants)

Déclarations écrites (article 149)

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), schriflich. – Die Alternative Streitbeilegung ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) stellt eine gute Alternative zu langwierigen und teuren Gerichtsverfahren dar. Hiermit geben wir den Verbrauchern und auch den Unternehmen ein Instrument an die Hand, womit sie einfach, effektiv, schnell - innerhalb von 90 Tagen - und günstig an ihr Recht kommen können. Zu begrüßen ist, dass die ADR für online und offline geschlossenen Waren- und Dienstleistungsverträge gelten soll und unabhängig davon ist, ob es sich um grenzüberschreitende und rein innerstaatliche Verträge handelt. Selbstverständlich steht der Weg zu Gericht weiter offen. Große Vorteile für unsere Verbraucher wird auch die ODR, die neue europäische Plattform (Online Dispute Resolution), bringen, von der man direkt Beschwerde-Formulare und Leitlinien in allen EU-Amtssprachen herunterladen kann. Mit diesen beiden Instrumenten kommen wir dem reibungslos funktionierenden Binnenmarkt einen großen Schritt näher - jetzt gilt es, die Marktteilnehmer über ihre Möglichkeiten aufzuklären.

  Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE), schriftelijk. – Alternatieve manieren van geschillenbeslechting buiten de rechtbank om - zoals bemiddeling, ombudsman, arbitrage - zorgen voor een snellere en goedkopere oplossing van geschillen bij online en offline binnenlandse en grensoverschrijdende aankopen. Dergelijke instrumenten staan vandaag reeds ter beschikking van de consument, maar er wordt vooralsnog te weinig gebruik van gemaakt. Zo gebruikte in 2010 slechts 5% van de consumenten en verklaarde slechts 9% van de ondernemingen ooit gebruik te hebben gemaakt van alternatieve geschillenbeslechting.

Het gebrek aan goedwerkende methodes voor de beslechting van geschillen is dan ook een ernstige handicap. Consumenten incasseren jaarlijks zo naar schatting een verlies dat overeenkomt met 0,4% van het Europese BBP. Zowel top-down als bottom-up initiatieven zijn dus wenselijk.

Daarom steun ik de voorliggende Europese wetgeving waardoor onenigheden binnen 90 dagen worden opgelost. Dit versterkt de uitoefening van de rechten van de Europese burger. In het bijzonder ben ik opgetogen dat het op te richten interactieve webportaal met standaard klachtenformulieren voor zowel consumenten als ondernemers gratis en in alle officiële talen van de EU toegankelijk zal zijn. Daardoor ontstaat één toegangspunt voor de buitengerechtelijke beslechting wat enkel maar in het voordeel van de consument zal spelen.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), írásban. – Napjainkban a fogyasztási kiadások meghaladják az EU által megtermelt GDP felét. Ha hatékonyabbá válik a fogyasztóvédelem, a fogyasztók több bizalommal fordulnak a piacokon kínált termékek felé, ez pedig lendületet ad a versenynek és a gazdasági növekedésnek. A nemrégiben elfogadott új, átfogó uniós stratégia a fogyasztók védelmét és tájékoztatását hivatott javítani, és az elképzelések értelmében segíteni fog abban is, hogy probléma esetén a vevők és a vállalkozások is jogorvoslatban részesüljenek. Szeretném kiemelni, hogy hazámban, Magyarországon alternatív vitarendezéssel már széles jogterületet érintő témában lehet például konfliktust kezelni, megoldani. Ezek közül néhány már a jog által szabályozott: a polgári jog területét érintő üzleti, gazdasági mediáció, a családjog területét érintő családi mediáció, illetve a büntetőjog szempontjából nagy érdeklődést kiváltó „helyreállító igazságszolgáltatás”. Thun Asszony jelentésében felvázolt megoldások véleményem szerint kiteljesítik majd azt a segítséget, melyet az uniós polgárok már most is igénybe vehetnek más tagországbeli kereskedőkkel támadt vitáik rendezéséhez. Ebbe a körbe tartozik például a kis értékű követelések európai eljárása, melynek köszönhetően gyorsabban és kisebb költségek mellett lehet a problémás ügyek végére pontot tenni. Úgy gondolom, hogy ez nagyon fontos előrelépés, sőt azt is mondhatjuk, hogy az online vitarendezésről szóló javaslat egy újabb mérföldkő az uniós fogyasztóvédelem tekintetében.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE), írásban. – Mint ismeretes, az egyik legalapvetőbb európai uniós vívmány, az egységes belső piac folyamatosan felülvizsgálatra szorul. Ebben a kérdéskörben az álláspontom világos: a fogyatékossággal élő emberek valódi társadalmi befogadása és hátrányos megkülönböztetésmentessége elképzelhetetlen a termékek és szolgáltatások akadálymentesítése és az azokhoz, illetve azokról szóló, és különösen a fogyasztókat érintő, akadálymentesített információk nélkül, összhangban a 2011-ben elfogadott, a fogyatékos emberek társadalmi befogadásáról és mobilitásáról szóló EP jelentéssel. Az EMPL Bizottságban már többször volt róla szó, de most is megerősítem: határozottabb fellépésre van szükség a fogyasztóvédelem és a termék- és szolgáltatásfejlesztés területén is, ideértve a fogyasztók közötti jogviták területét is, biztosítva a fogyatékkal élő emberek (különösen a látássérültek) egyenlő esélyű hozzáférését a viták rendezéséhez. A belső piac van ugyanis az emberekért és nem fordítva!

  Hans-Peter Mayer (PPE), schriftlich. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Verordnung zur Online-Streitbeilegung beruht auf der von mir betreuten Richtlinie zur Alternativen Streitbeilegung. Beide diese Berichte sind von großer Bedeutung, insbesondere auch in Hinblick auf den Vorschlag der Kommission zu einem Gemeinsamen Europäischen Kaufrecht. Bei letzterem handelt es sich quasi ergänzend um materielles Recht, wenn auch optional. Ich möchte ausdrücklich betonen, dass ich es begrüße, dass die Online-Streitbeilegung nicht nur, wie die ADR, für Beschwerden von Verbrauchern gegen Unternehmen gilt, sondern – und das ist richtig und besser so – ebenso für Beschwerden von Unternehmen gegen Verbraucher. Letztendlich darf es keine Rolle spielen, ob der Verbraucher gegen den Unternehmer vorgeht, weil ein gekauftes Objekt nicht richtig funktioniert, oder ob der Unternehmer gegen den Verbraucher vorgeht, weil dieser für das defekte Objekt nicht den Kaufpreis entrichtet. Ziel muss sein, dass wir unsere Gerichte entlasten und für ein schnelles und einfaches Verfahren sorgen.

  La Présidente. - La séance est reprise. Mme Reding est en chemin.

Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu cet après-midi.

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur les déclarations du Conseil et de la Commission sur le thème: "Intensifier la lutte contre le racisme, la xénophobie et les crimes inspirés par la haine".

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, last October it was announced that the European Union had been awarded the Nobel Prize for bringing peace to our continent. We can be proud of the achievements of the European Union. It has brought peace, stability and prosperity – all on the basis of freedom, democracy and rule of law.

But we should never be complacent about our achievements. The fact that we need to organise a Europe-wide Week Against Racism is a clear indication that Europeans still live under the shadow of discrimination, prejudice and aggression.

The Council stands firmly alongside this Parliament in rejecting all forms of racism, xenophobia and homophobia. These are violations of the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic origin and religion or belief. Furthermore, the Treaties provide the Union with the competence to take appropriate action to combat such discrimination.

All the institutions of the EU must stand shoulder to shoulder in defending fundamental freedoms and fighting all forms of discrimination. We can never rest until the scourge of discrimination has been completely banished from our societies.

Let me first address the situation in which we find ourselves today. Sadly, as fresh research published by the Fundamental Rights Agency has shown, discrimination in Europe is far from being a thing of the past. LGBT persons, ethnic minorities, including Jews and Roma, and other groups continue to face prejudice, discrimination, harassment and worse. It is unacceptable that Europe in the 21st century should still be a witness to homophobia and to racist attacks against Jews, Roma and others.

I commend this Parliament for keeping this issue high on the agenda. In your resolution of May last year you called for more determined action and referred to specific concerns in some third countries. I also recall your recent report on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011), which paints a disturbing picture and which also rightly calls for further action.

This leads to my second point – what is the EU doing? The Treaties provide the Union with a number of powers, and these have been used successfully to introduce a range of legislation. The Council has in particular taken steps to protect European citizens from all forms of racism and xenophobia. The Council’s Framework Decision of 2008 ensures that such behaviour constitutes an offence across all Member States. Amongst other provisions, it requires Member States to criminalise public incitement to violence or hatred directed against persons belonging to a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. It also demands that such conduct be punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties of at least between one and three years imprisonment.

More generally, the EU has taken a number of measures for tackling discrimination. The legal protection which the EU offers to racial and ethnic minorities is already fairly broad, covering employment, social protection, healthcare, education and access to goods and services. We have also taken steps to combat discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

President, honourable Members, allow me to conclude by addressing the issue of what more might be done. We already have extensive legislation in place, and more legislation is under discussion on protection against discrimination in areas outside of employment. In addition, Member States have their own domestic laws covering these areas. But the reports from the Fundamental Rights Agency clearly show that the adoption of legislation is not in itself sufficient. It also has to be implemented and properly enforced and we also have to raise awareness. Events such as the Action Week against Racism play a vital part in keeping these issues in the public eye and so bringing abuses to light. All of us have a role to play in this regard – and I know that this Parliament in particular takes these responsibilities very, very seriously.

The European Union should be encouraging the development of a society based on equality, tolerance and respect for human rights. Those are the values on which it is founded. Bigotry and discrimination have no place in the Europe of the twenty-first century. The Nobel Prize was a way of honouring the European Union. Let us live up to the ideals which it represents.

It is in that spirit that the Irish Presidency put the question of hate crimes on the agenda of the informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Dublin in January. This subject is at once very focused – concern about the growth in xenophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia and other extreme forms of intolerance and how to take effective action at national and at EU level to combat these evils – and very broad, in that it touches on fundamental questions about the rule of law and the effective functioning of political and public institutions in the protection of the fundamental rights of citizens.

A specific theme of the discussion by Ministers was that the solution is not just about legislation, but about getting into the minds of people and encouraging positive attitudes.

The Irish Presidency suggested that a mechanism to better support protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law in Member States, by sharing best practice, benchmarking practice and outcomes in an objective way and formulating appropriate recommendations and guidelines for action, would provide such a holistic framework for effective responses to these issues.

JHA Ministers agreed to invite the Commission to give further consideration to this matter and to initiate a broad public debate taking account of the Commission’s Annual Report on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights with governments and public institutions in Member States, to include national human rights and equality bodies, civil society etc. so as to raise awareness and understanding of the importance of the rule of law, common values and protection of the fundamental rights of all in Europe.

The Commission will then come back during the course of 2014 with the results of this process. The Fundamental Rights Agency has a very important role to play in providing expert and independent analysis in this process.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, it is important that Parliament raises these matters because we all know that recent reports by the Fundamental Rights Agency show that racism, xenophobia and hate crimes remain a matter of concern all over Europe – and it is not just the Fundamental Rights Agency which tells us this, as we read about it constantly in the media.

Many of the hate crimes, we know too, remain unreported, meaning they are not prosecuted and that those who commit them are not punished. So the problem is even greater than we can see. That is why I am very grateful to my colleague Alan Shatter who, to start the Irish Presidency, held a gathering of the Justice Ministers in Dublin in January this year in order to discuss the problems of racism, xenophobia and hate crimes, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Gypsyism and homophobia – all those manifestations which are completely incompatible with European rules and with the basis on which Europe is founded.

We have had for many years now a solid framework to address these hate crimes at EU level. The Commission monitors the transposition and implementation of this EU legislation, which prohibits discrimination and hate speech and hate crime. I will report on the application of the Race Equality Directive and the Employment Equality Directive, as well as on the transposition of the Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia.

You know too that the Commission, together with Parliament, always insists that the Equal Treatment Directive – the so-called Article 19 Directive – should be taken in hand by the Council but progress is slow, if not to say non-existent. As you know, the Council has to adopt this text by unanimity; nothing is moving on this.

In addition to legislation, of course, the Commission lends its support to a number of activities to prevent acts of intolerance and also to remember our common past, because only if you know the roots on which you are growing can you prevent things from happening again. The Commission supports activities aimed at preserving the memory of the mass violations of human rights during the period of Nazism and Stalinism.

Under the new Citizenship Programme of 2014-2020, I have proposed an increasing amount of financial assistance to be provided for remembrance projects. I hope it will remain in place, so I appeal to Parliament to have a look at this because I believe it is important for our next generation to know the horrors on which Europe has been built, in order for these horrors not to happen again.

You know also that the Fundamental Rights Agency is crucial for the collection of data on hate crimes and that our Roma integration work is crucial in order to prevent more and more negative developments from happening. May I inform you that the national Roma Contact Points are in place to ensure that national strategies are implemented. A progress report on these national strategies will be given to this House in the spring. Jointly with this report, I am working together with the experts to come up with – and I have not told you this yet but think it is necessary to take this step – a Council Recommendation in order to open new avenues to improve the effectiveness of measures by Member States to achieve Roma integration in real terms and not just on paper.

Concerning hate crime: you know that we have the 2008 Council Framework Decision on racism and xenophobia. This is our central tool in fighting hate crimes. It requires all Member States to penalise hate speech and to ensure that a biased motivation for any other offence is taken into account in the severity of the penalties.

This is European Union law. But laws are only as good as the extent to which they are enforced and implemented in practice. The Treaties prevent the Commission from launching infringement procedures in respect of this type of EU law, because it is a framework decision and it will be a framework decision until 1 December 2014. Nevertheless, the Commission will put a report on compliance by Member States with this EU law on the table at the end of this year.

This House also knows that we have completed the Victims’ Rights Directive, which gives victims of crime a broad set of procedural rights, including access to justice, compensation and restoration. Particular attention is paid to the special categories of victims of hate crime. So these instruments – that is the European Protection Order which was decided by the Council last week and which will become law very soon – provide for the mutual recognition of protection measures when victims move to another country. This will also be of utmost importance in fighting those kinds of crimes.

Racism, xenophobia and hate crime are a common concern to the whole of the EU. No Member State can boast a clean record when it comes to these crimes. Fighting these crimes requires both preventive and corrective action and I thank Parliament for helping us to ensure that this happens in real terms.

  Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, un acte raciste, un acte xénophobe, un crime haineux, ce n'est pas tout à fait un délit ou un crime ordinaire; c'est un acte doublement condamnable et injuste. Malheureusement, c'est une réalité encore bien trop présente en Europe.

Alors qu'il y a un an, Mohamed Merah abattait Imad Ibn Ziaten, Abel Chennouf, Mohamed Legouad, avant d'ouvrir le feu dans une école juive et de faire encore quatre victimes, alors que, récemment encore en France, une mosquée a été recouverte d'inscriptions haineuses, rappelons que toute société doit être basée sur la tolérance. Ne cédons pas aux vieux démons du repli sur soi et du bouc émissaire si faciles à invoquer en période de crise.

Il y a une réalité indéniable et indiscutable d'agressions envers des individus du fait de leur appartenance supposée à une communauté, qui vont des propos haineux à de simples, non moins cruelles, discriminations lors de la recherche d'un logement, d'un emploi ou encore aux contrôles répétés et abusifs.

On peut saluer l'engagement sans faille d'associations, d'ONG, qui continuent de nous confronter à cette réalité trop souvent oubliée comme le font, par exemple, en France, la Licra, SOS Racisme, ou d'autres ONG, partout en Europe et même dans le monde.

L'Union européenne s'est engagée, par exemple, dans les travaux de l'Agence des droits fondamentaux et c'est une très bonne chose. Nous avons le devoir collectif de dénoncer ces actes racistes et xénophobes et toutes les discriminations, notamment celles basées sur l'orientation sexuelle, et nous-mêmes, en particulier, en tant qu'hommes et femmes politiques, d'être irréprochables dans nos paroles et de rappeler l'égalité infaillible des droits de chaque citoyen. Une promotion plus active de la tolérance doit être encouragée, en particulier, à travers l'éducation familiale et scolaire, dès le plus jeune âge.

Il est également essentiel de collecter des données plus fiables qui nous permettent, au-delà de quelques faits divers troublants qui sont relatés, de mieux appréhender l'évolution et la réalité des actes racistes, xénophobes, et des crimes haineux.

Enfin, un soutien tout particulier doit être apporté aux victimes, afin de les inciter à dénoncer les actes et les discriminations dont elles sont victimes, et de protéger leurs droits. Si elles savent qu'elles seront écoutées et que des procédures seront engagées, les actes seront plus souvent rapportés. Ainsi, la justice et nos sociétés avanceront. C'est ce qu'a fait Nicolas Sarkozy en France, par exemple, en instituant le "défenseur des droits". C'est une institution unique en son genre qui permet de protéger les droits et les libertés de chacun et de défendre l'égalité des citoyens. Voici le principe qui devrait guider toutes nos actions, car le "vivre ensemble" doit l'emporter sur la haine.

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu", conformément à l'article 149, paragraphe 8, du règlement)

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΣΤΑΜΚΟΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), question "carton bleu". – Madame Mathieu, vous venez de nous faire un très beau discours contre la haine. Je voudrais juste savoir si, par ce discours, vous dénoncez les propos de Nicolas Sarkozy à l'encontre de la communauté rom en 2010.

  Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – M. Nicolas Sarkozy n'a eu aucun propos haineux contre la communauté rom.

  Kinga Göncz, a S&D képviselőcsoport nevében. – „A cigányság jelentős része nem alkalmas az együttélésre. A cigányság ezen része állat, és állatként viselkedik.” Ezt nem egy radikális szervezet képviselője, hanem egy magát közép-jobb pártnak nevező párt tagja írta le Magyarországon. „Készek vagyunk kinyitni a gázkamrákat” – nyilatkozta a görög Arany Hajnal párt parlamenti képviselőjelöltje, bemutatva, hogy hogyan kezelnék az illegális bevándorlás problémáját. Romák, zsidók, muzulmánok, melegek, feketék, fogyatékossággal élők a gyűlöletből fakadó bűncselekmények leggyakoribb áldozatai. De a szélsőséges eszmék mindannyiunkat fenyegetnek. Az uszító, kirekesztő retorika ma már a közbeszéd része. A krízis következtében nőtt a populizmus, a szélsőségesség is.

Nincsenek megbízható adataink, hogy hányan áldozatai a szóbeli és fizikai erőszaknak. A megalázottak, bántalmazottak nem jelentik a hatóságoknak a gyűlölet megnyilvánulásait. Adatok, statisztikák kellenek a gyűlöletcselekményekről, hogy megfelelő jogalkotással és stratégiával megelőzhessük, büntethetővé tegyük azokat, hogy az áldozatoknak megfelelő védelmet nyújthassunk. A tagállamok felelőssége, hogy a rendőrség és az igazságszolgáltatás következetesen feltárja, megbüntesse ezeknek a bűncselekményeknek az elkövetőit. Régi és sürgősen pótlandó adósság a horizontális antidiszkriminációs direktíva megszületése a Tanácsban.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, please first of all allow me to welcome the Irish Presidency initiative, which I personally consider to be the boldest I have seen in recent years.

It is already a truism that populism has spread in the European Union and that such discourses are spread and promoted by political parties – extremist political parties that have got into parliaments, and sometimes also into government and can influence governmental policies. The EU seems to have not enough or not proper antibodies to fight this and to fight discrimination, and there is too much tolerance of hate speech and of crimes motivated by hate. I think, therefore, that instruments are absolutely necessary, particularly when we see that in the Member States we have better legislation and better mechanisms to combat discrimination than at EU level. That is not acceptable. Therefore, it is a matter of urgency to revise the framework decision against racism and xenophobia and to enlarge it.

Also, on religious issues, on intolerance against gypsies and on homophobia, the Council must adopt the anti-discrimination directive which has been blocked for quite some time now. It is time to do this as it is one of the main instruments to fight discrimination and violence.

It is indeed time to stop Roma expulsions and discrimination, including in France, where these days this policy continues the policies promoted by Mr Sarkozy. We need instruments to monitor infractions and violations of fundamental rights in Hungary, but not only in Hungary, in other Member States as well. It is interesting that Parliament has been asking for this for several years. Now we have a few Member States that are also calling for this, so I think it really is time to act in this direction.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI), blue-card question. – Violence and incitement to violence must of course be recognised as thoroughly despicable criminal acts. However, it appears that racism and xenophobia go beyond violence. Can you define these terms? I asked the Commission and the Council to do so and they were not able to. Is it not absurd to try to criminalise something that cannot be defined?

  Renate Weber (ALDE), blue-card answer. – It is actually rather easy, Mr Brons. If crimes are committed, they are not committed by race, they are committed by individuals, so whenever you want to penalise, you penalise the individual. At the same time, when another individual commits a crime because he or she does not agree with the fact that a person is different, this must be penalised and of course it must have an even bigger penalty.

  Ulrike Lunacek, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Ministerin, Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Hass und Hassverbrechen beginnen in den Köpfen der Menschen, setzen sich über die Sprache fort und werden dann in Gewalttaten sichtbar. Das heißt, der Kampf gegen Rassismus, gegen Ausländerfeindlichkeit, gegen Antisemitismus, gegen Roma-Feindlichkeit und gegen Homophobie muss bei der sprachlichen Hetze beginnen. Und die findet statt, auch wenn Politiker sich äußern, auf Plakaten kommt das vor, aber auch in rassistischer Sprache in Texten von Musikern zum Beispiel. In vielen Teilen der Europäischen Union sind Rassismus, Ausländerfeindlichkeit, Antisemitismus, Gewalt gegen Roma, Homo- und Transphobie in den letzten Jahren angestiegen. Das wurde auch in Berichten der Grundrechteagentur schon des Öfteren festgestellt.

Einige Beispiele: In Ungarn hat ein prominentes Mitglied von Jobbik eine Judenliste gefordert, mit dem Argument, Juden seien ein Sicherheitsrisiko. In Österreich haben sich die antisemitischen Vorfälle vom Jahr 2011 bis 2012 verdoppelt. Was Roma betrifft, hat in Deutschland vor kurzem ein CSU-Politiker Roma als Sozialschmarotzer bezeichnet. In Ungarn hat Fidesz-Mitbegründer Zsolt Bayer Roma mit Tieren verglichen und gesagt, sie dürften nicht existieren.

Homo- und Transphobie: Der Direktor der Grundrechteagentur, Morten Kjaerum, hat vor kurzem, als er Litauen besucht hat, erklärt, dass in einer Umfrage, in der mehr als 90 000 Lesben, Schwule, Bisexuelle und Transgender-Personen in den EU-27 und Kroatien befragt wurden, 25 % angegeben haben, dass sie in den letzten fünf Jahren körperlichen Attacken ausgesetzt waren. In Griechenland berichten Organisationen der Lesben/Schwulen-Bewegung, dass es auch hier einen alarmierenden Anstieg von homo- und transphobischen Verbrechen und Hetze gibt. In Schweden z. B. werden nur 7 % xenophobischer, rassistischer Verbrechen aufgeklärt, während 17 % anderer Verbrechen aufgeklärt werden. UNHCR zufolge hat es in Griechenland von Januar bis September 2012 87 rassistische Verbrechen gegeben.

Ich bin sehr froh, dass die irische Präsidentschaft jetzt auch eine Initiative eingeleitet hat, aber lassen Sie mich sagen, dass noch mehr getan werden muss. Mechanismen wie z. B. der Austausch von best practices oder ein ganzheitlicher Zugang sind wichtig und gut. Aber wir dürfen uns nicht den Vorwurf gefallen lassen – z. B. von Beitrittskandidatenländern, von denen wir immer Rechtsstaatlichkeit, die Einhaltung von Minderheitenrechten verlangen –, dass wir das selbst in der Europäischen Union nicht machen. Deshalb, denke ich, wäre es wichtig, dass es so etwas wie eine Kopenhagen-Kommission gibt. Denn, wie Kommissarin Reding ja schon einmal gesagt hat, wir haben das Kopenhagen-Dilemma: Bis zum Beitritt muss alles getan werden und nachher nichts mehr. So etwas wäre wichtig, ähnlich wie die Venedig-Kommission des Europarates, wo Experten tatsächlich Vergleiche anstellen und Forderungen formulieren.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, racism, xenophobia and hate crime have at times formed a dark part of Europe’s history, yet the fight against them is something which lies at the very heart of what the European Union does best. This is an area where we must never believe that the job is done. It is something which we must constantly re-examine, address and take action on.

Europe is facing a time of social, economic and security challenges, and during such times people look for someone to blame and for things to be afraid of. This uncertainty and fear is often then fed upon by populism and our media. That is why politicians must not be afraid to talk about the issue, to keep educating and to realise that addressing racism and inequalities is not about creating more legislation, but about achieving real equality in hearts and minds and by bringing religions and communities together.

However, condemning a whole nation – as some people seem to be doing this morning – for the views of a few citizens is simply not acceptable. We do not want to hear the arguments this morning relating to either political positions or attitudes to individual countries that are members of this Union. We want to talk about the subject. I hope I have done so, and I hope others will do so during the course of this debate.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Mr Kirkhope, I suspect that you were criticising the fact that we tried, and we also tabled some amendments to this common resolution that criticise several things that are happening in several Member States. I hear from you that you are criticising that. I would like to ask you whether you would not agree, learning also from our own history as the European Union, that hate crimes started with hate speech. Language is something that incites and then gives more openness to violence, so why should we not name those who are responsible for that?

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), blue-card answer. – We all know that these instances occur in a number of Member States; indeed all our Member States have this problem. That is why I want politicians to continue talking about these matters and educating their populations.

It does nothing whatsoever to aid our debate today on this very important subject for individuals, sometimes from a political point of view, but sometimes wishing to criticise other countries where they do not reside themselves or of which they are not citizens, to bring this matter into a specific. It does not help us at all. We are helped by general discussion and improving standards wherever they may need to be improved, throughout Europe.

  Frank Vanhecke, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de strijd tegen racisme is vanzelfsprekend een legitiem doel. Maar ik vrees dat dit legitieme doel veel te veel gebruikt wordt om even legitieme en zeer terechte zorgen van onze burgers te muilkorven, om de vrije meningsuiting op te schorten en om zeer behoorlijke mensen het zwijgen op te leggen.

In dit Parlement zitten, vrees ik, veel negationisten. Dat zijn politici die de zeer irreële problemen van overlast, van criminaliteit, van geweld, van islamisering, die met ongecontroleerde immigratie gepaard gaan, boudweg ontkennen of negeren. Of er zijn ook mensen die perfect noodzakelijke en aanvaardbare politieke maatregelen in een racistisch criminele sfeer situeren.

Was het niet commissaris Reding die enkele jaren geleden de Roma-politiek van de Franse president Sarkozy vergeleek met de verschrikkingen van de Tweede Wereldoorlog? Wat een schabouwelijke domheid was dat! Een echte strijd tegen racisme begint met de strijd tegen de illegale immigratie en met de bescherming van de wetten, de normen, de vrijheden en de identiteiten van de Europese volkeren. Dat vergeet men op dit halfrond veel te vaak.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, les violences basées sur le rejet de l'autre, de celui qui est différent ou que l'on considère comme tel, demeurent une réalité quotidienne dans l'Union européenne. Les migrants, les Roms, en sont les principales victimes, mais ils ne sont pas les seuls. L'antisémitisme est toujours là, et l'islamophobie – Madame Reding, je vous remercie d'avoir osé prononcer ce mot, contrairement à notre résolution – progresse. De nombreux autres groupes sont touchés, comme les homosexuels, les handicapés, sans oublier bien sûr les femmes, qui constituent la majorité de la population.

Difficile de connaître la réalité des chiffres tant les outils statistiques s'avèrent hétéroclites d'un pays à l'autre. De fait, dans ces enquêtes, les pays dont les chiffres sont les plus impressionnants sont ceux qui ont les meilleurs outils et qui appliquent le mieux la législation. Tel est le cas de l'Allemagne.

Nous savons tous et toutes qu'en cette période de crise sociale et politique, certains jouent sur les peurs, y compris au plus haut niveau politique dans certains États membres. Nicolas Sarkozy en fut le triste exemple. On peut toujours se gargariser de valeurs européennes, on peut se bousculer pour aller récupérer le prix Nobel de la paix, mais tout cela est ridicule si l'on s'avère incapable de lutter contre les crimes de haine.

La Présidence irlandaise veut remettre ce dossier à l'ordre du jour. Tant mieux! Nous attendons de la Commission qu'elle réagisse, qu'elle agisse notamment en proposant à la signature la Convention des Nations unies sur l'élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale et qu'elle mette tout en œuvre pour que la directive Égalité soit adoptée et appliquée. L'attitude du Conseil est intolérable en ce domaine.

J'ajoute que la prévention et l'éducation doivent être les priorités de toute politique en la matière et pas seulement la mémoire. Les enfants ne connaissent pas la haine, ce sont les adultes qui les conduisent sur ce triste chemin.

  Philip Claeys (NI). - Voorzitter, echt racisme moet veroordeeld worden, maar er bestaat geen andere term die zo veel en zo systematisch misbruikt wordt als de term racisme. Wie de open grenzen en de daaruit voortvloeiende massale immigratie ter discussie stelt, wie kritiek heeft op het mislukte immigratie- en integratiebeleid van de afgelopen dertig jaar, wordt stelselmatig gebrandmerkt als racist. Het is de geijkte manier om elk debat over het immigratieprobleem onmogelijk te maken.

In België is de linkse regering onder Verhofstadt er in 2004 zelfs in geslaagd de toenmalige grootste partij van Vlaanderen, het Vlaams Blok de facto te verbieden. Op die manier wil de linkse kerk tegelijkertijd ook de vrije meningsuiting aan banden leggen. En deze houding is catastrofaal gebleken, zeker nu de puinhopen van de multiculturele maatschappij duidelijk zichtbaar zijn, met gettowijken waar werkloosheid en criminaliteit hoogtij vieren.

De EU brengt geen oplossing voor de problemen maar is eerder een deel van het probleem. Daarom moet het asiel- en immigratiebeleid opnieuw onder de bevoegdheid van de lidstaten komen, inclusief de mogelijkheid om hun eigen grenzen te controleren. De problemen veroorzaakt door de massa-immigratie en de islamisering moeten bespreekbaar gemaakt worden en opgelost worden in het licht van de identiteit en de belangen van de volkeren in Europa.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, agradeço-lhe a si e aos meus colegas Díaz de Mera e Iacolino a troca na ordem das inscrições, e gostaria de começar por reafirmar que o racismo e a xenofobia constituem uma clara violação dos princípios da liberdade, da democracia, do respeito pelos direitos e liberdades fundamentais, bem como do Estado de direito. Ou seja, uma violação dos valores comuns em que a União Europeia assenta.

A Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais proíbe qualquer forma de discriminação e obriga os Estados-Membros a combater de forma ativa os crimes de ódio, isto é, os crimes motivados pelo racismo, pela xenofobia, pela intolerância religiosa ou étnica ou pela deficiência ou orientação sexual ou género.

Lamentavelmente, as situações de discriminação e intolerância, bem como os crimes de ódio, continuam a fazer-se sentir, diariamente, por todo o território europeu. Precisamos de um combate mais ativo ao nível europeu contra o racismo, a intolerância e a xenofobia. Para tal é necessário que os decisores dos Estados-Membros demonstrem uma maior vontade política para combater preconceitos generalizados contra certos grupos e reparar os danos que possam ter sido causados às vítimas.

Como tal, espero que o Conselho não perca mais tempo e aprove finalmente a diretiva para a igualdade de tratamento. Espero que possamos igualmente iniciar brevemente o processo de revisão da decisão-quadro de 2008, esperando que desta vez o Conselho não leve seis anos para conseguir alcançar um acordo político.

Um combate eficaz contra os crimes de ódio pressupõe que sejamos capazes de tornar estes crimes mais visíveis e de podermos responsabilizar os seus autores. Temos igualmente de derrubar o muro de silêncio, encorajando as vítimas e testemunhas a denunciar este tipo de situações, e assegurar-lhes a oportunidade de obter reparação.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, le climat difficile dans lequel nous vivons actuellement est celui d'une Europe sous la pression d'une austérité aveugle, marquée par le délitement du lien social. Le racisme, la xénophobie et les crimes haineux trouvent ainsi un terreau fertile et propice à un essor inquiétant. Nos valeurs – celles de la démocratie, de la solidarité, de la tolérance – sont menacées.

Les discours de haine s'insinuent sans cesse au cœur de mouvements politiques traditionnels, désinhibés et surfant sur les peurs des plus vulnérables pour en tirer des succès électoraux car, à côté d'un extrémisme violent, visible, nous devons répondre aussi à toutes les remarques, allusions, moqueries et autres phrases qui se diffusent insidieusement au quotidien, tout particulièrement, via les réseaux sociaux.

Si nous ne faisions pas évoluer notre connaissance et nos réactions face à ces phénomènes, nous laisserions s'installer une inertie coupable. Je regrette que Mme Weber qui, tout à l'heure, faisait allusion à la situation en France vis-à-vis des Roms soit partie, car j'aurais aimé élever son niveau de connaissance sur ce qui se passe actuellement en France vis-à-vis de cette communauté, parce que, manifestement, elle a raté un épisode.

En ce qui concerne les deux derniers outils qui doivent permettre de reconnaître ces discriminations, les victimes doivent pouvoir avoir accès à un système de plaintes en lequel elles aient confiance et qui doit déboucher sur des actions.

Enfin, j'en appelle aux États membres pour qu'ils débloquent la proposition de directive anti-discrimination et intensifient leurs efforts pour que nous puissions passer des mots aux actes car, si beaucoup a été fait, il reste beaucoup de vœux pieux à mettre en application.

  Lajos Bokros (ECR). - Sunt un mare admirator al poporului român şi al culturii române. Vorbesc româneşte în semnul acestei admiraţii. Populaţia maghiară care trăieşte în România, în număr de peste un milion şi jumătate, este tot atât de autohtonă ca şi românii din punct de vedere lingvistic, etnografic sau privind obiceiurile şi tradiţiile, fiind într-o unitate istorică, geografică şi etnică univocă de mai mult de o mie de ani.

Regiunea autonomă maghiară a existat până în 1968. Ceauşescu a împărţit-o în trei judeţe, dar majoritatea maghiară a rămas până în prezent. După 1990, practica subsidiarităţii a redat secuilor încrederea în sine şi forţa creativă. Unii vor să distrugă această unitate etnică organică, prin crearea unor regiuni noi, reîmpărţind secuimea în patru alte regiuni administrative, cu populaţie română absolut majoritară, care ar împinge maghiarii într-o minoritate nesemnificativă.

Cer ajutorul dumneavoastră ca acest plan să nu fie realizat, evitând astfel o tensiune interetnică şi interstatală şi multă durere de prisos.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, molta ipocrisia in questa discussione. In primo luogo il Commissario Reding continua a non dirci se è riuscito a ottenere che il suo paese abroghi finalmente la proibizione per i galantuomini di etnia Rom di poter parcheggiare magari un bel centinaio di roulotte nel suo paese, visto che ciò è consentito nel nostro paese come negli altri.

In secondo luogo, in tutto il dibattito non ho sentito la parola "cristianofobia": eppure mi pare che anche ieri, inaugurando il Parlamento, il Presidente doverosamente abbia ricordato l'ennesimo massacro. Nel frattempo ce ne sono stati altri da parte dell'Islam più estremista e macellaio.

In terzo luogo, la sinistra che qui predica la lotta all'antisemitismo, al razzismo, eccetera, nel nostro paese fa la corte a un movimento, il Movimento 5 Stelle, che ha vinto le elezioni, il cui leader e guru Beppe Grillo è accusato da questi organismi internazionali dell'antirazzismo di essere un razzista e un antisemita della più bell'acqua. Sia chiaro che io non condivido questa accusa ma ci pone comunque un problema: è una pulizia del pensiero che volete? Dov'è la vostra coerenza? Tanta ipocrisia, visto che non avete nemmeno il coraggio di pronunciare la parola "cristianofobia".

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο ρατσισμός, η ξενοφοβία, οι διακρίσεις και τα παρακλάδια τους έχουν εξαπλωθεί σε τρομακτικό πλέον βαθμό και πέφτουν θύματά τους σε καθημερινή βάση συνάνθρωποί μας παρ’ όλους τους νόμους που έχουμε. Η ακροδεξιά ρητορική περνάει χωρίς σημαντικά εμπόδια, με ατιμωρησία, ανοχή, ακόμη και επικρότηση, η δε έλλειψη καταγραφής και καταγγελιών επιθέσεων και διακρίσεων υποδηλώνει τεράστιο πρόβλημα πρόσβασης στη δικαιοσύνη, εμπιστοσύνη στις αρχές και φυσικά μια πραγματικότητα ακόμη χειρότερη.

Πρέπει να αναγνωρίσουμε το πρόβλημα στις σωστές του διαστάσεις και να το ξεγυμνώσουμε, γιατί δεν είναι σποραδικό ούτε ανεξάρτητο από τις Συνθήκες. Η ποινικοποίηση της μετανάστευσης, τα ασφυκτικά γεμάτα κέντρα κράτησης, η έλλειψη συνεκτικών μέτρων ένταξης, η ελλιπής πρόσβαση στην υγεία και στην εκπαίδευση, ο άκρατος πόλεμος κατά της τρομοκρατίας, δεν βοηθάνε την κατάσταση των στερεοτύπων και προκαταλήψεων. Ο σεβασμός και η ανοχή στον συνάνθρωπό μας είναι αδιαπραγμάτευτα, αν θέλουμε να χτίσουμε υγιείς πολυπολιτισμικές κοινωνίες.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, apoyamos este debate, que deriva de la declaración del Consejo y de la Comisión, porque es muy necesario.

El día 21 de marzo es un referente de dolor que nunca debemos olvidar; la memoria y el reconocimiento de las víctimas son una terapia muy buena para evitar crímenes horrendos. Acabamos de recibir el Nobel de la Paz a toda una trayectoria llena de valores; es un premio merecido, pero tenemos aún muchas fragilidades.

En la Unión aún hay comportamientos discriminatorios duros y lamentables. Nuestro código son los derechos humanos, la ley y la tolerancia; nuestras amenazas, cualquier tipo de discriminación —la étnica, los delitos motivados por el odio, el racismo, la xenofobia, el antisemitismo, la homofobia— y, sobre todo, nuestra indiferencia y nuestra falta de compromiso.

¿Cuál es nuestra defensa? La denuncia y el combate de estas conductas y delitos, la educación y la formación en los valores de la Unión, la protección y el amparo, además del reconocimiento, de las víctimas, y una justicia eficaz y rápida que castigue a los culpables.

Estos delitos podrían, algunas veces, no estar definidos o tipificados, pero se padecen, se sufren y se sienten. Por eso, señor Presidente, también en el ámbito del Derecho internacional humanitario y en los códigos penales tienen que ser perseguidos.

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, in January the Irish Presidency delivered a very strong statement asking the EU to counter hate crime, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia and homophobia and highlighted the need for better data collection. That very mundane issue of data collection in fact is very important. It was about the very real human suffering on many streets around the European Union where people suffer hate crime – the reality of what it means to be different and to be violated. That is the reality of what we are discussing here today: being a Community of values but understanding that, even at European Union level, there is something that can be done. It is a very remarkable thing to hear the Commission and the Commissioner talk about what has been achieved in the Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia and what can be achieved in the Race Equality Directive, in the Employment Directive and all the tools that we have had in this House to deal with anti-discrimination – but the fundamental issue is that it has not been implemented in the way that we have wanted. That is the issue for us in this House today: implement what we have, implement the tools that we have developed in this House and that many Members in this House have worked very hard to deal with. Then we will have something that we can be proud of and that this resolution has focused on today.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – W Polce niedawno zapadł wyrok sądu skazujący na symboliczną karę lidera zespołu satanistycznego, który na publicznym koncercie podarł Biblię i kierował agresywne, wulgarne słowa wobec chrześcijan. Niestety wobec tej sytuacji Komisja Europejska, którą reprezentuje tutaj dzisiaj komisarz Reding, zareagowała, broniąc lidera tego zespołu i krytykując polski sąd, że narusza wartości europejskie. Pytam: czy Pana zdaniem Komisja powinna również bronić takich artystów, zespołów satanistycznych, którzy drą Koran albo Torę? Czy jest to zgodne w wartościami europejskimi?

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, can he repeat the question? I really did not understand it.

(The President said that it was not a blue-card question)

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Dziękuję bardzo Panie Przewodniczący! Zgadzam się ze słowami komisarz Reding i minister Creigthon, że rasizm, ksenofobia, jak i też zwykła nienawiść na tle religijnym lub politycznym są niestety stale obecne w Unii Europejskiej. Kryzys gospodarczy i wysokie bezrobocie, zwłaszcza wśród młodzieży, sprzyjają rozwojowi poglądów i postaw radykalnych. Tym bardziej więc trzeba być wyczulonym na to, co się dzieje w obszarze debaty publicznej w Europie. Nie ma wątpliwości, trzeba stanowczo zwalczać wszelkie przejawy agresji na tle różnic rasowych, etnicznych, religijnych lub politycznych. Ale nawet ostre reagowanie na ekscesy nie wystarcza. Trzeba reagować już na etapie zachęcania do nienawiści. Trzeba powstrzymywać mowę nienawiści. W moim kraju, w Polsce, zaczęły się właśnie prace nad zaostrzeniem kodeksu karnego w związku z przestępstwami zachęcania do nienawiści na tle przynależności narodowej, etnicznej, rasowej, politycznej i społecznej, ale także naturalnych lub nabytych cech osobistych lub przekonań.

Nasza rezolucja skupia się na wzywaniu rządów państw członkowskich i instytucji europejskich do takich właśnie działań. Miejmy jednak świadomość, że nie będą one nigdy skuteczne bez wsparcia społecznego. W tej sprawie potrzeba szerokiej koalicji z organizacjami pozarządowymi i niezależnymi, takimi jak chociażby federacje sportowe. Dobrze wiemy, że europejskie stadiony piłkarskie są zapleczem dla postaw agresywnych i agresywnych zachowań na tle rasistowskim i ksenofobicznym. Dlatego tak ważna jest inicjatywa podjęta przez UEFA pod nazwą „Football Against Racism in Europe”. Instytucje europejskie powinny wspierać takie działania, powinny współpracować z UEFA i każdą organizacją, która jest zdeterminowana, żeby walczyć z rasizmem i ksenofobią na swoim obszarze. Dziękuję.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, the Commissioner has a brilliant record on defending fundamental values. Let me therefore state the obvious. The EU bans racist and xenophobic hate crime and hate speech because it brings a common EU approach to a common phenomenon. It ensures that the same behaviour means the same offence in all Member States and therefore means that penalties are equally effective, proportionate and dissuasive across the entire European Union.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people fall victim to hate speech and hate crime every day in Europe and therefore have the same need to see the sanctions equalised across the European Union. Last year, in the United Kingdom alone – a tolerant country of over 60 million people – 2 300 hate crimes were recorded against LGBT people. So how many homophobic and transphobic hate crimes are there every year in an EU of half a billion people and less tolerant countries?

Therefore, Mrs Reding, Mrs Malmström and in particular the Irish Presidency, I ask you this. Once the Fundamental Rights Agency publishes its landmark report on homophobia and transphobia in May, will you take these results into account in deciding whether to include sexual orientation and gender identity in the list of protected grounds for hate crime?

  Lívia Járóka (PPE). - Mr President, if you look at the figures of the Fundamental Rights Agency on racial discrimination it is extremely disappointing, especially when it comes to European Roma citizens, who experience steadily growing discrimination throughout the EU, besides their persistent joblessness, segregated education, unhealthy living conditions, terrible healthcare situation, political under-representation and geographical isolation.

The long drawn-out economic crisis and growing existential insecurity is further feeding into anti-Roma sentiments. Europe has a plan for it, and implementing the European framework for national Roma strategies could be the best way of fighting these tendencies. It focuses on 40 million of the poorest European citizens, only 10 million of whom are of Roma origin. Therefore, it is vital that governments take an unwavering standpoint in support of human rights and European values, and also that they fulfil their constitutional obligation to defend their citizens during the culmination of social strengths and respond to any politically-driven provocation in a vigorous and lawful manner.

The race directive is also an extremely important tool in our hands and we believe, as Václav Havel once said, that the Roma are the litmus test of European democracy and civil society and it is our task, in our best capacities, to see it pass this test.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, este Parlamento tiene el deber de implicarse en esta declaración de la Comisión y del Consejo, porque los delitos motivados por el racismo, por la xenofobia o por el prejuicio o la intolerancia contra los que se consideran más vulnerables o diferentes son la expresión o la punta del iceberg de un fenómeno mucho más complejo que está recorriendo Europa: el discurso del odio, que es el que está transformando lo que empezó siendo una crisis financiera, económica y social en una crisis política que afecta a los valores fundacionales de la construcción europea.

La intolerancia está recorriendo Europa y se manifiesta no solo a través de partidos extremistas, sino también a través del prejuicio y la estigmatización, que son cada vez más frecuentes en partidos de gobierno en los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea. Las causas las conocemos: el miedo, la explotación de la ansiedad y la pérdida de una cultura homogénea en la Unión Europea, pero también una lucha encarnizada por la protección social y por los valores económicos.

Por tanto, hace falta responder no solo políticamente, sino con legislación europea, reformando la Decisión marco del año 2008 y, atendiendo a los valores del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos y de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE, legislar para reforzar la protección de la víctima y establecer un nuevo marco penal, con normas penales y sanciones que combatan no solamente la política del odio, sino también el discurso del odio.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono passati oltre sessant'anni dal barbaro eccidio avvenuto in Sudafrica e, senza dubbio, sono stati compiuti passi avanti concreti. Tuttavia c'è ancora molto da fare. L'odio e la violenza come esclusione, come accanimento, persecuzione e ancora come mortificazione e azzeramento della personalità altrui, sono purtroppo piuttosto evidenti e presenti nei nostri Stati membri. Essi rappresentano sicuramente una minaccia per la sicurezza dei cittadini, ragion per cui è fondamentale il ruolo educativo della famiglia, così come parimenti fondamentale è quello della scuola.

Episodi di omofobia, di razzismo, di cristianofobia sono certamente laceranti per il tessuto sociale della nostra Unione: abbiamo bisogno di maggiore integrazione, di maggiore coesione sociale; abbiamo bisogno di tutelare le vittime e di incoraggiare i testimoni; abbiamo bisogno di proteggere le minoranze e certamente tutelare i soggetti vulnerabili.

Per questo in molti casi, trattandosi di reati transnazionali, c'è bisogno anche di maggiore cooperazione giudiziaria di polizia basata sulla fiducia fra gli Stati membri, c'è bisogno di maggiore formazione degli operatori giudiziari e c'è bisogno di una cultura della tolleranza, dell'integrazione e della pace. Bisogna tutelare i valori non negoziabili, che sono quelli delle libertà individuali.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ειπώθηκαν ήδη πολλά και συμφωνώ ότι συνήθως ο ρατσισμός και η ξενοφοβία είναι συγκάτοικοι του φόβου και της ανασφάλειας. Και σ' αυτό επιτείνει πολλές φορές και το έλλειμμα παιδείας που υπάρχει για τα θέματα αυτά. Είχαμε την ευκαιρία μάλιστα να τα κουβεντιάσουμε τα ζητήματα αυτά στην αποστολή της επιτροπής LIBE, μερικές εβδομάδες πριν στη Βιέννη, στον Οργανισμό για τα Ανθρώπινα Δικαιώματα, και συμφωνώ ότι οι καταγραφές που κάνουν και η δουλειά που κάνουν είναι πάρα πολύ χρήσιμα δεδομένα για όλους μας.

Είναι όμως τουλάχιστον κοντόφθαλμο να συζητάμε για πολιτικές κατευνασμού των άκρων, χωρίς παράλληλα να είμαστε αποτελεσματικοί στην αντιμετώπιση της ανασφάλειας των πολιτών. Κόμματα από διάφορες χώρες, τη Σουηδία, την Αυστρία, την Ιταλία, τη Γαλλία, την Ελλάδα και άλλες χώρες, τα οποία περιχαρακώνονται σε πολιτικές ξενοφοβικές, βρίσκουν έρεισμα μέσα στην κρίση. Εκμεταλλεύονται την ελλιπή ευρωπαϊκή αποτελεσματικότητα σε θέματα αντιμετώπισης κρίσιμων θεμάτων, όπως η ανεργία, η παράνομη μετανάστευση. Χρησιμοποιούν ελλείμματα σε πολιτικές αλληλεγγύης για να αποδομήσουν τη σημασία της ενωμένης Ευρώπης, να υπονομεύσουν δημοκρατικές αξίες και αρχές στις οποίες οι κοινωνίες μας είναι βασισμένες.

Και αυτό που ανησυχεί ακόμη περισσότερο είναι ότι ίσως, σε 14 μήνες περίπου από σήμερα, στα έδρανα αυτά πιθανότατα σε μια αντίστοιχη συζήτηση να έχουν βήμα σ’ αυτό το όργανο, στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, πολιτικοί σχηματισμοί που προωθούν αυτές τις ξενοφοβικές ατζέντες. Ο χρόνος είναι λίγος και η ευθύνη όλων μας είναι τεράστια.

(Χειροκροτήματα)

(Έναρξη της διαδικασίας «Catch-the-Eye»)

  Kinga Gál (PPE). - Félelemnek, megfélemlítésnek nincs helye a XXI. században Európában. Elfogadhatatlan minden cselekedet – szavakban vagy tettekben –, ami sérti, veszélyezteti embertársait. Magyarországon ma ezen jelenségeket egyértelműen elítéli minden felelős politikus – élén a miniszterelnökkel – nemcsak szavakban, de tettekben is, amikor a gyűlöletbeszéd, a közösség elleni gyűlöletkeltés ellen a büntetőjog eszközei mellett a polgári jog eszközeivel is küzdeni kíván. Ugyanakkor sajnálom, hogy ebben a részletes határozattervezetben, amit elfogadunk itt, nem kap konkrét megemlítést az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek elleni intolerancia, az ellenük irányuló gyűlöletkeltés és megfélemlítés. Noha ez egy nagyon is élő jelenség nap, mint nap itt az unió területén.

Például Romániában, amikor anyanyelvhasználatuk, nemzeti hovatartozásuk, irodalmi estek szervezéséért félemlítik meg az őshonos magyar kisebbséghez tartozókat. Vagy egyenesen másodlagos állampolgároknak nyilvánítják őket kormányok vezető emberei, mint pl. Szlovákiában. Ez sem kellene, hogy beleférjen az európai tűréshatárba.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). - Mr President, we have to acknowledge that racism and xenophobia do not come from nowhere. Europe faces a rise of extremist parties and hateful speeches fuelled by the economic crisis and social distress.

Simultaneously, we have witnessed a nationalist drift among traditional parties – even when in government – which only further legitimises such extremist discourses. This is a very dangerous drift, and one which we cannot tolerate. Every time a representative – or any politician for that matter – of one of the 27 Member States points out a country, an ethnicity, a minority, a religion or a sexual orientation as a scapegoat, it is the EU as a whole that suffers from it.

Every time a citizen or a part of the population is attacked for being diffferent or not patriotic enough, it is our common bounds and values that emerge weaker. We adopted a Charter on Fundamental Rights, and we ought to make sure it is respected in all Member States. Moreover, we need to address the roots of intolerance and racism. This means more social justice and more democracy.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, I would like to thank the Commission for its work in fighting racism and xenophobia and to commend the work of the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency in Vienna, which I visited last month.

In hard times, extra vigilance is essential. Many colleagues have drawn attention to problems in South-Eastern Europe, but I hope the Commission will not overlook challenges in Western Europe. In a recent by-election in the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Independence Party put out leaflets claiming that 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will come to the United Kingdom next year. Their canvassers on the doorsteps were far worse, arousing atavistic anguish and fanning the flames of fear. The reality is that Mr Farage’s party, represented in this House, is a xenophobic, anti-immigrant party which needs to be exposed and treated as such.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I would like to thank the Council and the Commissioner. Mrs Reding, I would like to refer to your statement that Member States are obliged to penalise hate speech. Unfortunately, in many Member States the narrow interpretation given to incitement to hatred in criminal law contributes to hindering the application of this.

I will give you one example from my Member State, Latvia: during one anti-fascist meeting, one neo-Nazi stated that Jews and Roma are not human beings and should be exterminated. He was initially sentenced to imprisonment for a breach of the law, which prohibited a charge of incitement to hatred on national and racial grounds; however, the Senate of the Supreme Court later found that the incriminated action constituted incitement, but on ethnic – not national and racial – grounds and acquitted the defendant.

So I would like to stress that there are many violations in the Member States, and I hope our colleagues will support the Greens’ amendments.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Rozlišovanie ľudí podľa vonkajších znakov, farby pleti, charakteristických čŕt tváre a pod. má korene v histórii, keď sa etniká a rasy stretávali v súbojoch o hospodárske ovládnutie teritórií. Vytváraniu averzií medzi národmi, etnikami a rasami napomohli aj rozdielne náboženské a kultúrno-civilizačné obyčaje. Poznáme z histórie veľa prípadov, keď sa určitý národ či kultúrno-civilizačné zoskupenie vyhlásili za vyvolených a bezostyšne zotročovali, decimovali všetkých ľudí, ktorí nezodpovedali ich charakteristike vyvoleného národa. Civilizovaný svet dnes takéto triedenie ľudí na dobrých a zlých podľa vonkajších znakov či kultúrnych zvykov, alebo viery odmieta.

Vzhľadom na to, že historicky dlhodobo vybudované predsudky voči rasám sú v spoločnosti ešte hlboko zakorenené, musíme počítať s tým, že pre vytvorenie prostredia vzájomného rešpektu a úcty medzi všetkými ľuďmi budeme musieť vynaložiť ešte veľa úsilia. A to iste nielen v Európe.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Ich möchte mich mit einer Frage zu einem bestimmten Fall an die Kommissarin wenden. In Österreich haben wir bekanntlich an den Universitäten keinen Numerus clausus, was dazu führt, dass sehr viele deutsche Studenten zum Studieren nach Österreich kommen, vor allem in Medizin. Das macht natürlich die österreichischen Studenten nicht sehr glücklich. Das ist eine Tatsache, und die ist auch zu verstehen.

Nun hat eine Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, die Österreichische Hochschülerschaft, finanziert durch Zwangsbeiträge der Studenten, zu einer Demonstration aufgerufen, interessanterweise gegen deutsche Studenten in Österreich. Vereinzelt sah man auch Plakate „Deutsche raus“. Jetzt stelle ich natürlich schon die Frage in den Raum: Ist das akzeptabel, wenn es von einer links-gerichteten Organisation kommt? Wird das dann genehmigt? Oder geht das, wenn es sich gegen Deutsche richtet, denn das sind ja ohnedies 80 Millionen? Ich würde schon glauben, dass der Aufschrei genauso groß sein sollte, wenn es von einer linken Organisation kommt. Der Aufschrei sollte auch genauso groß sein, wenn es gegen Deutsche geht, und nicht nur, wenn es gegen kleinere Gruppen in Europa geht. Daher wäre eine Antwort von Ihnen auch sehr interessant, Frau Kommissarin!

  László Tőkés (PPE). - Elnök Úr! Üdvözlöm és támogatom Renate Weber és képviselőtársai indítványát. Ugyanakkor javasolom, hogy az idegengyűlölet elleni harc kiegészítéseképpen a hagyományos etnikai kisebbségeket sújtó diszkrimináció ellen is fokozzuk küzdelmünket. Romániában és több más környező országban oly méreteket öltött a magyarellenesség, hogy azt már-már az antiszemitizmushoz és a cigányellenességhez hasonlíthatjuk. Március 10-én a 90-es magyarellenes pogromról elhíresült Marosvásárhelyen tartottunk több tízezres tüntetést Székelyföld és erdélyi magyar autonómia mellett. Meggyőződésünk, hogy romániai magyarságunk demokratikus joga a közösségi önrendelkezés hatékony intézményes védelemképpen az etnikai diszkrimináció és a kisebbségi elnyomás ellenében.

Kérem a parlamentet, hogy ne csak a harmadik országokban, hanem az unión belül is kelljen védelmére a létükben veszélyeztetett nemzeti kisebbségeknek.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, fáiltím roimh ár n-aire Lucinda Creighton as ucht teacht anseo. Molaim í agus ár nAire Dlí agus Cirt, Alan Shatter, as ucht an dea-obair atá á déanamh acu chun déileáil leis na fadhbanna móra seo.

I would just like to make a couple of points.

Firstly, Commissioner Reding asked us to support further funding for Remembrance programmes. I agree completely with her on that point, because they can get to young people and show them what the result is of these terrible practices in reality. That certainly needs to be upscaled.

Secondly, as a sportsman myself, I have been somewhat alarmed at the increase in racism during matches and in play generally. All sports organisations need to get to grips with this again to stamp it out. I know my own organisation back in Ireland, the Gaelic Athletic Association, has a programme called ‘Give racism the boot’ and that is what we need to do.

  Δημήτριος Δρούτσας (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα πρώτα απ' όλα να ευχαριστήσω την Επίτροπο κ. Reding για την αξιόλογή δουλειά της. Επιτρέψτε μου όμως να εστιάσω στην κατάσταση στη χώρα μου, την Ελλάδα, όπου είναι γνωστή δυστυχώς η άνοδος και η δράση της Χρυσής Αυγής, μιας ανοιχτά ναζιστικής οργάνωσης.

Θα ήθελα να τονίσω ένα σημείο μόνο: μην έχουμε ψευδαισθήσεις, όλοι μας φέρουμε ευθύνες γι’ αυτές τις εξελίξεις, στην Ελλάδα και σε άλλες χώρες. Και απευθύνω έκκληση στις κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης να επανεξετάσουν τις πολιτικές που ασκούν απέναντι στις χώρες σε κρίση. Να πουν όχι στην παράλογα υπερβολική και μονόπλευρη λιτότητα, που οδηγεί στην εξαθλίωση χιλιάδων πολιτών και, μην ξεχνάμε, πρόκειται για Ευρωπαίους πολίτες.

Όταν σκέφτεσαι μόνο σε μακροοικονομικά μεγέθη και ξεχνάς ότι πίσω από τους αριθμούς βρίσκονται ανθρώπινες ζωές και τύχες, αυτές είναι οι συνέπειες· αυτές που βλέπουμε στην Ελλάδα με την άνοδο της Χρυσής Αυγής και, πολύ φοβούμαι, θα δούμε και σε άλλα κράτη μέλη. Είναι λοιπόν στο χέρι μας, στο χέρι όλων μας, και είναι ιστορική ευθύνη όλων μας να αναστρέψουμε αυτές τις εξελίξεις με τις σωστές αποφάσεις και πολιτικές.

  Jorgo Chatzimarkakis (ALDE). - Ρατσισμός και ξενοφοβία απειλούν σήμερα τα θεμέλια της Ευρώπης, οικονομική κρίση και λιτότητα παραπέμπουν στη δημοκρατία της Βαϊμάρης. Η οικονομική εξαθλίωση γεννά φόβο, όπως το είπε ο κ. Δρούτσας, στις κοινωνίες. Πώς περιμένουμε να ενώσουμε τους Ευρωπαίους πολίτες, όταν αποδεχόμαστε πολιτικές που μεγαλώνουν τις ανισότητες ανάμεσα στα κράτη μέλη και τις κοινωνίες; Πώς περιμένουμε να μην εξεγερθεί ο κόσμος, όταν οι πολιτικές που εφαρμόζουμε αναγκάζουν χιλιάδες πολίτες να ζήσουν την οικογένειά τους με μισθό ή σύνταξη των 300 ευρώ; Εμείς μπορούμε; Φοβάμαι πως άθελά μας γινόμαστε σήμερα συμμέτοχοι και συνένοχοι σε ένα κεφάλαιο της ευρωπαϊκής ιστορίας για το οποίο θα ντρεπόμαστε στο μέλλον.

Ως άμεσα εκλεγμένοι βουλευτές, η ευθύνη που έχουμε είναι πολλαπλάσια. Οφείλουμε να ζητήσουμε έντονα και αποφασιστικά να σταματήσουν εδώ και τώρα τα απάνθρωπα μέτρα, ώστε να χτυπήσουμε αποτελεσματικά τον ρατσισμό και την ξενοφοβία τώρα που είναι ακόμη νωρίς.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Kedves Kollégák! A mai vita során nem beszéltünk az előítéletességnek egy olyan területéről, amely terjed Európában: a szegényellenesség, a szegényekkel szembeni fellépés. Ilyen példát láthatunk most sajnos a tegnapi magyarországi alkotmánymódosítás kapcsán, amikor a hajléktalanokat, mint szegény embereket megpróbálják kriminalizálni az alkotmánynak a szintjén. Egyetértek mindenkivel, hogy uniós szinten, közösségi szinten kell föllépnünk a rasszizmus, a gyűlöletkeltés bármilyen formájával szemben. És kérem Reding asszonyt, hogy amit korábban javasolt, hogy jöjjön létre egy igazságügyi ellenőrző monitoring mechanizmus, egy igazságügyi szemeszter az európai demokráciák állapotának vizsgálatára.

Ebben a kérdésben is rendkívül fontos mit tesznek az európai kormányok a gyűlöletbeszéd visszaszorítása érdekében. Utolsó mondatként: aki csak félszívvel lép fel a kirekesztéssel... (Az elnök megvonta a szót a képviselőtől.)

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I have been very moved by many of the contributions to the debate. I have been shocked by some, but I prefer to forget them and to concentrate on the moving and correct analyses which have been put forward by the Members of this Parliament – and I can tell you that I am as concerned as you are about the rise of racism, xenophobia and hate crimes based on race, colour, religion, descent, ethnic origin or membership of LGBT groups.

Any of this intolerance is unacceptable: we cannot differentiate or rank some types of intolerance over others. They are all to be eliminated.

We do have a European law, the framework decision on racism and xenophobia, which dates from 2008 – pre-Lisbon times as you know – and which obliges Member States to penalise intentional public incitement to violence against groups defined by their race, and we need to ensure that it is properly enforced. For that reason, we are reviewing it after five years, as is our normal practice, and at the end of this year I will come forward with a report on what has happened in the various Member States on the basis of that legislation.

Only after 1 December 2014, when the pre-Lisbon texts are ‘Lisbonised’, can we institute infringement proceedings, so it is currently too soon to assess whether the instrument in question should be revised, because we first need to see how it is being applied. After 1 December 2014, if we see that there are holes in this text, we can propose a revision of it, which will, of course, depend on the legal analysis of whether we have the power to correlate criminal legislation against hate crime.

We are aware of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights study on LGBT people: there were 90 000 respondents so it will be a comprehensive and solid study, and I imagine we will discuss it in this House in order to assess the extent of the problem generally and in the various Member States.

That brings me to the question of statistics, because before you can develop a policy you must know not only how a law has been applied, but also the number of people in danger, and the number of crimes being committed. The systematic collection of crime data is not as well developed as it should be.

A recent report by the Fundamental Rights Agency shows that only four Member States collect comprehensive crime data, whereas 14 Member States collect limited or no data. So you can see that we have a basic problem here because before you develop new legislation you need to have a basis for it. That is why, in the new laws which I have put on the table since 2009, data collection is explicitly provided for in the legislative text.

Let me give you the example of the Victims’ Rights Directive: it places a strong emphasis on the systematic collection of statistical data because only that will allow us to see, after some time, whether the directive has been applied properly or whether we need to change certain elements of it. So all the new legislation which I have put on the table since Lisbon has had the collection of data written in as a must; and we will have to resolve the ‘pre-Lisbon’ questions when the statutory time comes to do so.

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, firstly I would like to say that this has been a fascinating debate, with a broad range of views and perspectives from across the Chamber. I would like to thank Parliament for putting this very important item on today’s agenda.

It is absolutely vital that we take every opportunity to continue to raise awareness of the scourge of racism and xenophobia. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, we celebrate next week the Europe-wide Action against Racism. We declare our solidarity with all minorities and our determination to protect their rights. That is extremely important.

Minimum standards enshrined in EU law are a way of fighting racism, anti-semitism and homophobia. Once such laws are in place, we must ensure that they are respected, both in spirit as well as in practice.

A number of Members raised the issue of the Anti-Discrimination Directive. I know that this is a very complex and challenging file for us in Council. As you will be well aware, unanimity is required and negotiations have been ongoing since as far back as 2008.

I can simply reiterate the Irish Presidency’s commitment to making progress on these negotiations. They are not easy, that is for sure. At the moment I am not in a position to anticipate the timing of an outcome, but we are very much committed and working very hard to make progress on that very important directive.

It is important to say that, while the legal framework is extremely important, we must also have the courage to raise awareness and to guard against the attitudes that make discrimination possible. This is very much about getting into the minds and the hearts of citizens and changing attitudes and improving culture. A number of Members have alluded to that. I think it is very tempting, at times such as these – times of great economic hardship – for some individuals and groups to look for scapegoats.

Therefore, at this difficult time, we have to be especially vigilant to defend our values and speak out against prejudice, against bigotry and against hatred. All crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia – all forms of discrimination – affect not just the victim, but all of society. That is something we have to continually remind ourselves. Europe’s reputation, of course, depends on securing and defending the very basic values which our societies are based upon.

I would just like to pick up on the point made by the Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioner Reding: that it is extremely important that the atrocities and hate crimes of the past are not forgotten; that we do not allow them to be forgotten; and that we do not lose those valuable lessons we have learned from those experiences in our quite recent history.

I very much support the Commissioner’s approach to trying to ensure that we remember and honour victims and that we continually try to remind people, particularly the younger generation, of those atrocities that have gone before them.

A number of Members, including Mr Kelly, also mentioned the value of reaching out to NGOs, to civil societies and particularly to sporting organisations. I think that is a very valuable lesson that we have to learn; where the very important role models for young people show leadership and show conviction when defending our basic values and the things that we hold dear.

A number of Members, including Mr Claeys and Mr Vanhecke, made the argument that the subject of racism is often misused to constrain legitimate discussion. That certainly cannot be allowed to happen. But this is to confuse the subject. Facts are not hidden. However, labelling, discriminating against, or indeed inciting hatred against people on grounds of race, colour, religious creed, sexual orientation, or other proscribed grounds, is not acceptable. That is the message that has to go very clearly from this Chamber and from all of the European Institutions as we work to promote and defend our basic values.

I would like to conclude by thanking Members for the very warm and positive reaction to the Irish Presidency’s initiative at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. You can rest assured that we will take that work forward over the months ahead. Thank you very much once again for this very stimulating debate.

  Πρόεδρος. - Έλαβα πέντε προτάσεις ψηφίσματος για την περάτωση αυτής της συζήτησης, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 110 παράγραφος 2 του Κανονισμού⁽¹⁾.

Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί αύριο, Τετάρτη 13 Μαρτίου, στις 12 το μεσημέρι.

(Η ψηφοφορία, κατόπιν τούτου, ανεβλήθη για την Πέμπτη 14 Μαρτίου 2013)

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), în scris. – De la începutul crizei financiare, atenţia autorităţilor naţionale şi europene s-a concentrat pe politicile economice şi de austeritate, iar apărarea valorilor de bază ale Uniunii, precum drepturile fundamentale, solidaritatea şi pacea socială, au fost neglijate. Astăzi putem vedea efectele dezastruoase ale acestei neglijenţe. Manifestările şi discursurile rasiste, xenofobe, anti-semite şi naţionaliste s-au multiplicat tot mai mult şi au ajuns să fie promovate nu doar de partide extremiste ci şi de personalităţi şi mişcări politice de prim plan.

De departe, cea mai urâtă şi mai discriminată comunitate din Europa este cea romă. Strategia europeană din 2011 nu a avut niciun rezultat. De aceea, cred că ea trebuie să fie revizuită şi ameliorată, mai ales pentru a aborda şi a recunoaşte fenomenul rasismului împotriva romilor şi pentru a întări rolul autorităţilor locale în politicile de incluziune.

Vreau, de asemenea, să atrag atenţia că xenofobia şi rasismul nu afectează doar anumite etnii, dar şi naţiuni întregi. Mă refer în special la români şi bulgari, care continuă să fie trataţi în multe state europene ca nişte cetăţeni de rangul doi, care nu ar trebui să aibă acces la drepturi de bază precum libertatea de circulaţie şi de muncă, lucru care este inacceptabil.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), írásban. – Az Európai Unió a demokrácia, az emberi jogok és a jogállamiság tiszteletére épül, mégsem egyértelmű ezen elvek következetes elismerése a tagállamokban. Sőt, az utóbbi, gazdasági válsággal jellemzett időszak azt mutatja, hogy az emberi jogok tiszteletben tartása terén még ma is sok hiányossággal kell szembe néznünk. Állandó és uniós szinten rendezetlen problémaként jelentkezik a kisebbségben élő népcsoportok diszkriminációja. Pont ezért hiányolom a rasszizmus, az idegengyűlölet és a gyűlölet-bűncselekmények elleni küzdelem erősítéséről szóló parlamenti állásfoglalásból az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek konkrét megemlítését. Az EP nem lép fel eléggé az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek elleni intolerancia, az ellenük irányuló gyűlöletkeltés és megfélemlítés problémájának rendezése érdekében, pedig az EU polgárainak jelentős hányadáról van szó. Az európai értékektől távol állnak és elfogadhatatlanok a szlovák miniszterelnök közelmúltbeli kijelentései, amelyek nemcsak az ország lakosságának 10%-át kitevő legnagyobb lélekszámú kisebbség, a magyar közösség, hanem minden kisebbséghez tartozó szlovák állampolgár ellen irányultak. Megengedhetetlen és elítélendő bármely uniós tagállam, illetve vezetőjének ilyen formájú megnyilvánulása.

  Boris Zala (S&D), písomne. – Rasizmus je tým najnebezpečnejším delením ľudstva na smrteľných nepriateľov. Má rôzne podoby. Dnes sú najnebezpečnejšími nacionalizmus, antisemitizmus, ale aj všetky fóbie proti imigrantom či etnikám, ako sú Cigáni. Všetky tieto formy neznášanlivosti majú dnes spoločného menovateľa, pod ktorým sa ukrývajú nacionalizmus a protieurópanstvo. Až v hysterickom zápase proti projektu európskej integrácie je ukryté vyzdvihovanie až zbožšťovanie národnej výlučnosti. Dnes sa tvári, že nie je namierené proti inému národu, ale proti bruselskej byrokracii. To preto, že práve prehlbovanie európskej integrácie je definitívnym koncom národnej nevraživosti, ale aj sna o národnej nadradenosti, výnimočnosti či povyšovania sa nad národy iné.

Európska integrácia je ráznou odpoveďou nacionalizmu práve preto, že zabezpečuje každému národu rovnoprávne postavenie a neumožňuje nadvládu jedného nad druhým. To mnohým prekáža v ich sne o vyvolenosti. Jedným z dôvodov, prečo aj my Slováci vo veľkej väčšine podporujeme európsku integráciu je práve v historickej skúsenosti z nášho vlastného nacionalizmu, ktorý nás doviedol ku kolaborácii s Hitlerom. Ale aj zo skúsenosti z expanzívneho nacionalizmu nášho maďarského suseda, ktorý ohrozuje našu celistvosť, občiansku súdržnosť a európske hodnoty. Zápas za jednotnú Európu je dnes kľúčový preto, že tvorí hrádzu proti nenávistnému rasizmu a expanzívnemu nacionalizmu. Je škoda, že si to mnohí antieurópania neuvedomujú.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vicepresidente

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, au nom du groupe des socialistes et démocrates, je voudrais exprimer notre très grande préoccupation quant à l'adoption hier par le parlement hongrois, et ce de manière précipitée, d'une série d'amendements à la Constitution dont la compatibilité avec les principes fondamentaux et le droit de l'Union européenne n'est pas assurée. La même inquiétude a été exprimée par le Conseil de l'Europe et la Commission, inquiétude aussi manifeste dans la population hongroise.

Nous demandons que la commission parlementaire compétente – la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires étrangères – soit immédiatement saisie pour examiner cet amendement à la Constitution hongroise dans le cadre du rapport sur la situation des droits fondamentaux: normes et pratiques en Hongrie, conformément à la résolution du Parlement européen du 16 février 2012.

Nous attendons, en outre, une évaluation de la Commission de Venise sur la compatibilité de ces modifications avec la CEDH, comme indiqué par les Présidents du Parlement européen et de la Commission.

(Applaudissements)

  Presidente. − Non era un richiamo al regolamento.

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte auf die Eröffnung unserer gestrigen Sitzung zurückkommen. Im Namen meiner Fraktion möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass wir der Erklärung des Präsidenten, wie im Fall der Ausweisung von vier Abgeordneten des Europäischen Parlaments, die in die Sahelzone fahren wollten, durch die marokkanischen Behörden zu verfahren ist, nicht zustimmen, dass wir das nicht für ausreichend halten. Wir möchten den Präsidenten noch einmal ausdrücklich auffordern, dass er selbst gegenüber den marokkanischen Behörden Protest einlegt, sich mit diesem Verfahren nicht einverstanden erklärt, und dass auch noch einmal geprüft wird, eine offizielle Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments nach Marokko, in die Sahelzone, zu entsenden.

  Presidente. − Onorevole Zimmer, siamo d'accordo. Il Presidente ne sarà informato.

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE). - Madam President, a few minutes ago there was an intervention on the situation in Hungary clearly indicating that, with the fourth amendment – which has been approved by the Hungarian Parliament – there is a breach of fundamental European values.

My request to you, Mr President, is that we put that point of Hungary on the agenda of the European Parliament when we have our discussion tomorrow with the Commission and with the Irish Presidency. I am saying that because Article 7 of the Treaty is very clear: one third of the Member States can put a problem on the agenda. The Commission can do it; maybe Mrs Reding can do it in one hour because you have a College now; maybe you can take a decision now to go for an Article 7, paragraph 1 procedure against Hungary – or the European Parliament can do it. But what must not happen is that this plenary session in Strasbourg ends without a decision of this Parliament on the case of Hungary and without any action by the Commission or the Council.

(Loud applause)

In fact what is happening is that Mr Orbán is laughing and joking with us by doing this. I should ask my good friend Mr Daul, who has already made a number of statements – I think one month ago, against Mr Berlusconi – and who now also has the courage to ensure that his PPE Group stops supporting Mr Orbán in this breach of European values and principles.

(Loud applause)

So my request is that you put this on the agenda for tomorrow morning.

  Presidente. − Onorevole, la richiesta è chiara.

  József Szájer (PPE). - Madam President, I heard the intervention from the Socialist and Liberal colleagues concerning Hungary. I would take it seriously, because in the European Union we should take each other seriously, unless we see that our Socialist and Liberal colleagues are blind when there are breaches of human rights in countries where there are Liberal and Socialist governments. There is a very clear double standard here in this House.

(Applause)

We never heard any intervention from Mr Verhofstadt when the Socialist Government of Romania blocked the constitutional court from publishing its decision. There are several other instances where, in this House, the left side of the House is applying double standards. Clearly the fourth amendment of the Constitution of Hungary is an issue for Hungary, because Article 4 of the European Treaty makes it clear that the domestic constitutional structures of a country are part of its sovereignty, which no one can violate. This does not mean, dear colleagues, that you do not have to apply the basic constitutional principles of the European common heritage.

The Hungarian Government has already tabled the fourth amendment of the Hungarian Constitution at the Venice Commission for review, but there was no intervention with so much as a word about a problem with this constitutional amendment. What is the specific point that violates rights so much?

(Interruption from the floor)

Mr Verhostadt’s answer is that it breaches everything. But can he name specifically where the violation of human rights or rule of law is in this area? Can he demonstrate it? Hungary is part of the European club; we are abiding by the rules. I would like to make it very clear that Hungary is abiding by the basic principles of human rights and rule of law, and there is no point in having double standard, biased procedures against any country in this Union, otherwise you will be getting into a Union which is growing apart and not together.

(Applause)

  Presidente. − All'ordine del giorno non è iscritta una discussione sull'Ungheria.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Madam President, as the rapporteur on the situation of fundamental rights, the rule of law and democracy in Hungary, I would like to thank all our colleagues. Mr Verhofstadt has quoted Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, Mr Szájer Article 4. I would like to quote Article 2, which is the first substantive article of the Treaties. It says that the Union is founded upon democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. Not only the Member States, but also the Union’s institutions, have to respect these values: that means that we too have a direct responsibility to protect these fundamental values of the Union.

The constitutional amendments do indeed affect some of these fundamental values, from the independence of the judiciary, including the prerogatives of the constitutional court, to freedom of expression. In the context of the report on Hungary, we have already produced four working documents, including one co-signed with the EPP on the independence of the judiciary. We will also focus, in the upcoming report on Hungary, on the fourth amendment, which we will thoroughly assess. Meanwhile, we would ask the Commission to focus its efforts intensively on the dialogue with Hungary on fundamental rights. There is no other issue that merits our attention more than this one.

  Presidente. − Prendo atto che vi è una richiesta di modifica dell'ordine del giorno, che deve essere riferita al Presidente Schulz, il quale prenderà una decisione in merito.

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca il turno di votazioni.

(Per i risultati delle votazioni e altri dettagli che le riguardano: vedasi processo verbale)

(discussione)

- Dopo la votazione:

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). - (hors micro) … du président de chaque plénière de décider du changement de l'ordre du jour.

  Presidente. − La proposta è chiara ma allo stato attuale è il Presidente a dover prendere una decisione. Pertanto la proposta verrà riferita al Presidente, il quale prenderà una decisione e la comunicherà all'Aula.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, this Chamber has just voted on the Correia de Campos report, and I would like to make the following declaration on behalf of the Commission.

First, the Commission welcomes the agreement reached with the Council, as well as the adoption of the Correia de Campos report, and we look forward to an early conclusion of this file. However, as regards the eligibility of projects of common interest for EU financial assistance in the context of trans-European energy infrastructures, the Commission would like to state that it considers it important that the support from the EU and national sources extends to grants for works to enable the implementation of projects of common interest, enhancing the diversification of energy supply sources, routes and counterparts. The Commission reserves the right to make proposals in this direction based on the experience gained from the monitoring and foreseen in Article 16 of the Regulation on guidelines for trans-European energy infrastructures.

Prima della votazione:

  Margrete Auken, ordfører. − Fru formand! Det er ikke så tit, at Ombudsmanden udarbejder en særlig beretning til os, og derfor er det en skam, at vi ikke får en fuld debat om denne sag, der i den grad drejer sig om respekten for borgerne og for borgernes deltagelse. Jeg synes, at vi skal sende borgerne et tydeligt signal om, at vi er villige til at lytte til dem, og at vi mener, de bør inddrages. Men vi har fået en god betænkning, også i udvalget.

Det drejer sig først og fremmest om to ting: dels om VVM, altså om den fortsatte slattenhed over for respekten for VVM-vurderingerne. Østrig har undladt at foretage en sådan vurdering i forbindelse med udvidelsen af Wiens lufthavn. Ombudsmanden har så efterfølgende været indforstået med, at man lavede det, de kalder en ex-post. Jeg synes, man skulle kalde det en post-mortem, fordi det jo meget tit er for sent. Det fremgik af denne ex-post eller post-mortem, at man havde tilsidesat borgernes ret til at deltage og borgernes ret til at klage. Det har Ombudsmanden påpeget, og det er meget meget vigtigt, at vi har dette med.

Det skal understreges, fordi vi nu står over for en revision af VVM-direktivet, samtidig med at vi står over for at skulle vedtage et nyt rammeprogram for miljøhandlingsplanen, hvor netop implementeringen af lovgivningen er fuldstændig i centrum. Til implementering af lovgivning hører borgerinddragelse på alle de niveauer, hvor det er muligt. Og det skal være os her i Parlamentet, der fører det store ord for at sikre borgernes deltagelse. Lad mig til slut takke mine kolleger i udvalget. Vi har haft en rigtig god stemning. Det skyldes nok også, at Østrig efterfølgende har repareret på de værste ulykker, så der ikke var nogen, der havde grund til at være sure på Østrig. Derudover synes jeg, at det er lidt ærgerligt, at jeg ikke fik igennem, at vi også skulle have sanktioner.

(La seduta è sospesa in attesa della seduta solenne)

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

  Der Präsident. − Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, meine Damen und Herren! Ich freue mich sehr, heute den Präsidenten von Israel, Schimon Peres, in unserem Parlament in Straßburg begrüßen zu dürfen. Es ist uns eine große Ehre, Herr Präsident, dass Sie heute zu uns gekommen sind, um Ihre Erfahrungen und Ihre Hoffnungen für die Zukunft mit uns zu teilen.

Zwischen europäischen und israelischen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern besteht heute ein ungemein starkes Band, das wir – auch mit Ihrem Besuch – für die Zukunft weiter festigen wollen. Enge wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Beziehungen sind entstanden, persönliche Verbindungen gewachsen und unsere gemeinsame reiche, aber auch äußerst schmerzhafte Geschichte wird uns für alle Zeiten auf das Engste miteinander verbinden.

Die Europäische Union und Israel – beide – entstanden nach den Schrecken des Zweiten Weltkriegs und nach der Erfahrung des Tiefstpunkts der Menschheitsgeschichte – dem Holocaust. In Europa – bei uns – schworen sich Frauen und Männer vor mehr als 60 Jahren auf den Trümmern dieses Krieges: „Nie wieder“. Es ist dieses „Nie wieder“, das mir als deutschem Abgeordneten in diesem Haus, der die große Ehre hat, einem multinationalen Parlament als Präsident anzugehören, – und ich glaube, allen hier – heute und für alle Zeit die oberste Pflicht ist.

Der Kampf gegen Antisemitismus, gegen Ausgrenzung, gegen Intoleranz ist das Fundament der Europäischen Union, deren Parlament wir sind.

(Beifall)

Meine Damen und Herren, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das unbestrittene Existenzrecht Israels und das Recht seines Volkes auf ein Leben in Sicherheit sind nicht verhandelbar. Dieser festen Überzeugung sind wir als Europäer und – ich sage das noch einmal – ich als Deutscher im Besonderen. Ich wünsche mir allerdings auch, Herr Präsident, ich könnte heute sagen, dass seit unserem letzten Treffen Fortschritte im Nahost-Konflikt zu verzeichnen wären. Leider kann ich diese Feststellung nicht treffen. Nach langwierigen Gesprächen und Verhandlungen steht eine wirklich ernstzunehmende Friedensinitiative nach wie vor aus. Das palästinensische Volk hat genauso wie das israelische Volk ein Recht auf Unabhängigkeit und auf ein Leben in Würde und Frieden.

(Beifall)

Doch weder das israelische noch das palästinensische Volk haben jemals dauerhaft in Frieden gelebt. Ich glaube, wir alle möchten erleben, wie beide Völker nebeneinander in zwei demokratischen Staaten mit sicheren Grenzen in Frieden und Wohlstand leben können.

1993 haben Sie, Herr Präsident, in Ihrem Buch „A New Middle East“ Ihre Vision für die Zukunft Ihrer Region aufgeschrieben. Ein Naher Osten, der durch wirtschaftliche Kooperation Verbindungen zwischen den Menschen und durch Versöhnung Frieden schafft. Manche nannten Sie damals naiv. Hier in diesem Haus nennen wir Sie mutig, denn Sie besitzen denselben visionären Mut, wie ihn die Gründerväter der Europäischen Union besaßen. Wir teilen Ihren Traum, dass der Nahe Osten eines Tages eine aufstrebende und friedliche Region sein wird. Und deshalb werden wir Sie, Herr Präsident Peres, weiterhin unterstützen.

Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, willkommen im Europäischen Parlament! Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Rede.

(Beifall)

  Shimon Peres, President of the State of Israel. − Mr President, my dear friend Martin Schulz, distinguished Members of the European Parliament – of this great House of freedom and peace, that has changed the history of Europe and affects the future of the entire world – I want to thank you for the privilege of addressing you. It is, for me, an important opportunity and it is a meaningful occasion for the people of Israel.

I stand here before you with burning memories in my heart and great hope in my soul. I carry profound pain concerning the past, and I look with great confidence to the future.

I immigrated to Israel in 1934, at the age of 11. In 1942, most of the inhabitants of my town were burned alive. Had my family delayed their emigration by eight years, we would have been exterminated.

A year before the creation of Israel, in 1947, I was recruited to the Haganah headquarters. Since then, Israel has been attacked seven times in 65 years of existence. We were outnumbered and outgunned. We had just one choice before us: to win or to die.

I also participated in the confrontation of another enemy – the desert. We won. We made the desert bloom.

I have many memories, but I carry many dreams as well, and I did not come to reminisce. I have come to continue my dreams. People age. Dreams are ageless.

We changed. Europe changed. I come to express our admiration for the changed Europe.

Europe picked itself up in the wake of the worst war in history. It divorced the past, it created a new Europe. You converted the divided Europe of the last thousand years into the united, modern Europe of today.

You replaced military camps with scientific campuses. Europe which knew racism now considers it a crime. I know that you are facing an economic crisis, but your skies are without the clouds of war.

A European country introduced the Nobel Prize. Now, a united Europe has rightly won it. Europe corrected its mistakes and is building a better world. For us, the Europe of Shoah is now becoming the Europe of support for our renaissance.

Friends, the idea of the rebirth of Israel was born on European soil. In the past thousand years, more Jews lived in Europe than in any other continent in the world. Alas, more Jews were murdered in Europe in the last hundred years than in the preceding 2000 years. We experienced here the worst tragedy of our history. Here, at the same time, we dreamed an impossible rebirth. Six million – a third of our people – were murdered here by starvation, gas, rifles and fire. What remains from them is ashes.

We shall not forget that the righteous among the nations – your people – carried candles of light in the darkness. They were small in number, but great in heroism. Israel was born from those ashes at the end of the Second World War. If somebody had stood up then and said that within three years a Jewish state would be created, he would have been considered a delirious visionary. But this dream became a reality, and I have to add that if somebody had stood up on the same day, and said that in six short years a new united Europe would be born, with borders erased and barriers lowered, he would have been considered an author of fiction.

Six countries signed the Treaty of Paris and became a community of 27 nations across Europe. Our relations here and now are a dialogue between two miracles: your miracle and our miracle.

Israel enjoys an association agreement with Europe and close ties with the European Union in nearly all fields. I have come to thank you for your friendship, based on common values, geographic proximity and a long history. Politically, Israel is a Western democracy with a Mediterranean experience. Religiously, Israel is the cradle of the three monotheistic religions. Scientifically, Israel is advanced, even by European standards.

Israel is small: just one thousandth of the area of the Middle East. Its soil, typically for the Middle East, is barren rather than fertile. Water is scarce. We have just two lakes, one dead, the other dying. We have a single river – the Jordan – rich in history, poor in water. The land is rich in archaeology and poor in natural resources. The only natural resource we have discovered is human potential.

Israel is an example of a country where the people have enriched the land more than the land enriched the people; where the devotion of the people and the merits of hi-tech forced deserts to surrender and to bloom. We went through seven wars, and we won them. But when peace became possible, we returned all the land and all the assets which we had won during the war to the countries that we made peace with: Egypt and Jordan.

We started a peace process with the Palestinian people, which enabled both of us to build a Palestinian Authority. Then – and people forget this – we evacuated the Gaza Strip. We dismantled 22 settlements and we brought back all the settlers from there. It was an opportunity for the Palestinians to build a strip of independence and of peace. Unfortunately, they turned it into a terrorist base. We do not know why, but we know it became a setback to the peace process.

Israel is an island in a stormy ocean. We have to defend our island, and we have an interest in the tranquilisation of the sea. Some people claim it will take generations, but Europe has proved that great events can be achieved in six years. We live in a new era in which events are moving at the speed of a plane, and no longer at the speed of a carriage. For that reason, I believe peace can be achieved in a relatively short while.

The peace process with the Palestinians has already produced agreement on the beginning and on the solution. The solution is based on two nations and states: an Arab state, Palestine, and a Jewish state, Israel, living in peace and economic cooperation. The remaining disputed issues can and should be negotiated and concluded.

Peace for Israel is not just a strategic choice. It is a moral call which stems from the depth of our heritage. Since the Exodus, our heritage has condemned slavery and rejected mastery, and all persons are considered to be born equal. Our legacy calls upon us to pursue peace. Together with my partner, Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated, I laid down the foundations for peace with the Palestinians. Now it is time to continue and to renew the peace process.

We must continue to work with the Palestinian Authority. We have to support the Palestinian economy. Together we have to make and complete peace. A Palestinian security force has been formed. You and the Americans trained it, and now we are working together with it to prevent terror and crime.

Ladies and gentlemen, our hand remains stretched out to peace with all the countries in the Middle East. In a short while, a new Israeli government will be formed. It is an opportunity to resume the peace negotiations and to realise the two-state solution. There is no other solution, either for the Palestinians or for us. This is not only our preference, it is what the present reality calls for.

Jordan, Israel and Palestine find themselves in a similar situation. Terror endangers each of them separately and all three of them collectively. Collective dangers call for collective security. I have the highest regard for the King of Jordan. Like his father, he has proved to be a king courageously committed to peace. I have known the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmud Abbas, for many years. He condemns terror and he is a real partner for peace. Europe has been and continues to be a major partner for peace and a major enemy of terror.

Next week, we will be hosting President Obama in Israel as a welcome and esteemed guest. His support for our security is extraordinary and his devotion to peace is unshakeable. We are glad that the United States and Europe are now working together to support peace and to stop terror.

The greatest danger to peace in the world today is the current Iranian regime. It became a dictatorship cloaked in a religious mantle, and it developed an impossible imperial appetite. Nobody threatens Iran: Iran threatens others. It endangers the independence of the Arab countries. It menaces the existence of the Israeli state. It smuggles arms to many countries in order to undermine their stability. The Iranian regime denies the Holocaust and calls for another Holocaust. They are aiming to build a nuclear weapon and they deny they are doing it.

A nuclear bomb in the hands of an irresponsible regime is an imminent danger to the entire world. The European Union and the United States together drew the conclusions necessary to create a policy to stop that from happening. To this end, you rightly decided to impose economic sanctions. You made it clear that if the Iranians will not respond, other options are on the table.

In addition to the nuclear bomb, Iran is constructing long-range missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. It can reach the far corners of the world, including Europe. I believe that, in addition to controlling the production of highly enriched uranium, there is a need to control the means of delivery: to control the production of missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Khamenei has declared that religion prohibits the production and the use of nuclear arms. Why then does he build missile capabilities capable of carrying nuclear warheads?

During the Helsinki conference which took place in 1975, the United States placed the issue of human rights in the Soviet Union at the top of the world’s strategic agenda. It was a surprising move and it was effective. It shows that the moral voice is no less important than a diplomatic approach. Today, such a call should be addressed to Iran. A clear voice must be raised against the violation of human rights by the Iranian regime. A clear voice must be raised against a regime that hangs people without bringing them to court; that throws journalists into prison without trial; and that fires live bullets at civilian demonstrators, with no respect for their lives. A clear voice must be raised against a regime that discriminates against women. Instead of sharing the oil-generated profits with their own people, they spend them on terror and arms, and endanger people all over the world.

Enriched uranium impoverishes hungry children. A moral voice will encourage the Iranian people in their fight for freedom and their struggle against misery.

Very soon, elections will take place in Iran. The ayatollahs should not be allowed to falsify the results and to frustrate the right of the people to make their own free choice. Your voice, ladies and gentlemen, will show the Iranian people that the world has not turned its back on them.

The present leaders of Iran are violating the charter of the United Nations, which condemns the violation of human rights and aggression against other nations. Yet they are being given the opportunity in the United Nations to abuse its platforms. Iran supports terrorism throughout the world. Its main proxy, Hezbollah, carries out terror attacks and threatens the stability of the entire region.

The historic Sykes–Picot agreement between France and England gave birth to modern Lebanon – to become a multicultural country where Muslims, Christians and Druze together lived in peace. Today, Hezbollah, supported by Iran, is destroying Lebanon. Hezbollah is a terror organisation, not a political movement. Its members collect missiles. They are trigger-happy. They hide missiles in peaceful towns and villages, and by doing so, they turn them into a war target.

Hezbollah divides Lebanon politically, religiously and ethnically. It has turned the land of the cedar tree into a land of scorched cedars. Hezbollah is a state within a state. It is a private army, apart from the national army. It sends soldiers to support the massacre of the bloody dictator in Syria, without the authorisation of the government of which it is a member. Recently there have been no fewer than 20 terror attempts by Hezbollah throughout the world – in India, Thailand, Georgia, South Africa, the United States, Egypt and Greece, among others. Last month, the Government of Bulgaria, a Member State of the European Union, identified Hezbollah as the author of the terror attack in Burgas in which five Israeli tourists and one Bulgarian citizen lost their lives. Cyprus recently arrested a Hezbollah terrorist planning a terror attack.

Distinguished Members of Parliament, we appeal to you: call terror, terror. Save Lebanon from terrorist madness. Save the Syrian people from Iran’s proxies. Save your citizens and ours from Hezbollah. The international community has to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, because it is a terrorist organisation.

Today, terror reaches far beyond its previous limits. Recently, terrorists attempted to take over Mali. Had they succeeded, it would have halted the impressive endeavour of the African continent to recover from its past. One of the highest hopes of all of us is to see the success of the brave attempt by the African people to build a new science-based economy like that in Europe.

The free world cannot stand by as terror imposes its grip on any part of the world, far or near. It cannot stand by when a massacre is carried out by the Syrian President against his own people, his own children. Assad recently built a nuclear installation and an arsenal of chemical warheads. The nuclear installation was destroyed in time; the chemical arsenal remains in his hands to this day. It is a terrible danger for the Syrian people, for the entire region and indeed for Europe.

A way must be found to prevent the chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands. The best option for putting an end to the Syrian tragedy might be to empower the Arab League, of which Syria is a member, to intervene. An intervention by Western forces would be perceived as a foreign intervention. The Arab League can and should form a provisional government in Syria to stop the massacre and prevent Syria from falling to pieces. The United Nations should support the Arab League to build an Arab force in blue helmets.

Dear friends, 18 years ago I came to Brussels to sign the Association Agreement between the European Union and Israel. I am happy that reality has surpassed our expectations. Indeed, an association agreement became a partnership and, before long, the partnership became a friendship.

It is on this steady ground that I propose that the European Union and Israel should cooperate for the benefit of stability and prosperity in the Middle East and in other places in the world.

Israel is described as a ‘start-up nation’. I believe that the whole Middle East can become a start-up region. Hi-tech incubators can be created all over the region to help people escape poverty. Israel is small, so we try to take advantage of our smallness. We have discovered that small countries can become great pilot projects. Today, we are trying to build a social model that will bridge the gap between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots’. The social gap is a major problem for all, rich and poor. We are looking for a new way to overcome the gap through the democratisation of health, the democratisation of education and the democratisation of communication, and by reducing the cost of food and housing. For the younger generation, this is a burning need. It is nice to be young, but today it is extremely expensive!

We intend to improve the human condition, to enable each person to possess the capacity freely to choose their way of life, by entering the secrets of our brains. The brain is the most illustrious instrument in the world. It has enabled us to build artificial brains, yet we are still far from understanding the way the brain functions – our brain. As a matter of fact, we are strangers to ourselves.

Discovering the mechanism of our brain will enable us to become friends with ourselves and with our fellow men. I am glad that this effort has been accorded new priority and has become a major focus of cooperation between our governments and non-governmental organisations, and between us as individuals.

Our global world has no global government. It has become almost ungovernable, and we have to look for an alternative. I believe that the future way of governing will rely on three pillars: national governments will continue to be in charge of the husbandry of the national state; global companies will invest in research and development; and individuals will enjoy the capacity to govern themselves by knowing how their brain functions.

Science today is more telling than politics. It is universal: it is borderless. Armies cannot conquer wisdom. Police cannot arrest science. I believe that scientific aid to developing countries can enable them to escape poverty. Science-based global companies can help change the world.

Globalisation will end racism, for you cannot be global and racist. It empowers the individual. Global companies do not impose their will upon people; on the contrary, they respect the will of their clients. They can provide scientific know-how for growth. They can assist young people to acquire high education and they can create jobs befitting their skills. This may be the best help we can offer to our young people and to the younger generation in the Arab world and, this is our hope to answer the challenge of the new age.

I have proposed a plan for a joint venture between the European Union, national governments and global corporations, to cope in a new way with these challenges, and I know that it requires your support as the European Parliament. Allow me to count on your understanding and help.

By combining Europe’s wisdom and Israel’s experience, we can overcome tomorrow’s challenges. Facing the lack of a global government, we can foster close cooperation between governments and global companies. Facing the dangers which threaten the values for which we stand, we shall fight terror – wherever it is – relentlessly.

President Schulz, Jean Monnet, the father of the European Union, once said: ‘Everybody is ambitious. The question is whether he is ambitious to be, or ambitious to do.’ The time has come to do. Let us remember that we are as great as the purpose we serve. Yes, the challenges ahead of us are daunting, but who better to defy the seemingly impossible than the two miracles I have mentioned?

Let us join forces, the European Union and Israel, to fulfil the teachings of our heritage. In the words of my forefathers, let us ‘fix the world’ or, as we say in Hebrew ‘Tikkun Olam’. In the words of Jean Monnet, I say ‘Let us do it!’ Let us work together for a better Middle East, by a daring Europe. Let us fulfil the values of our people: peace, democracy, human rights. Yielding to no obstacle, and daring the new, we shall be servants of the future rather than rulers of the past.

My friends, as I look upon the future of the friendship which ties Israel to the European Union, I am filled with hope and determination. Hand in hand, we shall build a brighter tomorrow for tomorrow’s generation. Thank you, and shalom.

(The House accorded the speaker a standing ovation)

  Der Präsident. − Vielen Dank, meine Damen und Herren, für die Ehre, die Sie Herrn Präsident Peres erwiesen haben. Vielen Dank Ihnen, Herr Staatspräsident, für Ihre Worte. Ich glaube, der Appell, den Sie an uns gerichtet haben, wird hier sicher nicht ungehört verhallen. Ich wünsche mir vor allem in der Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem Staat Israel, dem israelischen Volk und den Völkern Europas, dass das, was Sie hier ausgedrückt haben und was unser gemeinsamer Wert ist, dass der Respekt vor dem Individuum und die unverhandelbare Garantie der individuellen Menschenrechte für alle gilt – in Europa, in Israel und auch in Palästina. Und dies gilt in allen Orten der Welt.

(Beifall)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vicepresidente

- Prima della votazione:

  Michèle Rivasi, rapporteure. − Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, c'est un rapport qui concerne le contrôle des substances radioactives présentes dans l'eau potable.

Afin de garantir la consistance du texte et après consultation des services du Parlement européen et des groupes politiques, je souhaite apporter une modification technique à l'amendement n° 2 afin d'effacer les mentions suivantes: "après transmission du projet d'acte législatif aux parlements nationaux et vu l'avis du Comité des régions".

Suite au vote, je vous remercierais, Madame, de me redonner la parole brièvement afin d'adresser au nom du Parlement européen un message à la Commission européenne.

- Dopo la votazione:

  Michèle Rivasi, rapporteure. − Madame la Présidente, merci pour votre conscience et ce vote crucial.

En effet, au nom du Parlement européen, j'appelle la Commission à transmettre ce rapport tel qu'amendé par le Parlement européen aux parlements nationaux et au Comité des régions et à recommencer le processus législatif en codécision.

Ce rapport proposé par la Commission européenne est un non-sens démocratique. L'ensemble des députés européens membres de la commission ont justement partagé mon avis lors du vote en commission et je les en remercie vivement.

Ce rapport concerne le contrôle des substances radioactives présentes dans l'eau. C'est donc un enjeu de santé publique auquel doit être associé le Parlement européen. En agissant ainsi, la Commission prive les citoyens européens du droit légitime à un débat et à un vote démocratique. Il n'est pas ici question d'être pour ou contre le nucléaire, mais bien de protéger la qualité des eaux que nous consommons chaque jour. Et le traité Euratom n'est en aucun cas une base juridique.

Dès lors, la codécision s'impose sur la base juridique de l'article 192 du traité de Lisbonne.

- Prima della votazione:

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, the importance of this moment and of this vote for Europe’s economic future can hardly be overstated. Together with the six-pack, these two regulations bring us several steps towards a genuine economic and monetary union (EMU).

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs, other MEPs, friends and colleagues who have tirelessly worked with the Commission and with the Council Presidencies to make this possible, to make this happen. I would also like to thank you all for the many amendments that you have introduced, often through very resolute insistence – sometimes, I have to say, bordering on stubbornness – that have improved and strengthened in the end the proposals in the course of the legislative process.

I dare to state that if the six-pack and the two-pack had been there at the introduction of the euro, we would never have suffered from a crisis of such magnitude. In any event, we would have got over the crisis much more quickly and with less social and financial costs.

With the vote today, I trust we will demonstrate the benefits and the functioning of the Community method.

When looking in retrospect at the EU’s crisis response, and thinking of today’s vote and of the Commission’s declaration on a redemption fund and eurobills, I can only wish that the Council had already been persuaded and supportive of the Community method in spring 2010, three years ago. I am referring to the critical Ecofin meeting on 9-10 May 2010, when the Commission – on Europe Day, in one of our crisis meetings – made a proposal to create a single European Financial Stability Mechanism, based first on guarantees by the EU budget up to EUR 60 billion, and then on joint and several guarantees beyond that. That would have presented the kind of big bazooka that has helped to tame the systemic crisis only since last year, with the ECB’s LTRO interventions and OMT decisions. Instead, we got the far clumsier EFSF, which was only last year turned into a permanent and well capitalised institution, the ESM.

I dare to claim that our response to the crisis would have delivered better and faster results for our citizens, if the Commission’s original proposals had in spring 2010 found acceptance among the Member States. But the time was not yet ripe then for decisions of such magnitude.

(Heckling)

To make clear the Commission’s intentions as regards future steps, I would like to declare the following on behalf of the Commission. I ask for your patience and you will have to forgive me if I am exceptionally long, by my standards, but this is all a rather comprehensive and fragile solution.

Once the legislation proposed by the Commission on the two-pack is adopted, the Commission intends to take steps in the short-term towards a deep and genuine EMU, as outlined in the blueprint. Short-term steps, from 6 to 12 months, will include:

In its Blueprint for a Deep and Genuine EMU, the Commission considered that, in the medium-term, a redemption fund and eurobills could be possible elements of a deep and genuine EMU under certain rigorous conditions. The guiding principle would be that any steps to further mutualisation of risk must go hand in hand with greater fiscal discipline and integration. The required deeper integration of financial regulation, fiscal and economic policy and corresponding instruments must be accompanied by commensurate political integration, ensuring democratic legitimacy and accountability,

The Commission will establish an Expert Group to deepen the analysis of the possible merits, risks, requirements and obstacles of partial substitution of national issuance of debt through joint issuance in the form of a redemption fund and eurobills. The Group will be tasked with thoroughly assessing the possible features in terms of legal provisions, financial architecture and the necessary complementary economic and budgetary framework. Democratic accountability will be a central issue to be considered,

(Heckling)

The Group will take into account the ongoing reform of the European economic and budgetary governance and assess the added value for such instruments in this context. The Group will pay particular attention to recent and on-going reforms, such as the implementation of the two-pack, the ESM and other relevant instruments,

In its analysis the Group will pay particular attention to the sustainability of public finances, to the avoidance of moral hazard, as well as to other central issues, such as financial stability, financial integration and monetary policy transmission,

The members of the Group will be experts in law and economics, public finances, financial markets and sovereign debt management. The Group will be invited to present its final report to the Commission no later than March 2014. The Commission will assess the report and, if appropriate, make proposals before the end of its mandate.

An exploration of further ways, within the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact, to accommodate under certain conditions, non-recurrent, public investment programmes with a proven impact on the sustainability of public finances made by the Member States in the assessment of their stability and convergence programmes will be done in spring-summer 2013, in the context of the publication of the Communication on the calendar of convergence towards the medium-term objective;

After the decision on the next Multiannual Financial Framework for the EU and before the end of 2013, the Commission will put forward the following proposals to complement the existing framework for economic governance: measures to ensure greater ex-ante coordination of major economic reforms and the creation of a ‘convergence and competitiveness instrument’ to provide financial support for the timely implementation of structural reforms that enhance sustainable growth.

(Heckling)

I do not decide on the procedure of this Parliament.

  Presidente. − Il regolamento prevede l'intervento del Commissario, per cui lasciatelo concludere.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, the new system, fully in line with the Community method, will build on existing EU surveillance procedures. It would combine deeper integration of economic policy with financial support, thereby observing the principle that steps towards greater responsibility and economic discipline should be combined with greater solidarity. It would, in particular, aim at enhancing the capacity of a Member State to absorb asymmetric shocks. This instrument would serve as the initial phase in moves towards the establishment of stronger fiscal capacity.

Furthermore, the Commission commits to following up, in a speedy and comprehensive manner, on its action plan to strengthen the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, in particular with a view to the revision of the directives identified in the action plan and the measures and proposals announced by the Commission in its 2012 package in the field of employment and social policy.

This is the Commission’s overall commitment. I trust that this declaration has provided sufficient clarity about the intentions of the Commission, and I hope that you can vote in favour of the ‘two-pack’ just in time before this week’s European Council – which will be very important for rebuilding economic confidence in Europe. This would be a significant step forward in terms of our shared ambition to create a genuine European monetary union for the benefit of all our citizens.

Thank you for your kind attention, your support and your confidence.

(Loud applause)

- Dopo la votazione:

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte dezidiert nicht Ihre Sitzungsführung kritisieren, sondern ich habe mir nur Sorgen gemacht, ob manche Herren hier den nervlichen Belastungen dieser Arbeit wirklich standhalten, und würde Sie bitten, aufzupassen, dass Ihnen da rechts hinten oben während einer Sitzung nichts passiert.

(Beifall)

- Dopo la votazione:

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). - Madam President, I want to remind colleagues that this is the European Parliament. It is not an arena for mud wrestling and I find it quite remarkable that people are laughing, shouting, clapping hands. Pay some respect. This is the arena for democracy in Europe.

- Prima della votazione.

  Nuno Melo (PPE). - Senhora Presidente, muito breve, prometo, e é um verdadeiro pedido de esclarecimento, acerca do que só poderá ser um erro de escrita ou um erro de redação. Porque se lê no considerando C que, e é suposto que votemos, a crise do crédito que constitui a origem da recessão atual foi uma catástrofe provocada pelos homens.

Ora, Sra. Presidente, o Parlamento dá-se ao respeito a começar na credibilidade daquilo que põe a votação perante o mundo. E dizer-se que a crise internacional é uma culpa dos homens, não se tratando de um erro de redação, será simplesmente ridículo e um desrespeito para grandes mulheres como Hillary Clinton, Dilma Rousseff, enfim, Angela Merkel, Catherine Ashton, e tantas outras que, por direito próprio, ascenderam a lugares de destaque na Humanidade.

E daí o esclarecimento, Sra. Presidente, saber se é erro ou simplesmente ridículo.

– Durante la votazione sul paragrafo 41:

  Ashley Fox (ECR). - Madam President, there are many people who are unhappy with your call on No 32 and you have proceeded to ignore them. Can you go back and check 32, please?

– Dopo la votazione:

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR). - Madam President, earlier on I wanted to make a point of order. I am glad the Commissioner is still here; it concerns a point of procedure, and perhaps the Commissioner will be interested in listening. I have no issue with the fact that the Commission – before votes – may want to make a brief comment, and on this occasion clearly the Commissioner had an extremely important statement to make, which had both very complicated and complex content. Why I would like the Commission to listen to what I am saying is that, when they do have lengthy statements to make before the President tries to get the votes done, time should be made on the agenda before the voting session so that the Commissioner him- or herself can come before the House – it could have been yesterday evening or this morning – to explain what they wanted to say.

That was the reason I made the point of order. I hope the Commission can take this on board: a brief one-minute statement is not a problem but a 10-minute, complicated statement is, and then we end up with very bad behaviour (which is not appropriate) but also the frustration of the rest of the House. I thank you for allowing me to speak and to make this point of order.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, permettez-moi de rebondir sur ce qu'a dit notre collègue car, effectivement, le commissaire qui est encore présent parmi nous...

... was quite long in his speech, so unfortunately he has diluted the message he was supposed to deliver to this House. But the declaration was a full part of the agreement, so it was very important that this declaration be made in public in this House, during voting time.

Dichiarazioni di voto orali

  Vicky Ford (ECR). - Madam President, I just wanted to let the Commissioner know that I was shocked and horrified by the behaviour of certain MEPs from my country. Their behaviour does not represent the views of the British Conservative Party.

Because of the challenges we have in energy security, energy investment – especially in infrastructure – is extremely important. In my amendments to this report, I call for consideration to be given to flexibility and robustness and for cost-effectiveness. I am disappointed that the Commission could not support my amendments to help investment in infrastructure in the current review we are doing on bank capital ratios, but we do need to have public investment which is well-targeted. EU money should only be used where there is EU added value.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, ho votato a favore della relazione sulle infrastrutture energetiche transeuropee perché ritengo che questo regolamento abbia il pregio di promuovere alcuni aspetti fondamentali della politica energetica europea.

Innanzitutto, imprime un'accelerazione forte alla realizzazione del mercato interno dell'energia e a una sua piena integrazione, favorendo così gli obiettivi di sicurezza energetica e, nel contempo, quelli di diversificazione delle fonti di approvvigionamento. Inoltre, potremo conseguire la modernizzazione delle reti energetiche per garantire quella sostenibilità ambientale prevista appunto per il 2020.

Auspichiamo ovviamente, di pari passo, maggiore sviluppo e occupazione per le realtà locali, anche attraverso le fonti rinnovabili e l'innovazione in campo energetico. Registriamo inoltre con favore le soluzioni di semplificazione al riguardo dei procedimenti di rilascio delle autorizzazioni. Meno burocrazia equivale molto spesso a maggiore produttività degli investimenti.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, un'energia sostenibile, sicura e a un costo accessibile rappresenta una delle principali sfide condivise dai cittadini europei. Nonostante le buone intenzioni e gli ambiziosi obiettivi fissati dalla Commissione, la politica energetica europea progredisce a rilento. Le risorse stanziate a livello di Unione sono scarse e solo recentemente, con l'adozione del trattato, il tema ha acquisito maggiore rilevanza.

Per questo ho espresso il mio voto favorevole al testo del collega Correia de Campos che mira ad imprimere un'accelerazione alla realizzazione del mercato interno dell'energia, conseguendo gli obiettivi della politica energetica e ambientale dell'Unione europea.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - Europejska polityka energetyczna wciąż nie odpowiada na potrzeby wynikające z konieczności zagwarantowania dostaw energii, a także kwestii bezpieczeństwa energetycznego. Problemem jest brak pełnej integracji energetycznej w Unii. Prowadzi to do ogromnych i pogłębiających się różnic średnich cen energii, mających bezpośrednie przełożenie na koszty przemysłu w ogóle. Tymczasem skupiamy się na ograniczeniach emisji gazów cieplarnianych zamiast podejmować szeroko zakrojone działania na rzecz dywersyfikacji dostaw. Popierając rezolucję, liczę na korzyści wynikające z przyspieszenia realizacji celu, jakim jest dokończenie budowy wewnętrznego rynku energii. Jest to szczególnie istotne dla szeregu państw uzależnionych od jednego z dostawców energii. Ta patologiczna sytuacja wymaga pilnego podjęcia zdecydowanych działań, ponieważ w interesie nas wszystkich leży wyrównywanie szans poszczególnych państw członkowskich. Dywersyfikacja źródeł przyniesie korzyści gospodarce całej Wspólnoty.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Madam President, firstly I would like to point out that the names on the board are in the wrong sequence.

Tá áthas orm tacú leis an moladh seo mar tá fuinneamh an-tábhachtach do thodhchaí an Aontais Eorpaigh agus go háirithe tá sé tábhachtach go mbeimid in ann fuinneamh a gluaiseacht trasna na hEorpa go héasca.

This is a very important report. I think for the competitiveness of Europe, a cheap energy supply and also a consistent energy supply is going to be vital. We have seen the way things have happened in the United States where instead of being importers they are now exporters of energy, and it is way cheaper than before. We are in competition with them.

Renewables are not always reliable, the wind does not always blow, therefore if we are going to have more renewables having the infrastructure to avail of these and to move energy around is going to be of major importance.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Madam President, one of the great gifts of Europe to human civilisation was the ideal of democratic self-government, of government of, by, and for the people. Of course, we cannot do that except within units of agreed people and that means allowing people to choose which country they belong to. I was delighted by the result of the referendum in the Falkland Islands. I look forward to many referendums on which country people want to belong to in Europe and I hope that, as in the Falkland Islands, and unlike what we have done in the past, we will respect the result of such referendums.

Dichiarazioni di voto scritte

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Desde logo, chamo a atenção para o facto das regiões ultraperiféricas se continuarem a confrontar com uma política energética demasiado padronizada, que ainda não lhes responde adequadamente. Não só é importante resolver os problemas particulares que apresentam como, sobretudo, poderem expandir todo o potencial de energias renováveis que têm e a definição de matérias relativas às infraestruturas energéticas europeias deve ter isso em consideração. O plano deste relatório deve ter em conta a necessidade de integrar os mercados da energia periféricos. Devem ser criados grupos regionais para propor e reavaliar projetos de interesse comum, com vista à criação de listas regionais de projetos de interesse comum. Estes grupos regionais devem garantir uma cooperação estreita entre os Estados-Membros, as entidades reguladoras nacionais, os promotores dos projetos e as partes interessadas. Os projetos de interesse comum que tenham sido concluídos ou que já não cumpram os critérios e os requisitos estabelecidos no presente regulamento não devem figurar na lista seguinte da União. Os projetos de interesse comum existentes a incluir na lista seguinte da União devem ser sujeitos ao mesmo processo de seleção para o estabelecimento de listas regionais e para o estabelecimento da lista da União que os projetos propostos.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), în scris. − Una dintre marile provocări cu care se confruntă Europa de astăzi este furnizarea de energie durabilă, competitivă şi sigură. În ciuda realizării unor progrese recente, creşterea preţurilor şi a dependenţei de importul de energie, integrarea insuficientă a pieţei interne a energiei, izolarea energetică a anumitor zone geografice şi accesul redus la surse diversificate de energie reprezintă încă obstacole în calea unei pieţe energetice securizate şi competitive. Noul regulament privind orientările pentru infrastructuri energetice transeuropene propune accelerarea realizării pieţei interne a energiei şi îndeplinirea obiectivelor privind politica energetică a UE, pentru a reduce emisiile şi a combate schimbările climatice prin modernizarea şi interconectarea reţelelor energetice. Consider că această iniţiativă este importantă pentru constituirea unui cadru solid şi ambiţios în vederea conceperii unei politici energetice adaptată la nevoile noastre viitoare.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – La politique énergétique européenne doit assurer aux citoyens européens une énergie durable, sûre et accessible à un prix abordable. Face à une intégration insuffisante du marché intérieur de l'énergie, la Commission a proposé des lignes audacieuses pour l'avenir de cette politique en insistant notamment sur la compétitivité, la sécurité de l'approvisionnement, la durabilité et la décarbonisation. J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport qui souligne l'importance de l'interdépendance des États et promeut une action plus concertée, rapide et intégrée de l'Union européenne. La politique énergétique et climatique de l'UE est un excellent moyen de relancer la croissance économique par la création de nouveaux emplois et les investissements qu'elle sous-tend. Ce nouveau règlement encourage ainsi la modernisation et l'interconnexion des réseaux énergétiques. En cela, il définit un nombre modéré de corridors et de domaines prioritaires transeuropéens couvrant les réseaux d'électricité, de gaz, de transport de pétrole et de dioxyde de carbone. Ce rapport appelle également à rationaliser les procédures administratives applicables aux projets d'intérêt commun pour les simplifier et les écourter.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl energetikos infrastruktūros projektų reglamentavimo, kuriuo siekiama paspartinti vidaus energijos rinkos užbaigimą ir pasiekti ES energetikos politikos tikslus. Pasiūlymu siekiama modernizuoti ir išplėsti Europos energetikos infrastruktūrą, sujungti tarpvalstybinius tinklus bei stiprinti rinkos integraciją ir konkurencingumą ir atsinaujinančių išteklių energijos integraciją. Šiuo reglamentu nustatomi infrastruktūros prioritetai bei bendro intereso projektams taikoma tvarka ir kriterijai, pagal kurią kiekvienos valstybės narės kompetentingai institucijai suteikiama atsakomybė koordinuoti projektų leidimų išdavimo procesą, nustatyti skaidrumo standartus bei ilgiausią leidžiamą leidimų išdavimo proceso trukmę. Pritariu išdėstytiems siūlymams dėl svarbesnio vaidmens suteikimo Energetikos reguliavimo institucijų bendradarbiavimo agentūrai (ACER), užtikrinant tarpvalstybinių tinklų plėtrą, investicijų koordinavimą ir vartotojų apsaugą. Pritariu, kad būtina nustatyti veiksmingesnę projektų leidimų išdavimo tvarką bei vieno langelio principą, kurių nacionalinės institucijos turės laikytis išduodamos leidimą projektu. Svarbu, kad Europos koordinatoriams būtų suteikti specialūs įgaliojimai prižiūrėti įgyvendinimo sunkumus patiriančius projektus.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Uma energia sustentável, segura e de preço acessível é um dos grandes desafios que unem os europeus, desde a sociedade civil aos decisores, à indústria e aos ambientalistas. Os objetivos da política energética europeia estabelecem claramente objetivos a alcançar para 2020. Esses objetivos são: (i) 20 % de redução das emissões de gases com efeito de estufa (GEE); (ii) 20 % do consumo energético final proveniente de energias renováveis; (iii) 20 % de aumento da eficiência energética. A presente proposta estabelece regras para o desenvolvimento atempado e a interoperabilidade das redes transeuropeias de energia, a fim de atingir os objetivos da política energética consignados no Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia. É importante assegurar o funcionamento do mercado interno da energia, garantir a segurança do aprovisionamento da União e promover a eficiência energética, o desenvolvimento de formas novas e renováveis de energia, e ainda a combinação das redes de energia. O novo regulamento é uma iniciativa positiva e importante, uma vez que visa acelerar o estabelecimento do mercado energético interno e obter resultados concretos da política energética da UE e dos objetivos climáticos. Pelo exposto, apoiei o presente relatório.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto la relazione Correia De Campos sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sugli orientamenti per le infrastrutture energetiche transeuropee (TEN-T). Realizzare un mercato transfrontaliero e svilupparne le infrastrutture impone dei costi e degli investimenti onerosi che rappresentano una vera e propria barriera all'entrata. Per questo è necessario un nuovo regolamento volto a superare questi ostacoli e ottenere la modernizzazione e l'interconnessione delle reti energetiche minimizzando gli sprechi e massimizzando l'efficacia degli interventi.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − Fiecare stat membru al UE dispune de un mix energetic care este determinat de condiţiile geografice, tehnologice şi de politică energetică, precum şi de nevoile naţionale. Acesta constă dintr-un sector al sarcinii de bază, care se alimentează continuu din resurse fosile, nucleare şi hidroelectrice şi dintr-o parte de energii regenerabile. Deoarece în perioada 2007-2020 cota electricităţii din surse regenerabile s-ar putea mai mult decât dubla, consider că nu mai este suficient să se gândească în categorii naţionale. Construcţia şi extinderea unor reţele transnaţionale este imperios necesară pentru a acoperi cererea în creştere de electricitate, pentru a promova integrarea pieţelor, pentru a menţine nivelul de securitate a reţelelor, pentru a transporta energia electrică produsă din surse regenerabile şi pentru a compensa fluctuaţiile. Totodată, astfel se poate aduce o contribuţie indispensabilă la atingerea obiectivele privind eficienţa energetică.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi esamos energetikos infrastruktūros atnaujinimo darbų ir naujos energetikos infrastruktūros plėtros spartinimas yra itin svarbus siekiant Sąjungos energetikos ir klimato politikos tikslų. Sąjungos, o ir Lietuvos atžvilgiu, integruoti tinklai ir pažangiųjų tinklų diegimas yra nepaprastai svarbūs užtikrinant konkurencingą ir tinkamai veikiančią integruotą rinką, kad būtų optimaliai išnaudota energetikos infrastruktūra, padidintas energijos vartojimo efektyvumas ir integruoti įvairūs atsinaujinantieji energijos ištekliai, taip pat skatinamas augimas, užimtumas ir tvarus vystymasis. Pasiūlyme apibrėžti devyni prioritetiniai geografiniai koridoriai ir trys teminės prioritetinės sritys, nustatytos projektų priskyrimo bendro intereso projektams (BIP) taisyklės ir nustatoma, kad kiekvienoje valstybėje narėje būtų viena institucija (vieno langelio principas), kuri prižiūrėtų ir paspartintų BIP leidimų išdavimo procesus. Priemonės nustatytos reglamente skirtos tęsti ir papildyti Sąjungos energetikos politiką, t.y. užbaigti energijos vidaus rinkos kūrimą, užtikrinti tiekimo saugumą, visų pirma dujų ir naftos sektoriuose, 20 % sumažinti išmetamą šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų kiekį, atsinaujinančių išteklių energijos dalį galutiniame energijos naudojime padidinti iki 20 % ir iki 2020 m. 20 % padidinti energijos vartojimo veiksmingumą. Taip iki 2050 m. Sąjunga galės pritaikyti savo infrastruktūrą tolesniam savo energetikos sistemoje išmetamo anglies dioksido kiekio mažinimui ir pasirengti tam, kad būtų sujungti regionai, kurių pajėgumai gaminti atsinaujinančiąją energiją ir galimybės kaupti elektros energiją yra dideli.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de la proposition qui vise à garantir l'achèvement de réseaux énergétiques stratégiques d'ici à 2020, par des corridors énergétiques et des domaines prioritaires pour les réseaux de transport d'électricité, de gaz… Les projets qui représenteront cet "intérêt commun" de mise en œuvre de ces priorités pourront alors bénéficier d'un financement spécial.

À l'heure actuelle, les travaux d'infrastructures énergétiques sont très lents et coûteux. En Allemagne, par exemple, 100 km de lignes électriques ont été construits, alors que l'objectif d'ici à 2015 était de 850 km. Il existe pourtant des budgets européens dès lors que le projet est labélisé "projet d'intérêt européen".

Cette nouvelle réglementation permettra ainsi une clarification et un meilleur accès aux financements pour ces grands projets d'infrastructures.

  Jan Březina (PPE), písemně. − Nové nařízení považuji za pozitivní iniciativu, která urychlí vznik vnitřního trhu s energií a uskutečnění cílů politiky EU v oblasti energetiky. Díky uvolnění značného objemu investic může přispět ke znovuoživení hospodářského růstu a tvorbě pracovních míst v EU. Návrh obsahuje plán modernizace a propojení energetických sítí. V oblasti plynárenství považuji za správné jít cestou diverzifikace zdrojů energie a tras jejích dodávek skladováním zkapalněného zemního plynu (LNG) a budováním obousměrného potrubí. Podporuji rovněž dodávky surové ropy do zemí, které nemají přístup k moři, a budování potrubí pro zachycování a skladování uhlíku, které spojuje výrobní a skladovací zařízení. Považuji za přínosné vymezení devíti prioritních zeměpisných koridorů a tří tematických prioritních oblastí a v každém členském státě zřizení jediného orgánu fungujícího jako kontaktní místo pro celou agendu, který bude dohlížet na postupy povolování projektů společného zájmu a snažit se urychlit jejich průběh.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), în scris. − Infrastructura energetică transeuropeană joacă un rol esenţial pentru îndeplinirea obiectivelor privind clima şi politica energetică stabilite de către Comisie. Consider că această propunere va duce la modernizarea şi dezvoltarea reţelelor de energie transfrontaliere în interiorul UE, necesare pentru a asigura viitorul şi siguranţa energetică a continentului şi pentru a putea lupta cu noile provocări în domeniu. Aceste provocări sunt asociate cu creşterea cererii pentru electricitate, găsirea unor noi modalităţi de securizare a transportului de energie electrică produsă prin procese naturale regenerabile şi compensarea fluctuaţiilor de energie. Creşterea eficienţei energetice depinde de depăşirea acestor provocări.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – En votant en faveur du rapport Correia de Campos, je tiens à souligner l'importance de développer les interconnexions énergétiques en Europe. Moyen de renforcer le marché unique, de faire baisser les coûts, et d'assurer une indépendance énergétique à l'Union européenne, ce rapport aura des répercussions concrètes très positives pour les citoyens européens.

  Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Porgo le mie congratulazioni al collega Correia de Campos per il lavoro svolto su questa relazione. Ritengo infatti che le complessità procedurali dovute all'ampia portata del Regolamento e manifestatesi nell'opinione di ben cinque Commissioni si siano aggiunte ad una problematica già di per sé spinosa e impegnativa. Basti pensare alle implicazioni di questi orientamenti: da essi derivano le priorità energetiche su cui si dovranno investire milioni di euro pubblici per permettere ai cittadini e alle imprese, nel medio termine, di avere energia per usi domestici e industriali. Mi compiaccio, in particolare, della visione d'insieme mostrata e dell'approccio efficientistico, che mira a ridurre la necessità di infrastrutture in funzione della de-carbonizzazione dell'economia europea. In questo campo, la cui importanza strategica è fondamentale per assicurare il benessere e la prosperità nei decenni a venire, un errore può costare molto caro sia in termini economici che in termini di ricadute sull'economia reale. A maggior ragione, dunque, approvo il lavoro svolto e invito colleghi e cittadini a monitorare la lungimiranza di questo provvedimento.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Europa are nevoie de măsuri mai rapide, mai decisive și concertate pentru asigurarea unei perspective globale și a unui nivel considerabil de interdependență între statele membre la capitolul infrastructură energetică. Este nevoie de o mai bună integrare a pieței interne a energiei, de eliminarea izolării energetice a anumitor zone geografice, pentru un acces mai bun la surse diversificate de energie, în vederea asigurării securităţii energetice şi cu efecte tangibile pentru consumatori și societățile comerciale în ceea ce privește prețurile și durabilitatea.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Ce rapport permettra de donner un coup d'accélérateur au développement des infrastructures énergétiques transeuropéennes. Pour notre sécurité énergétique, et pour une fourniture d'énergie fiable et abordable pour tous les Européens, nous devons dès aujourd'hui créer les infrastructures nécessaires pour compléter le marché unique de l'énergie. Ces infrastructures sont encore trop souvent ralenties par des procédures longues et coûteuses. Ce texte vise à mettre fin à ces barrières, qui ralentissent l'instauration d'un véritable marché européen de l'énergie. Grâce à une procédure d'attribution des permis renouvelée, nous favorisons la transparence et la rapidité des procédures. Les avantages sont clairs : pour les exploitants, c'est un gain de temps, d'argent et d'efficacité, qui jouera sur leur compétitivité dans le marché mondial. Et les retombées positives, en termes de coûts comme de sécurité d'approvisionnement, se répercuteront sur les consommateurs et les entreprises. Le texte met à juste titre l'accent sur les coûts pesant sur l'utilisateur final. C'est une question sur laquelle je suis particulièrement mobilisée.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, pentru că reprezintă un pas esenţial în accelerarea finalizării pieţei interne şi în atingerea obiectivelor pieţei energetice şi a celor climatice. Politica energetică europeană stabileşte obiective clare pentru 2020: o reducere cu 20% a emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră, atingerea unei cote de 20 % a energiei din surse regenerabile în consumul final de energie, creșterea cu 20 % a eficienței energetice. Pentru ca piaţa europeană să furnizeze energie de manieră durabilă, sigură şi securizată, avem nevoie să depăşim contextul naţional fals, considerat ca fiind „autosuficient” şi „independent”, şi să creăm sinergii. Cred că acest raport îndeplineşte această misiune, prin definirea a nouă coridoare geografice şi a trei domenii tematice prioritare şi prin stabilirea de norme pentru identificarea proiectelor de interes comun, şi stabileşte „ghişeul unic naţional” pentru accelerarea şi supravegherea proiectelor. În baza propunerii, proiecte de interes comun vor fi alocate conform unei analize cost-beneficiu. La fel se va întâmpla şi cu alocarea costurilor investiţiilor în funcţie de zona transfrontalieră unde apar beneficiile, acordând astfel stimulente pentru proiecte cu risc ridicat şi stabilind condiţiile de eligibilitate pentru asistenţă financiară prin intermediul mecanismului „Conectarea Europei”.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o relatório relativo a "infraestruturas energéticas transeuropeias", por apresentar propostas que irão permitir reforçar a integração do mercado interno da energia e responder ao isolamento energético de algumas áreas geográficas, de modo a garantir o cumprimento dos objetivos definidos pela União, em termos de competitividade, segurança de aprovisionamento, sustentabilidade e descarbonização.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − While I welcome the Trans-European energy infrastructure project, I do not feel that this proposal looks at the future of European energy. Although the proposal contains some positive language relating to energy efficiency, I chose to abstain as it does not fully comply with long-term climate and energy goals. I would like to see a proposal containing a clear objective, i.e. that projects have to demonstrate being in line with the 2050 climate and energy goals in order to avoid further fossil fuel lock-in. In Wales we are looking at sustainable ways of generating energy using wind and water, for example. Not only do fossil fuels damage the environment but they are running out. We need to develop a sustainable energy smart grid for Europe to ensure that Europe will be able to produce energy in the future.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Para um crescimento verde, que não prejudique a competitividade, é necessária uma política energética sustentável e consistente, um adequado funcionamento do mercado de licenças de emissão e uma valorização dos projetos nacionais que contribuam para os objetivos comunitários de redução das emissões e de aumento da independência energética. É fundamental que a Europa ganhe independência energética, o que só se pode conseguir por duas vias: (i) maior diversificação das fontes – que no gás é absolutamente necessário; e (ii) aumento da energia produzida na União. Para tal, é necessário manter-se a aposta nas energias renováveis, com especial incidência nas eólicas, cujo potencial off-shore pode estar subaproveitado, e redefinir a política europeia para o aproveitamento da energia nuclear, garantindo elevados padrões de segurança e fiabilidade.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O relatório em apreço, elaborado pelo colega António Fernando Correia de Campos, versa sobre a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu (PE) e do Conselho relativo às orientações para as infraestruturas energéticas transeuropeias e que revoga a Decisão n.º 1364/2006/CE. O objetivo deste regulamento é contribuir para a criação de um verdadeiro mercado europeu da energia que abasteça cerca de 500 milhões de consumidores. Para isso, é necessário que os Estados-Membros não se fechem nos seus interesses mas reúnam sinergias em torno de um objetivo comum. Este regulamento vai potenciar novos investimentos na melhoria das redes de transportes energéticos, nomeadamente de gás e de eletricidade, aumentando a segurança e a qualidade do serviço prestado ao consumidor europeu. Além disso, os investimentos realizados pelos empregos gerados contribuirão para o relançamento da economia europeia. Através de uma parceria entre a UE, os EM e as empresas do setor, é possível criar uma estrutura pan-europeia inteligente e integrada que garanta a qualidade do serviço fornecido e uma estabilidade de taxas. Votei favoravelmente este relatório que põe fim a um longo processo legislativo e faço votos para que seja rapidamente implementado, pois trata-se de um avanço positivo nesta área removendo barreiras físicas e inoperacionais entre os Estados-Membros.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este é mais um passo na definição da denominada política energética europeia, assente na liberalização do mercado da energia e na criação de um mercado energético europeu. Caminho indissociável da privatização dos setores energéticos nacionais, com consequente perda de soberania e entrega ao setor privado e aos monopólios europeus deste setor. A intenção é estabelecer uma rede europeia para o transporte da energia entre os Estados-Membros e de abastecimento com o exterior. O financiamento será atribuído aos denominados Projetos de Interesse Comum, limitados a projetos orientados para redes de europeização, propostos por operadores de rede de transporte de energia, que salvaguardem o interesse comum europeu e estratégico internacional. Questões, algumas delas pertinentes, relativas à racionalidade e à segurança do aprovisionamento energético são invocadas em favor da concretização de uma opção política – de liberalização – que não as salvaguarda. Este é mais um exemplo de como os fundos públicos são canalizados para investimentos de que os monopólios da energia vão usufruir, arrecadando lucros fabulosos. Os Estados-Membros têm de cumprir as regras do mercado energético europeu e as orientações da política energética europeia para poderem receber qualquer financiamento previsto ao abrigo do Mecanismo (assim se pondo em causa a possibilidade de propriedade pública deste setor estratégico). Evidentemente, votámos contra.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Udržateľná, bezpečná, spoľahlivá a cenovo dostupná energia je jednou z hlavných výziev, ktoré spájajú Európanov, počnúc občianskou spoločnosťou až po politikov, priemyselný sektor a ochrancov životného prostredia. Hoci Európska komisia vymedzila ambiciózne ciele energetickej politiky, ktorými sú konkurencieschopnosť, bezpečnosť dodávok, udržateľnosť a znižovanie emisií uhlíka, ešte aj dnes čelíme problémom, ako je nedostatočná integrácia na vnútornom trhu s energiou, značná energetická izolácia určitých geografických oblastí, nedostatočný prístup k diverzifikovaným zdrojom energie, ktoré prispievajú k energetickej bezpečnosti, a nedostatok konkrétnych výhod pre spotrebiteľov a podnikateľov v oblasti cien a udržateľnosti.

Táto celková situácia a značný stupeň vzájomnej závislosti medzi jednotlivými členskými štátmi si vyžadujú prístup na európskej úrovni. Je žiaduca rýchlejšia, rozhodnejšia a koordinovaná akcia a rovnako má svoje opodstatnenie, aby Európa hrala väčšiu úlohu pri koordinácii a integrácii vnútroštátneho úsilia.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report on an issue of absolute key importance. I represent a country which is at the very heart of the renewables revolution, and Scotland is on target to have 100% of its electricity needs met from renewable sources. Scotland has the potential to become a global leader in this field and, with the right infrastructure, the powerhouse of Europe.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį dokumentą. Naująjį reglamentą matau kaip teigiamą ir svarbią iniciatyvą, nes ja siekiama paspartinti vidaus energijos rinkos užbaigimą ir pasiekti ES energetikos politikos ir klimato tikslus. Jis svarbus tuo, kad gali padėti, sutelkus labai reikšmingas investicijas, iš naujo paskatinti ekonominį augimą ir darbo vietų kūrimą ES. Juo numatoma modernizuoti ir tarpusavyje sujungti energetikos tinklus. Elektros sektoriuje siekiama stiprinti rinkos integraciją ir konkurencingumą, sistemos saugumą ir atsinaujinančių išteklių energijos integraciją, sprendžiant decentralizuotos ir neperduodamos energijos gamybos problemą, kuriant pažangiuosius tinklus, prijungiant įrenginius prie saugojimo įrenginių ir elektros linijų. Dujų sektoriuje energijos tiekimo saugumą galima pasiekti įvairinant dujų tiekimo šaltinius ir maršrutus, diegiant suskystintų gamtinių dujų saugojimą ir reversinius vamzdynus. Šiandien yra akivaizdu, kad mes turime siekti tvarios, saugios, patikimos ir prieinamos energetikos visiems europiečiams.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), rakstiski. − Es atbalstīju regulu, ar ko izveido Eiropas energoinfrastruktūras vadlīnijas un atceļ Lēmumu Nr. 1364/2006/EK, jo uzskatu, ka tā dos vienreizēju iespēju Baltijas valstīm izbeigt izolētību gāzes sektorā. Šis tiesību akts ir Baltijas valstu deputātu kopīgs sasniegums, jo tas ir pēdējais solis likumdošanas izveidē, kas nosaka Baltijas enerģētiskās izolētības izbeigšanu par vienu no galvenajām Eiropas Savienības prioritātēm. Tas savukārt nodrošinās Savienības līdzekļus sašķidrinātās dabasgāzes termināļa izbūvei. Ļoti būtiski tagad Baltijas valstīm ir vienoties par kopīgu projektu, citādi finansējums ātri vien aizplūdīs citām Eiropas Savienības prioritātēm enerģētikas infrastruktūras attīstīšanā. Eiropas Savienība dod līdzekļus, lai mēs varētu atbrīvoties no monopola, tagad Baltijas valstīm ir tikai jāprot sniegto iespēju izmantot.

  Béla Kovács (NI), írásban. − Mivel az energiaügyi bizottságban magam is részt vettem a jelentés megvitatásában és megszavaztam azt, egyetértek annak indoklásával, miszerint a fenntartható, biztonságos, zavartalan és megfizethető energiaellátás azon jelentős kihívások közé tartozik, amelyek egyesítik az európaiakat, a civil társadalomtól a döntéshozókig, az iparig és a környezetvédőkig. Bár a Bizottság ambiciózus energiapolitikai célokat tűzött ki a versenyképességre, az ellátás biztonságára, a fenntarthatóságra és a szén-dioxid-mentesítésre vonatkozóan, a belső energiapiac elégtelen integrációja, bizonyos földrajzi területek nagymértékű energiaellátási elszigeteltsége, az energiabiztonsághoz hozzájáruló diverzifikált energiaforrásokhoz való nem megfelelő hozzáférés, valamint a fogyasztók és a vállalkozások számára az árak és a fenntarthatóság tekintetében kézzelfogható előnyök hiánya jellemző. Ez az általános helyzet, és a tagállamok jelentős mértékű kölcsönös függősége európai szintű megközelítést igényel. Gyorsabb, határozottabb és összehangoltabb fellépésre van szükség.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho espresso voto favorevole alla relazione del collega Correia De Campos perché ritengo che la sua relazione proceda nella giusta direzione del rinnovamento della politica energetica europea, con particolare riferimento alle infrastrutture energetiche transeuropee. Nell’ottica del raggiungimento degli obiettivi preposti nella strategia Europa 2020, il nuovo regolamento rappresenta un’iniziativa rilevante perché punta ad una decisa virata verso la realizzazione del mercato energetico interno. È chiaro che una tale azione va perseguita attraverso un’adeguata modernizzazione e interconnessione delle reti energetiche. Ma non solo: un mercato dell’energia transeuropeo dovrebbe garantire una maggiore competitività, facendo fronte alla produzione decentralizzata, attrarre nuovi produttore e fungere da settore trainante per l’economia del futuro.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), na piśmie. − Projekty wspólnego użytku w dziedzinie infrastruktury energetycznej są ważnym elementem w procesie wzmacniania europejskiej efektywności energetycznej. Komisja ma wciąż ważne zadanie, a mianowicie zharmonizowanie sieci krajowych z transeuropejską infrastrukturą. Potrzebna będzie współpraca z państwami członkowskimi. Chodzi o harmonizację w czasie i w przestrzeni. Parlament będzie monitorować przebieg realizacji tego sprawozdania, zwłaszcza w kontekście nowych wieloletnich ram finansowych. Obawy moje wynikają z tego, że projekt wieloletnich ram finansowych przedłożony przez Radę może uniemożliwić realny postęp.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. − Uniunea Europeană trebuie să acţioneze în cel mai scurt timp în vederea securizării viitorului energetic şi a protejării intereselor sale în acest domeniu. Pentru aceasta, rolul infrastructurilor energetice transeuropene este critic în garantarea realizării la cele mai înalte standarde a obiectivelor stabilite privind energia. Astfel, consider că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să depună toate eforturile necesare pentru susţinerea statelor membre în respectarea direcţiilor stabilite la nivel comunitar şi, cel mai important, să ofere un sprijin financiar substanţial pentru elaborarea de proiecte transfrontaliere de dimensiuni mari.

Tocmai de aceea, doresc să îmi exprim nemulţumirea faţă de decizia Consiliului de a reduce bugetul alocat mecanismului Conectarea Europei de la 50 la 29 de miliarde de euro. Acest mecanism, elaborat în vederea înlocuirii Regulamentului actual privind finanţarea TEN, trebuia să fie o resursă deosebit de importantă pentru statele membre, dar, cu acest buget, mă îndoiesc că vom putea vreodată să atingem obiectivele propuse.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this Report. The new regulation is a positive and important initiative as it aims at accelerating the accomplishment of the internal energy market and at delivering on the EU’s energy policy and climate goals. It may contribute, through the mobilisation of very significant investments, to the re-launch of economic growth and job creation in the EU. The proposal envisages the modernisation and interconnection of energy networks. In electricity it aims at enhancing market integration and competitiveness, system security and integration of renewable sources of energy, coping with decentralised and non-dispatchable power generation through smart grids, connection to storage sites and electricity highways. In gas, energy security can be accomplished through the diversification of sources and routes for gas supply, liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage and reverse flow pipelines. The proposal also supports the supply of crude oil to landlocked countries and the deployment of pipelines for carbon capture and storage to connect production and storage sites.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), per iscritto. − Un'energia che sia al tempo stesso sostenibile, sicura, garantita e ad un costo naturalmente accessibile, rappresenta una delle principali sfide del mercato unico europeo. Purtroppo dobbiamo constatare che le risorse stanziate si sono subito rivelate insufficienti per il raggiungimento di questo ambizioso obiettivo iniziale.

Il mercato interno dell'energia rimane insufficientemente integrato: alcune aree geografiche continuano ad essere isolate da un punto di vista energetico. L'accesso a fonti di energia diversificate, suscettibili di intensificare la sicurezza energetica, non è sufficiente e non sussistono vantaggi tangibili per i consumatori e le imprese in termini di prezzi e di sostenibilità.

Occorre, dunque, definire un nuovo approccio a livello europeo: chiediamo all'Europa di assumere un ruolo più incisivo per coordinare e integrare gli sforzi profusi a livello nazionale, di imprimere un'accelerazione alla realizzazione del mercato interno dell'energia, conseguendo gli obiettivi della politica energetica e ambientale, grazie alla mobilitazione di investimenti molto significativi, al rilancio della crescita economica e alla creazione di occupazione nell'Unione europea.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − São necessários esforços significativos para modernizar e alargar as infraestruturas europeias no setor da energia e interligar as redes além fronteiras, a fim de cumprir os principais objetivos da política energética da União em matéria de competitividade, sustentabilidade e segurança do aprovisionamento. O presente regulamento tem por objetivo: a plena integração do mercado interno da energia, nomeadamente assegurando que nenhum Estado-Membro fique isolado da rede europeia; contribuir para o desenvolvimento sustentável e a proteção do ambiente, permitindo que a União cumpra os seus objetivos de reduzir em 20% as emissões de gases com efeito de estufa; aumentar em 20% a eficiência energética e atingir uma quota de 20% de energia a partir de fontes renováveis no consumo final de energia até 2020, garantindo simultaneamente a segurança do aprovisionamento e a solidariedade entre os Estados-Membros. Daí o meu voto favorável.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − No he votado a favor del presente informe debido a que pese a plantear algunas mejoras medioambientales en el área del transporte de energía, mantiene un enfoque transeuropeo de distribución de los recursos energéticos y no una descentralización en la producción de energía. El informe sostiene la integración de fuentes de energía renovables descentralizadas al mismo tiempo que propone la construcción de oleoductos para el transporte terrestre del petróleo a las zonas productoras de energía. El informe pone énfasis en la importancia de que los proyectos de la red energética transeuropea deban cumplir las diferentes normativas ambientales de la Unión, pero pese a estos puntos positivos, reclama mayores competencias para lo Comisión para la implementación del mercado común transfronterizo dominado por las grandes empresas del sector. Es por esto que me he abstenido en la votación de este informe.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − If the new regulation is a positive and important initiative which aims at accelerating the accomplishment of the internal energy market, and at delivering on the EU’s energy policy and climate goals, then it can be efficient through the mobilisation of very significant investments, to the re-launch of economic growth and job creation in the EU.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), raštu. − Šiandien patvirtintas reglamentas yra labai svarbus dokumentas ES energetikos politikos tikslų įgyvendinimui, visų pirma – užtikrinti energijos rinkos veikimą, užtikrinti energijos tiekimo saugumą Europos Sąjungoje ir skatinti energetikos tinklų sujungimą, ypač tose valstybėse narėse, kurios vis dar yra energetinės salos. Kita vertus, džiaugiuosi tuo, jog diskusijų Europos Parlamente metu pavyko dokumente sustiprinti nuostatas dėl tokių projektų poveikio aplinkai vertinimo. Esu įsitikinusi, jog bet koks projektas turi būti įgyvendinamas tik įsitikinus ir užtikrinus, kad nebus padaryta žala aplinkai.