Doslovný zápis z rozpráv

Štvrtok, 8. februára 2018 - Štrasburg

1. Otvorenie rokovania

PRÉSIDENCE DE MME Sylvie GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

(La séance est ouverte à 9 h 01)

2. Súčasná situácia v oblasti ľudských práv v Turecku (predložené návrhy uznesení): pozri zápisnicu

3. Situácia vo Venezuele (predložené návrhy uznesení): pozri zápisnicu

4. Situácia UNRWA (predložené návrhy uznesení): pozri zápisnicu

5. Predložené dokumenty: pozri zápisnicu

6. Petície: pozri zápisnicu

7. Úprava letného času (rozprava)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration de la Commission sur les dispositions relatives à l’heure d’été (2017/2968(RSP)).

  Violeta Bulc, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the request on today’s opportunity to debate on EU summer time arrangements is very timely. The Commission regularly receives questions about the time switch, including from Members of the European Parliament. Some of those doubt that we need to switch time.

As the Commission committed before this House, my services have reassessed all available evidence. This includes the very balanced and complete overview made by the European Parliament’s research services. The evidence is conclusive only on one point – that letting Member States free to apply uncoordinated time changes would be detrimental for the internal market. I am therefore against such a solution, whether that means simply repealing the directive or allowing individual Member States to opt out of the harmonised regime.

Conversely, the findings are inconclusive on human health. Some people seem to suffer from the twice-yearly changes, but this might be well compensated for by the positive health effects induced by increased leisure and outdoor activities. It is unclear whether permanent summer time or winter time would be better for the human biorhythm.

While I am open to consider the summer time issues further, I would like to stress an important point. There are two options that would allow for a continued harmonised approach: stop time changes for all Member States by amending the directive, or leave the summer time rules unchanged. If one were to select the first option, it would also have to be established when to abolish time changes – after the last change to winter time, or after the last change for summer time.

We discussed the summer time issues at the last Council sitting in December at the request of one Member State. I explicitly invited all ministers to let me know if any of them were in favour of changing the status quo. Apart from the one Member State that put the question on the agenda, nobody has done so until now. Today it is your turn.

I very much look forward to the forthcoming debate and welcome the vote on the resolution which will give Parliament the opportunity to voice its opinion in this matter. I am sure it will give rise to valuable elements for reflection. All the more so, since the success of any potential Commission proposals intended to modify the current rules by definition depends on the stance taken by the co-legislators.

  Pavel Svoboda, za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, paní komisařko, stovky petic do Evropského parlamentu, řada národních iniciativ, každý rok alespoň jedna ústní otázka. To ukazuje na naléhavost tohoto problému. Chronobioložka profesorka Merrowová nám tady na slyšení v Evropském parlamentu řekla, že 20 % populace má zdravotní problémy a 80 % populace nevěří, že těch 20 % má zdravotní problémy. Jiný profesor chronobiologie Till Roenneberg z Mnichova nám říká, že sociální jetlag, který ta změna času působí, vede ke zvýšení kuřáctví, větší konzumaci alkoholu, kofeinu, depresi, obezitě, diabetu typu 2, metabolickým problémům.

Odhaduje se, že přímé i nepřímé náklady jdou až do jednoho procenta HDP. Přitom nepřesvědčivost se týká toho, proč vlastně ten režim dodnes existuje. Úspory energie se nedostavily a dokonce není ani prokázána větší sportovní aktivita v důsledku letního času. Jsem rád, že jste konstatovala, že Komise reviduje tuto směrnici, což znamená, že pozměňovací návrhy kolegy Beleta jsou nadbytečné. Jménem těch 20 % žádám Komisi o to, aby se ujala legislativní aktivity.

  Inés Ayala Sender, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la verdad es que todos estamos de acuerdo, generalmente, en que existe algo, que se llama el jet lag, que, para los que viajan de un lado al otro del Atlántico, de unos países a otros lejanos, significa que se acumula fatiga y que es difícil. Y realmente el cambio horario, tanto en primavera como en otoño, sería una especie de «mini jet lag», pero que finalmente afecta a la salud, sobre todo, de los más desprotegidos o de los más vulnerables, como pueden ser los niños y, también, las personas mayores.

Pero a nosotros, como Comisión de Transportes y Turismo, nos importa muchísimo —sobre todo por lo que nos dicen las asociaciones de víctimas de la carretera— el acúmulo de fatiga que se va produciendo en las semanas posteriores al cambio, sobre todo al cambio de invierno, pero también al de primavera, puesto que se produce una diferencia que genera insomnio nocturno y, desde luego, esa acumulación de fatiga.

Estamos de acuerdo en que hay que estudiar también —y esto era algo en lo que estábamos ya de acuerdo— los beneficios, por la eficiencia energética y, sobre todo, también, pues porque a los que somos países de turismo nos parecía que nuestros horarios más amplios justamente iban a ser mejores. Lo que ocurre es que, en mi país, los horarios son tan amplios y tan complejos para conciliar con las horas de estancia con la familia que casi, en España, deberíamos replanteárnoslos más drásticamente y no solamente por el cambio horario.

Pero yo sí que me felicito de que usted, señora comisaria, se replantee, una vez más —porque creo que hay que evaluarlo—, la posibilidad de cambiar el horario. Que sea armonizado, pero que no haya que cambiarlo nunca más y mejore la salud de todos.

  Roberts Zīle, ECR grupas vārdā. – Priekšsēdētājas kundze un godātā komisāres kundze! Nav šaubu, ka šis ir pats svarīgākais jautājums pusgada laikā šeit Strasbūrā, protams, kāpēc? Tāpēc, ka tas ir ļoti populārs un daudziem cilvēkiem tas ir interesanti, un to var lietot kā priekšvēlēšanu elementu 2019. gada pavasara vēlēšanās.

Mani ļoti pārsteidz, ka Transporta komiteja ir tā, kas iesniegusi šo rezolūciju, jo pētījums, kas tika organizēts Eiropas Parlamentā, nebūt neparāda ietekmi uz transportu, un Komisijai nav nekāda pētījuma, kas raksturotu transporta izmaksas no šīs te laika maiņas.

Man ļoti arī patika, pat pārsteidza, ka Svobodas kungs minēja, ka vienas stundas grozīšana atstāj tik milzīgu ietekmi uz veselību. Tad jau mēs, kuri ceļo no Latvijas, piemēram, vienu stundu katru nedēļu uz Eiropas Parlamentu, nepārtrauktā džetlagā esam. Kas, protams, tā nav, tāpēc es aicinātu saglabāt veselo saprātu un izdarīt vai nu korektu pētījumu un tad runāt par šo jautājumu, kā ierosina vairāki deputāti šajā rezolūcijā, vai izbeigt šo jautājumu.

  Gesine Meissner, im Namen der ALDE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kommissarin, Sie sind zuständig für diese Zeitumstellung bzw. Winter- und Sommerzeit. Sie haben gesagt, Sie wollen keinen Flickenteppich in Europa. Das wollen wir ja aber auch nicht; wir wollen die Zeitumstellung abschaffen, und zwar einheitlich überall in Europa. Sie wurde mal eingeführt, um Energie zu sparen. Tatsächlich ist es so, dass die Energieeinsparung im Bereich von 0,1 bis 0,5 % liegt; das haben viele Studien ergeben. Was man abends vielleicht bei längerem Tageslicht an Licht einspart, das braucht man morgens für Heizung oder auch morgens für Licht.

Von daher gesehen gibt es viele negative Effekte, die schon angesprochen wurden. Und darum geht es doch ganz genau, das treibt die Menschen um. Es ist sogar negativ fürs Klima, hat man gemerkt, weil die Sonne länger praktisch CO2-Belastung erzeugt, die am Abend ist, und das ist nicht gut fürs Klima …

(Zwischenruf)

… nein, das ist so, tatsächlich, lassen Sie mich doch mal ausreden!

Ansonsten, was die Gesundheit angeht: Viele Menschen leiden darunter. Es gibt nach einer Langzeitstudie in Deutschland von der Angestelltenkrankenkasse 25 % mehr Herzinfarkte direkt danach, 15 % mehr Krankschreibungen, 12 % mehr Depressionen, und es gibt, weil weniger Schlaf normalerweise vorliegt, Konzentrationsmängel, die führen zu schlechteren Leistungen in der Schule und zu mehr Verkehrsunfällen, bei denen morgens vor allen Dingen Kinder und Jugendliche involviert sind. Wir kämpfen immer dafür, dass wir weniger Verkehrsunfälle haben wollen, und das Gegenteil ist tatsächlich der Fall. Das darf doch wohl nicht sein!

Weiterhin muss man auch überlegen: Bei den Tieren: Die Kühe geben bis zu 10 % weniger Milch. Das hat damit zu tun, dass wir alle eine innere Uhr haben, alle Lebewesen; das hat zu tun mit dem Sonnenstand zum Beispiel und mit dem Tag-/Nacht-Rhythmus der Erde, und das unterbrechen wir. Chronobiologen wurden mit dem Nobelpreis ausgezeichnet dafür, dass sie gemerkt haben, was das eben für den Organismus für eine Wichtigkeit hat. Und wir wollen uns darüber hinwegsetzen?

Weltweit gibt es 140 Länder, die die Umstellung schon gemacht haben 50 % haben sie wieder zurückgenommen – Russland zum Beispiel –, weil sie gemerkt haben, dass es unter anderem einen Rückgang im Bruttosozialprodukt gibt, was sie natürlich nicht wollten. Warum wollen wir da dümmer sein als Herr Putin zum Beispiel? Also: Gesundheit, Verkehrsunfall ...

(Die Präsidentin entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)

  Tania González Peñas, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, el cambio horario es objeto de críticas desde hace un tiempo. Es evidente —y varios estudios así lo han demostrado— que los ahorros energéticos a día de hoy son marginales y que, sin embargo, sí existe un impacto en los biorritmos de los ciudadanos que puede tener consecuencias sobre la salud.

Al mismo tiempo, también es verdad que todos estamos de acuerdo en que disfrutar más horas de sol después de la jornada laboral mejora nuestra calidad de vida o que, por ejemplo, hay países en los que el turismo mejora cuantas más horas de luz hay en los periodos estivales, por ejemplo en la zona mediterránea.

Por eso, nos parece razonable que se realice un estudio de impacto, de profundidad, sobre los efectos del cambio de hora en las distintas dimensiones de la salud, el trabajo y el consumo energético, y en todo el territorio europeo, teniendo en cuenta que es algo que ya desde hace tiempo sabemos que viene siendo innecesario y perjudicial.

  Karima Delli, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, en ce qui concerne le secteur des transports, le changement d’heure qui intervient deux fois par an a un double impact.

Le premier, c’est que le manque de sommeil qu’il provoque chez nombre de concitoyens pose un vrai problème de sécurité routière. C’est la cause d’un grand nombre d’accidents impliquant notamment les usagers de la route les plus vulnérables, et je pense aux piétons et aux cyclistes.

Il y a une deuxième chose importante qu’on oublie: le secteur du transport des marchandises en Europe, qui n’est pas au beau fixe, doit faire face, chaque fois que l’on passe à l’heure d’été ou d’hiver, à des charges administratives supplémentaires liées au changement d’heure. Si l’on ajoute à cela le fait qu’aujourd’hui, oui, cela représente chez l’être humain un problème de santé publique, il y a des effets négatifs sur le bien-être des animaux.

Je pense que nous avons assez d’arguments pour voter en faveur de cette résolution de la commission des transports et du tourisme du Parlement afin d’appeler la Commission à s’emparer de ce sujet et à supprimer le changement d’heure qui n’a plus lieu d’être.

  Angelo Ciocca, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli deputati, come vedete da questo orologio sono le 9.15. Il sottoscritto, ma penso anche tutti i cittadini europei, a partire anche dai cittadini italiani, si aspetterebbero che un'Aula importante come il Parlamento europeo fosse qui a parlare ad esempio dei cinque milioni di poveri italiani, a parlare dei quattro milioni di disoccupati italiani, a parlare del problema drammatico di questa continua invasione criminale di clandestinità.

Ci aspetteremmo di parlare dei veri problemi del paese, e invece in modo folle, in modo pazzesco, in modo anche ridicolo siamo qui a parlare se abolire o non abolire l'ora legale. Allora faccio io una proposta al Parlamento europeo, faccio io una proposta ai colleghi, faccio la proposta di spostare le lancette dell'orologio di un'ora indietro. Ecco, questo determinerebbe il risparmio per i cittadini europei e per i cittadini italiani di 250 000 EUR, che dovremmo restituire per una discussione inutile che stiamo facendo in questo momento.

Mi auguro davvero di portare questo Parlamento a parlare dei temi importanti, dei temi del lavoro, dei temi della continua invasione della clandestinità, dei temi che oggi si aspettano appunto i cittadini. L'America parla di tasse, parla di lavoro, parla di difendere i confini. Noi siamo qui in modo folle a parlare di un argomento inutile per gli interessi dei cittadini europei e per gli interessi dei cittadini italiani.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, από το 1981 που οι χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης εφαρμόζουν εναλλάξ τη χειμερινή και τη θερινή ώρα, έχουν γίνει πολλές συζητήσεις σχετικά με το εάν και κατά πόσον αυτή η πρακτική έχει πραγματικά πλεονεκτήματα ή όχι. Η πραγματική ώρα -ή καλύτερα η ηλιακή ώρα- είναι η χειμερινή. Η θερινή ώρα είναι μια μεθόδευση, μια συμφωνία που έχει γίνει μεταξύ των κρατών, ούτως ώστε να αρχίζουν οι εργασίες μία ώρα νωρίτερα και να εκμεταλλευόμαστε περισσότερο ηλιακό φως. Παρόλ’ αυτά, οι γνώμες των εργαζομένων διίστανται, ανάλογα με το είδος της εργασίας που εκτελούν· άλλοι προτιμούν την εναλλαγή της ώρας και άλλοι όχι. Οι υπέρμαχοι, πάντως, της κατάργησης της θερινής ώρας ισχυρίζονται ότι η εναλλαγή της ώρας έχει ως αποτέλεσμα να διαταράσσεται η ποιότητα του ύπνου και της εργασίας των εργαζομένων και σε βάθος χρόνου να προκαλούνται προβλήματα υγείας. Για όλα αυτά η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να λάβει μέριμνα, ούτως ώστε εάν καταργήσει τη θερινή ώρα να συνεργαστεί με τα κράτη προκειμένου να μην επηρεαστεί η καθημερινότητα των πολιτών τους.

  Ivo Belet (PPE). – Voorzitter, collega's, mevrouw de commissaris, er bestaan duidelijk heel veel studies. En er zijn evenveel meningen over de zomertijd en de wintertijd. Ik onthoud vooral dat er door de zomertijd minder ongevallen gebeuren op de weg. Dat lijkt me een sterk argument. Er zouden uiteraard ook schaduwzijden zijn.

Wat we voorstellen in de alternatieve resolutie – een heel gematigde tekst – is dat de Europese Commissie in alle rust de voors en tegens afweegt op basis van de wetenschappelijke input. Dat hoeft niet van vandaag op morgen te gebeuren. Veel onderzoek is al gebeurd, maar in een aantal lidstaten en een aantal regio's. Uiteraard kunnen we zo'n beslissing alleen maar nemen als zo'n onderzoek in de hele Europese Unie gebeurt. We zijn ervan overtuigd dat zo'n grondig onderzoek ons de nodige informatie zal opleveren, waar we dan verder mee aan de slag kunnen. We verwachten dat de Europese Commissie dan met een concreet voorstel komt.

De kwestie is bovendien ook niet urgent. Er ligt hier de komende maanden genoeg werk op de plank waarop we ons prioritair kunnen en moeten concentreren.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, kesäaika on historiallinen jäänne 1970-luvulta, jolloin pyrittiin saamaan säästöjä kallistuneisiin energiakustannuksiin. Nyt nähdään, että nuo energiakustannussäästöt ovat hyvin marginaalisia.

Kesäaikaan siirtymisellä on kuitenkin tutkitusti monia negatiivisia vaikutuksia. Meidän ei pidä täällä sortua puhumaan itsestämme, terveistä mepeistä, jotka tekevät paljon työtä, vaan meidän tulee katsoa ihmisen sisäistä kelloa, josta ollaan nähty, että ihminen ei ilman vaikeuksia sopeudu kahdesti vuodessa tapahtuvaan kellojen siirtämiseen. Vaikeuksia on erityisesti pienillä lapsilla, iäkkäillä ihmisillä ja sairailla. Heistä me kannamme myös vastuuta.

Auringonvalo muuttuu muutaman minuutin päivässä. Tunnemme kaikki, miten se on erilainen eri vuodenaikoina etelässä ja pohjoisessa, mutta tämä esitys on ihmisen poliittisesti päättämä, teennäinen tunnin siirto kaksi kertaa vuodessa. Me ihmiset voimme sen myös poliittisesti päättää lopettaa, koska me olemme tuon päätöksen siirtelystä tehneet.

Tässä aloitteessa esitetään, että komissio toisi parlamentille ja neuvostolle tarkemman esityksen kesäaikajärjestelyistä. Tämän jälkeenkin – niin kuin nykyäänkin – jokainen jäsenmaa voi päättää, mihin aikavyöhykkeeseen se kuuluu, ja päättää myös sen, jääkö kesä- vai talviaikaan. Kuitenkin näissä molemmissa päätöslauselmissa esitetään selvästi, että Euroopan unionin linjan tulee olla yhtenäinen ratkaisu niin, että kaikki maat joko lopettavat siirtelyn tai – mikäli sitten enemmistö haluaa – ei sitä vielä tee. Kollegat, pyydän, että tuette uniongelmaisia ja mahdollistatte kesäajasta luopumisen.

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR). – Madam President, I think during my entire lifetime this has come up, and probably in most Member States you’ll have heard this over the years: should we change the clocks or not? Just a point for my colleagues: as somebody who was formally in the airline industry, believe me, jet lag isn’t a clock moving forward or back one hour, twice a year. Jet lag is something completely different.

I think the original directive was quite logical in terms of harmonising the biannual change, so clearly at least we changed the time at exactly the same time throughout Europe and throughout the European Union. I’m personally totally unconvinced by the scientific reports which, quite frankly, are inconclusive. Furthermore, on the grounds of subsidiarity, this must be a Member State decision and should not be a decision made by the European Union and imposed on Member States. A proposed assessment by the Commission in my view is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money at a time when there are far more important issues which we should be focusing upon in Europe. I therefore say, certainly on behalf of my delegation, that we shall not be supporting these proposals – despite all of the hard work done by colleagues.

  Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, komissio lupasi kauden alussa, että se on suuri suurissa asioissa ja pieni pienissä asioissa. Nyt olisi korkea aika osoittaa, että se pystyisi edes olemaan noin keskivertaisen kokoinen tässä asiassa.

Mitä pohjoisemmaksi mennään, sitä suuremmat erot syntyvät vuorokauden aikana. Minä voin kertoa teille, että aurinko laski Utsjoella 26. marraskuuta ja nousi sen jälkeen 16. tammikuuta. Jos joku komissiossa uskoo, että siirtämällä kelloa tunnin sinne tai tänne sillä on vaikutusta Utsjoella, niin tervetuloa todellisuuteen, teillä ei ole mitään tietoa siitä. Jos aurinko ei laske Berlaymontissa, niin se nousee kuitenkin Utsjoella 17. toukokuuta, jonka jälkeen se laskee 26. heinäkuuta. Jos te luulette, että voitte vaikuttaa siihen, niin tervetuloa uudestaan!

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, a Senhora Comissária disse que os estudos não são conclusivos, mas é verdade que há estudos que apontam para impactos negativos sobre a saúde, a agricultura, a segurança rodoviária e também sobre a redução da quantidade e da qualidade do sono. Eu, Senhora Comissária, recomendaria o princípio da precaução a favor da saúde. Também diz a Senhora Comissária que o horário de verão favorece as atividades de lazer. Eu diria à Senhora Comissária que para favorecer o lazer é preciso reduzir a jornada laboral e repartir o trabalho.

Por outro lado, e quanto à poupança de energia, um dos argumentos muito importantes apresentados para justificar estas mudanças, também parece ser insignificante. Os galegos e as galegas sofremos muito mais com estes impactos dado que a nossa posição geográfica é a de Portugal ou do Reino Unido, mas estamos uma hora à frente, com a hora da Alemanha. É por isso que pedimos que a presente diretiva seja modificada e não se produza a mudança da hora de verão.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Arvoisa puhemies, uskokaa tai älkää, mutta banaanikärpäset liittyvät tähän keskusteluun aivan olennaisesti. Nimittäin viimevuotisen lääketieteen Nobelin palkinnon voittajat Hall, Rosbash ja Young tutkivat banaanikärpästen vuorokausirytmiä ja sisäistä kelloa ja saivat selville, että biologinen kello on myös ihmisillä hämmästyttävän tarkka ja herkkä. Sen häiritsemisellä voi olla kauaskantoisia seurauksia.

Nyt sisäistä kelloa häiritään kaksi kertaa vuodessa kelloja siirtämällä. Tämä aiheuttaa monille terveyshaittoja ja unihäiriöitä. Kellojen siirrosta on päästävä EU:ssa eroon. Päätöksen tueksi ei enää tarvita lisätutkimuksia, sillä niitä löytyy jo vuosien varrelta lukuisia. Lähetin, kollegat, teille tänä aamuna 60 lähdeviitettä, ja ympäri maailmaa laadittujen tutkimusten lopputulema on harvinaisen selkeä. Kellojen siirrosta ei ole mitään hyötyä, mutta siitä on runsaasti haittaa. Toivon, että tässä päätöksessä tukeudutaan omakohtaisten tunteiden sijaan tutkimustietoon.

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Cieszę się, że doszło do tej dyskusji, gdyż 65 lat temu, kiedy komuniści wprowadzali ten czas, to tłumaczyłem ojcu, że jest to idiotyzm. I wreszcie doszło do dyskusji na ten temat w Parlamencie Europejskim. Oczywiście, że państwa członkowskie mogą sobie z tym poradzić. Wystarczy, że jak się prowadza czas letni, zarządzić, że dzieci chodzą do szkoły nie na godz. ósmą, lecz na dziewiątą, zaczynamy pracę nie o ósmej, a o dziewiątej. I czas zostanie zmieniony i nic się nie zmieni.

Ale ja się pytam: nie chodzi o zegar biologiczny, chodzi o to, że dwa razy do roku zakłócamy ludziom czas, wprowadzamy potworne zamieszanie w transporcie, wszędzie, nie wiadomo, po jaką cholerę. Bo to, powtarzam, niczego nie zmienia. A w ogóle, to w moim przekonaniu, ta zmiana czasu to jest to samo, co wprowadzili rewolucjoniści francuscy – czyli specjalny kalendarz rewolucyjny. Sowieci odwracali rzeki, żeby płynęły w drugą stronę. Jest to przejaw pychy człowieka, próba naruszenia naturalnych stosunków i zastąpienia ich sztucznymi, wprowadzonymi przez człowieka i ja jestem przeciwko temu. A poza tym sądzę, że Unia Europejska musi być zniszczona.

  Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ein Tag hat 24 Stunden, und das bedeutet, dass wir mit der Sommerzeit keine Stunde dazugewinnen.

Argumente, wonach die Zeitumstellung uns die Möglichkeit gibt, abends länger draußen Freizeitaktivitäten nachzugehen, oder dass mehr Leute nach der Arbeit einkaufen gehen und deshalb der Konsum angeschoben wird, kann ich einfach nicht nachvollziehen. Diese Argumente stehen in keinem Verhältnis zu der durch die Zeitumstellung verursachten Gesundheitsbeeinträchtigung vieler Bürgerinnen und Bürger.

Zweitens: Es mag in den Augen einiger Kollegen wichtigere Probleme auf dieser Welt geben als das willkürliche Drehen an den Uhren. Wer aber psychisch und gesundheitlich so richtig unter der Zeitumstellung leitet, der wird das anders sehen. Und das sind die Bürger, die mit Schlafstörungen und Krankheiten zu kämpfen haben, die Landwirte in der Tierproduktion, die Unternehmer, auf die hohe Umstellungskosten zukommen, oder die Menschen, die wegen Müdigkeit in einen Verkehrsunfall verwickelt werden. All die und noch viel mehr werden es uns danken, wenn wir es schaffen, den Unsinn Zeitumstellung abzuschaffen.

Drittens: Etwa 400 Millionen Europäern ist es ziemlich egal, ob die Zeitumstellung da ist oder nicht – sie leiden nicht darunter. Aber 100 Millionen leiden darunter, und die allerdings zu einem sehr großen Anteil und extrem.

Ich kämpfe für die Abschaffung der Zeitumstellung, weil es den 80 % der EU-Bevölkerung dadurch nicht schlechter, aber den 20 % viel besser geht. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, bitte stimmen Sie für die Abschaffung dieser unsäglichen Zeitumstellung!

  Claudia Țapardel (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, să privim lucrurile din perspectivă corectă. Argumentul din anul 2000, potrivit căruia schimbarea orei ne ajută să economisim energie, nu mai este valabil, mai ales în condițiile în care alte măsuri de eficiență energetică sunt deja pe larg implementate în toate statele membre ale Uniunii Europene.

Momentan, numărul consecințelor negative îl depășește pe cel al beneficiilor pentru a justifica această practică. Începând cu diverse probleme legate de sănătate, cum ar fi un risc sporit al atacurilor de cord pentru femei și persoane în vârstă, până la o rată cu 30 % mai mare a accidentelor rutiere în perioada imediat următoare schimbării orei. Tot aici, să nu uităm și de faptul că schimbarea orei generează costuri și sarcini administrative adiționale pentru anumite sectoare economice, în special pentru transporturi și turism.

Opinia mea este că ar trebui să eliminăm acest joc cu schimbatul orei. De ce? Pentru că, spre exemplu, acest lucru ar contribui la îmbunătățirea planificării pe termen lung a curselor pentru transportul de marfă, precum și pentru pasageri. De aceea, rog Comisia să reevalueze și să revizuiască această directivă.

  Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Niewiele jest chyba takich tematów jak obowiązek zmiany czasu, które budzą podobną niechęć we wszystkich niemal państwach członkowskich. Zarówno technologie, jak i nasz styl życia zmieniają się tak szybko, że ta praktyka, uzasadniona na początku XX w., zamiast korzyści powoduje dzisiaj wiele niedogodności, a nawet poważne problemy zdrowotne.

Biorąc pod uwagę, że obowiązek zmiany czasu ma swoje źródło w prawie wspólnotowym, potrzebne jest również działanie instytucji europejskich, aby z niego zrezygnować. Oczywiście zanim podejmiemy ostateczną decyzję o rezygnacji z przestawiania zegarków oraz co do tego, który czas: zimowy czy letni jest lepszy, potrzebujemy solidnej analizy wszystkich argumentów i kosztów. Komisja Europejska powinna dokładnie przyjrzeć się tej sprawie i, jeśli będzie to uzasadnione społecznie i gospodarczo, dokonać przeglądu i zmian w dyrektywie w sprawie ustaleń dotyczących czasu letniego.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, it was about time to stop unhealthy practices in Europe, practices which cause harm to children, grown-ups and domestic animals. The practice, which was invented to serve the interests of a war economy, a practice introduced by Tsar Nicholas II and Kaiser Wilhelm II, practices loved by no less than Hitler and Stalin. So what are we waiting for? What is the problem? Let common sense prevail and let’s accept that the laws of nature are more powerful than the laws made by man, even by women and men in this powerful Parliament. And to those who believe that by changing the time on our clocks and on our wrists – that’s a shamanist way of thinking – that it can influence the sun to create more light, they are wrong. I’m sorry to say that. But by way of consolation, you will survive without Summer Time.

  Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE). – Voorzitter, collega's, uit een opiniepeiling vandaag in Nederland blijkt dat 62 % af wil van het klokverzetten. Miljoenen mensen hebben last van het klokverzetten twee keer per jaar. Ouders en kinderen krijgen hoofdpijn of voelen zich erg ongemakkelijk. Ik ken zulke mensen. Het gezinsleven raakt ontregeld. Gezinnen en bedrijven ondervinden hinder door de klok een uurtje vooruit of achteruit te zetten. Denk ook aan verkeersongelukken en hartaanvallen kort na de tijdwissel.

Waarom valt de Europese Unie de eigen inwoners lastig? Het is een nutteloos ritueel en levert geen energiebesparing op, wat ooit het doel was. De Europese Commissie moet voorstellen dat we voortaan zomertijd óf wintertijd aanhouden. We hebben al voldoende onderzoek, zelfs van de winnaars van de Nobelprijs voor de Geneeskunde vorig jaar en de studiedienst van ons eigen Parlement.

Boze burgers hebben me al tienduizenden handtekeningen overhandigd. In andere landen zijn er actiecomités en in de Raad is er steun van Polen, Finland, Estland en nog veel meer landen. Waar wachten we op? De Europese Unie is er toch niet alleen voor grote bedrijven en grote landen? Wij zijn er ook voor moeders, kinderen en ouderen die uit hun ritme raken door dit rare ritueel. Ik heb gesproken met mensen van Microsoft. Die zeggen dat het heel simpel is om computersystemen aan te passen, het hele jaar door.

Voorzitter, we spreken hier al drie of vier jaar over. Dit lijkt me een kroonjuweel van Frans Timmermans: "betere regelgeving". De Europese Commissie kan heel eenvoudig het leven van 500 miljoen burgers in Europa versimpelen en die kans moeten we grijpen. Daar hebben we echt geen tijdrovend en duur onderzoek meer voor nodig.

  Michael Detjen (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Der natürliche Rhythmus von uns Menschen bestimmt sich durch Auf- und Untergang der Sonne. Die heutigen EU-Regelungen zur Sommerzeit bringen die biologische Uhr aus dem Takt. Keine wissenschaftliche Studie konnte bis jetzt positive Effekte für die Gesundheit der Menschen beweisen. Von daher fordere ich die Kommission auf, hier wissenschaftlich nachvollziehbare Belege vorzulegen, die die Beibehaltung der Sommerzeit rechtfertigen.

Wichtiger als der Rhythmus der Wirtschaft ist der natürliche Lebensrhythmus der Menschen. Vielleicht war in den Siebziger- und Achtzigerjahren die Einführung der Zeitumstellung gerechtfertigt, weil Europa in unterschiedliche Zeitzonen aufgesplittet war und dies dann ein Beitrag zum besseren Funktionieren der Wirtschaft und zur Einigung Europas war. Heute sollte Europa mehr Wert legen auf die Gesundheit der Menschen und beginnen, auf die innere Uhr der Menschen zu hören. Nachdem wir heute die Kleinstaaterei überwunden haben, brauchen wir eine für Europa und für die Menschen mit ihrer inneren Uhr akzeptable Lösung. Dies ist eine Forderung, die keinesfalls zum Karneval in Deutschland gehört, sondern ernsthaft entschieden werden muss.

  Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Gospođo predsjednice, imam osjećaj da bi mogli raspravljati vjerojatno danima, a da se ne bi mogli usuglasiti s time je li neka znanstvena studija za ili protiv ukidanja pomicanja sata.

Međutim, ja mislim da se možemo pitati jednu stvar: kada je donošena ta Direktiva, o kojoj danas raspravljamo i čiju promjenu želimo provesti, kakve su bile konzultacije s građanima? Koliko su se građani pitali oko toga treba li mijenjati vrijeme ili ne, ili je samo Direktiva bila donesena? Možemo se pitati temeljem koje odluke su druge države u svijetu donijele to da ukidaju pomicanje sata? Je li to bila glupa odluka ili mudra odluka i jesmo li mi glupi ili mudri ako ćemo zadržati postojeće stanje?

Ja bih rekao na kraju: moramo li čekati građansku inicijativu da se skupi milijun potpisa pa da se u ovom domu i u Komisiji ovo pitanje počne razmatrati kao važno pitanje, a ne kao nevažno, kako to pojedini zastupnici ističu.

  Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, jos nyt komissio toisi tänne direktiiviehdotuksen, jossa ehdotettaisiin, että ryhdymme siirtämään kelloja kaksi kertaa vuodessa, uskon, että tuo direktiivi tyrmätäisiin ehdottomasti. Sitä pidettäisiin aivan älyttömänä.

Kerta kaikkiaan aika on mennyt jo ohitse tällaisesta kellojen siirtelystä. Tiedämme, että aikoinaan direktiivin ja kellojen siirtelyn ajatuksena on ollut se, että näin voitaisiin säästää energiaa. Energiatehokkuus ja teknologia on kuitenkin kehittynyt noista ajoista huimasti, ja tänä päivänä tiedetään, ettei kellojen siirtelyllä saavuteta mainittavaa energiansäästöhyötyä, mutta sen sijaan lukuisat tutkimukset osoittavat sen, kuinka paljon siitä aiheutuu haittoja ihmisten terveydelle, kotieläinten hyvinvoinnille, maataloudelle, liikenneturvallisuudelle jne.. Näitä aloja on osoitettu useita.

Kun mietimme sitä, että kuinka hyödyllinen ja tärkeä tuo direktiivi tänä päivänä on, meidän on katsottava juuri sen tuomia hyötyjä ja haittoja. Täällä esitetään, että asiaa pitäisi edelleen tutkia ja selvittää. Tiedämme, että tätä on selvitetty ja tutkittu jo vuosia kansainvälisesti eri jäsenmaissa, ja nyt meidän pitäisi tehdä päätös, että tuo direktiivi kumotaan.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Dała nam Pani następujący wybór: po pierwsze, to musi być jednolicie w całej Unii Europejskiej. Zgoda. Po drugie, to może być: albo utrzymujemy status quo, albo zmieniamy. A jak zmieniamy, to chciałbym, żebyśmy się od razu ograniczyli: mówimy tylko o czasie zimowym. Proszę sobie wyobrazić czas letni, godzinę ósmą rano w Brukseli. To jest mrok, to jest prawie północ. Co innego w Warszawie, czy w Tallinie. Natomiast w Brukseli jest to zupełnie inna pora. Kolejna rzecz: padały argumenty, które niekoniecznie wnoszą tak dużo. Koledzy, nie gniewajcie się, ale jeżeli się odwołujecie do tego, co Stalin zrobił i jak się muszki zachowują, jak to wpływa na krowy, to ja bym to zostawił zupełnie z boku. Natomiast co do transportu, czas zimowy ma tę zaletę, że skłonność do wypadków jest dużo mniejsza, jeżeli później rozpoczynamy podróż. I był tutaj element trochę mylący. Nie do końca go rozumiem. Kolega pokazywał zegar Mówiąc, że jest godzina dziewiąta piętnaście pokazał ósmą piętnaście. Nie. Byłaby dziesiąta piętnaście. Także to należy zrozumieć.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Vice-President Liberadzki, I talked about banana flies – fruit flies I think the word is in English – and I did so because the Nobel Prize for Medicine winners concluded that the internal bio-clock of banana flies is not that different from that of humans. Would you be prepared to study that result and maybe take some conclusions from that? So would you then agree that maybe fruit flies are relevant for this discussion?

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pani wiceprzewodnicząca Hautalo! Tak chcę się zapoznać i oczywiście wiedzy nigdy nie za dużo. Moją intencją było niejako przywrócenie naszej dyskusji na takie bardzo poważne tory, że tu chodzi o jedność w całej Unii Europejskiej. Chodzi o podkreślenie, że pewne argumenty historyczne są daleko za nami, i o rozważenie tego, że czas zimowy – do czego ja chciałem doprowadzić – tak jak teraz go rozumiemy, to jest ten właściwy. No i wreszcie za siedem tygodni wracamy do czasu letniego, tak że nasza debata chyba tu, w tej chwili nie wniesie aż tak wiele.

  Werner Langen (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Wenn ich die Horrorszenarien höre, die hier vorgeführt werden, dann kann ich nur staunen. In den USA gibt es eine Langzeitstudie, dass die Umstellung auf Sommerzeit die Unfallhäufigkeit vermindert – nicht erhöht –, und Sonnenlicht braucht der Mensch. Die Sonne scheint genauso lange.

Herr Liberadzki hat gesagt: In Brüssel geht um acht Uhr die Sonne erst auf. Um zehn Uhr ist es noch dunkel im Dezember, wenn wir die Umstellung auf eine Sommerzeit durchführen. Das heißt hier, die Argumente müssen geprüft und abgewogen werden. Deshalb bin ich für den Antrag des Kollegen Belet.

Warum diskutieren wir hier nicht über den Vollmond? Also ich höre immer, in meinem Heimatland leiden 25 % der Menschen zwölf Mal im Jahr unter dem Vollmond; sie können nicht schlafen. Wenn ich sehe, wo Depressionen entstehen: Da, wo das Sonnenlicht fehlt, entstehen Depressionen. Wir sollten die Chance nutzen, den Menschen mit der jetzigen Regelung mit einer Stunde Sommerzeit mehr Sonnenlicht zu ermöglichen. Deshalb keine Umstellung.

Interventions à la demande

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, doma i v Evropském parlamentu vedeme vzrušenou debatu o střídání času, ale občané by měli vědět, že na našem plenárním zasedání tomu nevěnujeme víc než hodinu času. Protože mnohem víc času věnujeme ekonomickým, sociálním a bezpečnostním problémům. Ale střídání času pálí velké množství občanů a je tedy i naší povinností se zabývat jejich výzvou.

Proto se domnívám, že je potřeba vnímat to, že energetické úspory se neprokázaly, ale že naopak střídání času má dopad na zdraví občanů. Samozřejmě, jsou tady lidé, kteří chtějí strávit v létě více času venku volnočasovými aktivitami, já mezi ně patřím, protože také ráda hraji tenis do devíti hodin večer v létě, ale ten čas mi ráno nikdo nepřidá. Takže já jsem pro to, abychom zdraví považovali za největší argument a abychom podpořili usnesení, které vyzývá ke zrušení času a vyzývá Komisi k aktivitě.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli deputati, studi scientifici sulle disposizioni dell'Unione europea relative all'ora legale non sono giunti a conclusioni definitive ma avrebbero segnalato l'esistenza di effetti negativi sulla salute umana e animale e sulla sicurezza della circolazione stradale. Varie iniziative dei cittadini hanno evidenziato le preoccupazioni esistenti in relazione all'attuale cambiamento semestrale dell'ora. Turbare due volte all'anno il bioritmo dei cittadini europei sembrerebbe quindi portare danni.

Tuttavia, anche sui vantaggi economici, il dibattito resta aperto. Le ricerche effettuate non sono, a mio avviso, esaustive e non mi convince l'impostazione di alcune di esse. Non vorrei peraltro che cadessimo in contraddizione con le politiche climatiche ed energetiche dell'Unione. Alla luce dei risultati contrastanti ritengo che un organo legislativo come il Parlamento europeo debba potersi esprimere solo sulla base di conoscenze certe. La Commissione deve condurre una valutazione approfondita della direttiva in tutti gli Stati membri e non solo in alcuni di essi, e solo dopo, se necessario, formulare una proposta di revisione basata sui risultati ricavati.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μελέτες δείχνουν ότι η αλλαγή της ώρας έχει επιπτώσεις στην υγεία, στις μεταφορές, ακόμη και στην ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία, ενώ ταυτόχρονα δεν μειώνει το κόστος της ενέργειας. Επηρεάζει αρνητικά την εργασία. Ταυτόχρονα, όμως, δίνει περισσότερο χρόνο αναψυχής, ενώ και η επίδραση της ηλιοφάνειας είναι θετική. Πρέπει να γίνει αντιληπτό ότι οι επιπτώσεις είναι διαφορετικές ανάλογα με τη γεωγραφική τοποθεσία κάθε χώρας. Έτσι λοιπόν, οι χώρες που είναι πιο κοντά στον Ισημερινό δεν χρησιμοποιούν την αλλαγή της ώρας γιατί η διαφορά Ανατολής-Δύσης καθ’ όλη τη διάρκεια του έτους είναι μικρή. Νομίζω ότι πρέπει να θεσπίσουμε ένα ευέλικτο σύστημα, όπως αυτό που ισχύει στη Βραζιλία, όπου η ώρα αλλάζει μόνο στο νότιο τμήμα της χώρας. Άρα λοιπόν, για να αποφεύγονται αυτές οι διαδικασίες και οι συγκρούσεις, πρέπει με βάση την αρχή της επικουρικότητας να δοθεί η δυνατότητα σε διάφορα κράτη να επιλέξουν την καλύτερη λύση, ανάλογα και με τη γεωγραφική θέση της χώρας. Θεωρώ ότι αυτή είναι η πιο σωστή τοποθέτηση.

  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE). – Mevrouw de voorzitter, mevrouw de commissaris, niemand ontkent hier vandaag dat er ongemakken en nadelen verbonden zijn aan de omschakeling tussen zomer- en wintertijd. Maar zoals de commissaris al zei, misschien worden die wel gecompenseerd door de voordelen.

Want stel je even voor dat we de zomertijd afschaffen. Dan hebben we zeven maanden lang een uur minder daglicht. Gedaan met de fijne zomeravonden met vrienden op een terras of in je tuin, met de kinderen gaan fietsen of gaan joggen. Met als gevolg: minder levenskwaliteit.

Stel dan eens dat we zouden zeggen: we schaffen de wintertijd af. Wel dat is geen optie. Want dat betekent dat het vijf maanden lang 's morgens een uur later klaar wordt en dat de kinderen in het donker naar school moeten fietsen. Heel onveilig.

Als ik alles bij elkaar leg, zou ik zeggen: laten we het gezond verstand maar gebruiken. Voor mij mag het huidige systeem behouden blijven.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Ko poslušam to razpravo, gre očitno za vprašanje, ki povzroča zelo različne poglede, tudi take, da gre za nepomembno temo, ki zaradi vseh drugih zelo pomembnih izzivov, s katerimi se sooča Evropska unija, pravzaprav ne sodi v Evropski parlament, ampak, a je res tako?

V zadnjem času vedno več pozivov, tudi Evropejcem, pa tudi ugotovitev, da utemeljitev za spremembo ure ne zdrži več, da spremembe ure vplivajo negativno na zdravje ljudi, za tveganje za prometne nesreče in druge, za povečanje administrativnih stroškov, in to so vse merljive in finančno vrednotene posledice.

Prav seveda je, da soočimo različne argumente in da postavimo na mizo ugotovitve stroke in znanosti. Pri tem pa seveda moramo upoštevati tudi načelo, da najprej vladajo pravila narave. Zakaj je treba naravo vedno znova korigirati in ji postavljati neke umetne zakonitosti in pravila, ker to se prej ali slej maščuje.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Asszony, az óraátállítás az ember biológiai órája és a külső óra közötti összhangot megbontja, a helyreállításhoz, egyéntől függően, 4-től akár 14 napig terjedő időre van szükség. Az egészségügyi ártalmak világosak és bizonyítottak. Az energetikai javulás, előnyök pedig arányaiban egyre kevesebbek. Több országban volt kezdeményezés már arra, hogy eltöröljük az átállítást. A magyar parlamentben a mi kezdeményezésünket egyelőre azért nem támogatja a többség, mert európai uniós harmonizációt vár el. Itt a lehetőség, hogy ezt elindítsuk. És még egy megjegyzést: itt sokan, akik a nyári időszámítás előnyeiről beszéltek, úgy tekintenek az egységes időszámításra majd, hogy a téli marad meg. Szó sincs róla. Biztos asszony is jelezte, hogy a nyári időszámítás fenntartását preferálja.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, it was worth getting up early for this debate because I have learned about banana flies and all sorts of very interesting things that I really did not know about. This is an issue that people are interested in. I have got volumes of comments, so let me read you a few.

Tommy Donnelly: ‘We tried this before, about 40 years ago, to change. Before we start, maybe someone should discover why this change was discarded. If it was not practical then, it may not be practical now’.

On the other hand, Patrick Brennan: ‘Yes, please change this ridiculous change. It would be most welcome in industry such as pharma, especially where standalone instrumentation might be used and which might not be synchronised to a network clock. One less nuisance and data integrity headache.

Then Ríona Meehan: ‘We are divided in this house. My husband, a farmer, wants the time to continue to change for winter and summer. On the other hand, I do not want my children coming home in the dark and going to school in the dark’.

So, I was going to suggest maybe a referendum but we might get a very close result, and that might be dangerous. Thank you.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, noi, aici, ne-am exprimat părerea. Eu cred că trebuie să exprimăm părerea cetățenilor. Eu vin din industrie și să știți că era foarte greu când lucrau 3 schimburi și schimbam ora, aveam mereu întârzieri la lucru. Copiii, trebuie să le schimbăm toate ceasurile din casă.

Eu nu cred, nu cred că dacă suntem o Uniune nu ar trebui să avem și același timp. Eu trăiesc în România, când mă duc în altă țară am grijă să îmi schimb ceasul, să nu întârzii. Sunt lucruri absolut normale și, apoi, au vorbit colegii mei de bioritm. Nu poți să dictezi corpului să se adapteze, astăzi dau ceasul înainte, dar și corpul se adaptează.

Eu susțin raportul și sper să ajungem la o oră uniformă în Uniunea Europeană.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Fru formand! Jeg synes også, at det er en vigtig debat. Jeg har også lært om både bananfluer og sundhed, og hvis det virkeligt er rigtigt, at en times skift to gange om året skaber store helbredsproblemer, så synes jeg, at vi burde starte en stor kampagne for at stoppe al rejseri fra øst til vest og omvendt. Så er det jo meget, meget farligere, end folk har opdaget! Så burde folk jo ligge og være syge omkring os! Dette hus burde være fuld af syge mennesker, eftersom mange skifter tid to gange i ugen!

Nej, jeg elsker sommertid. Jeg synes, de lange lyse aftener, hvor dem, der vil arbejde, kan arbejde længere, hvor man kan hygge sig, hvor man kan være ude. Det er ikke kun i Danmark – i Danmark er det helt vidunderligt – også i Holland har jeg oplevet det. Jamen, også i Norge, selv om solen knapt går ned længere nordpå. Jeg har oplevet det selv i Strasbourg. De lyse sommeraftener, de varme sommeraftener er vidunderlige, og jeg tror, at I, der bare mener, det kan være gratis at afskaffe, at tage disse vidunderlige aftener fra folk, I er ikke klar over, hvad I gør. Lad dog være, lad os beholde vore dejlige ....

(Formanden afbrød taleren)

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, a hora de verão foi introduzida pela primeira vez há mais de 100 anos. Na altura trouxe dois grandes benefícios: o usufruto do dia solar, sincronizando os horários de trabalho com os de lazer, e a poupança na fatura de energia, que hoje é apenas marginal, como todos sabemos. À primeira vista, parece que esta resolução apenas está preocupada com o incómodo de ter que se proceder à alteração de horário, mas este incómodo tem que ser aferido com exatidão, uma vez que toda a evidência recolhida, até ao momento, parece ser inconclusiva.

Na saúde importa ponderar, por um lado, a adaptação a uma hora de diferença no ritmo circadiano e, por outro lado, os ganhos que temos de uma maior exposição solar em doenças como a depressão, a osteoporose, as doenças cardiovasculares e as doenças respiratórias. No entanto, seja qual for a decisão que tomemos, devemos é agir com precaução e responsabilidade, quando pedimos para descontinuar o relógio bianual.

Precisamos de não esquecer, por outro lado, que, se esta decisão puder ficar da competência de cada Estado-Membro, e é isso que poderá acontecer e a que nos arriscamos, iremos criar uma babel de horários ainda mais difícil de gerir. Por outro lado, não há três fusos horários, há quatro fusos horários na União Europeia. Não esqueçamos os Açores.

  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ja także uważam, że ta debata i wymiana poglądów jest niezwykle istotna, gdyż sprawa jest niezwykle istotna dla obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Nie chcę przytaczać wszystkich argumentów za tym, aby czas zatrzymać, bo podczas tej debaty wszystkie argumenty za zniesieniem zmiany czasu już padły. Mówiliśmy o kwestiach zdrowotnych, ekonomicznych. Niemal każdy mówca przytoczył mnóstwo argumentów. Zgadzamy się prawie wszyscy w tej sprawie, ponad podziałami politycznymi, co nie jest zbyt częste w tej Izbie. Wreszcie, co jest bardzo istotne, obywatele Unii Europejskiej chcą, aby znieść zmianę czasu. Były tutaj także przytaczane wszelkiego rodzaju inicjatywy, które powstają w wielu krajach Unii Europejskiej w tej sprawie. W związku z powyższym pytanie brzmi: na co czekamy? Zatrzymajmy ten czas.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Skoro badania opinii publicznej pokazują, że w wielu społeczeństwach rośnie poparcie dla zaprzestania tej dwukrotnej zmiany czasu w ciągu roku, to powinniśmy tę kwestię rozwiązać. Bo nie chodzi o to, jaki ma być czas w danym kraju: czy letni czy zimowy – to jest decyzja, którą ma podjąć kraj członkowski. Natomiast chodzi o to, żebyśmy zaprzestali dwukrotnej zmiany czasu. W tej sprawie są liczne inicjatywy, również na poziomie parlamentów: w Finlandii, w Polsce. W Polsce ta debata została ostatecznie zatrzymana ze względu na to, że wymaga to zmiany dyrektywy. Więc skoro tego typu prace toczą się nawet na poziomie parlamentarnym, to świadczy to o tym, że istnieje duże społeczne poparcie dla tej sprawy. Przybywa wielu argumentów, tych ekonomicznych, zdrowotnych. Ale wydaje mi się, że skoro tego typu opinie w społeczeństwach państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej są coraz powszechniejsze, to nie powinniśmy tego problemu lekceważyć.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Violeta Bulc, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I welcome the debate and your different suggestions. Let me get back to you on a few of the points.

First of all, let me stress again that the time shift has to be coordinated through EU rules. Uncoordinated national time change in the course of the year would create very significant problems for the good functioning of our internal market, notably in the transport sector. If we ever decided to stop changing the clock, it has to be done throughout the EU in a synchronised and unified manner.

Regarding health problems, it is true that the body has to adapt to the time change in March and October. Some people are more vulnerable and have more issues with the change than others. That is true. On the other hand, as some of you pointed out, other studies show that longer exposure to daylight and more opportunities for leisure and sport have a positive effect on people’s health. Whether these gains compensate for the disturbance remains unclear, but I can see that this is an important topic for you and the citizens that you represent. I am very much looking forward to the vote and the resolution later today.

  La Présidente. – Nous avons reçu, conformément à l’article 123, paragraphe 2, du règlement, deux propositions de résolution.

Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu aujourd’hui.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Antanas Guoga (PPE), in writing. – I support the motion for a resolution by the European Parliament which calls on the European Commission to end the twice—yearly switch between summer and winter time. And there is a good reason for that. Last October, the European Parliament’s Research Service published a study on EU summer—time arrangements.It emphasised that the benefits of daylight saving time are ‘marginal’ – because what you save on light you spend on heating. It also found that negative consequences for health are ‘more severe’ than previously thought. Also, animals suffer from the biannual time change, which has a negative impact in the Member States where agriculture delivers strong economic value. The European Commission has to come up with a proposal regarding this issue. However, depending on the proposal, I believe that we still have to support a harmonised approach on this matter across the Union.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), písomne. – Ekonomické a hospodárske úsilie v Únii by malo smerovať k spoločnému cieľu, ktorým je zvyšovanie kvality života každého obyvateľa. Významnou zložkou tejto kvality je predovšetkým zdravie, ktoré je negatívne ovplyvňované aj zmenami počas roka v podobe letného a zimného času. Analýzy ukazujú, že ekonomické benefity vrátane úspor energií zo striedania času sú zanedbateľné. Samozrejme pozitívom súčastného stavu sú výhody z dlhšieho dňa v lete a možnosti voľnočasových aktivít počas jari a leta. Bez ohľadu na tieto benefity by mala byť podpora zdravia prioritná. Ľudský organizmus má svoje prirodzené biorytmy, ktoré takéto zmeny negatívne ovplyvňujú. Narušenie biorytmov narúša zdravie človeka a súčasne zvyšuje finančné náklady na jeho ochranu a nápravu. Za dôležité zistenia v oblasti chronobiologického výskumu získali v roku 2017 traja výskumníci Nobelovu cenu. Najnovší výskum ukázal, že účinok na ľudský biorytmus môže byť závažnejší, než sa predpokladalo. Viac ako 20% ľudí má so striedaním času zdravotné problémy. Aj tí, ktorí tieto problémy nepociťujú, by to mali zobrať do úvahy.

  Ivari Padar (S&D), kirjalikult. – Kellakeeramise esialgne tagamõte oli energia säästmine. Aastaid hiljem pole aga tõendeid suurest energia säästmisest, kuid see-eest on uuringute ja küsitluste põhjal näiteid sellest, kuidas see mõjutab inimeste elu teistes valdkondades.

Kellakeeramisel on negatiivsed mõjud inimeste tervisele, põhjustades väsimust, migreeni ning uneprobleeme. Eriti keeruline on kellakeeramisega kohanduda vanuritel ning ka lastel, kellel tekivad unehäired, mis võivad mõjutada nende akadeemilist võimekust. Kellakeeramisega kohanemine võib inimese organismil aega võtta neli päeva kuni kaks nädalat.

Ka mõjutab see praktika loomade tervist ning põllumajandussektorit, kus ajaline muutus toob kaasa kaotusi piimasektori sissetulekus. Ka transpordisektoris on numbrid näidanud, et õnnetuste arv on kõrgem nädalal, mis järgneb kellakeeramisele, ning see võib olla põhjustatud unehäiretest ja keskendumisraskustest.

Kodanikud on selle praktika üle muret väljendanud ning 62% inimestest tahab selle lõpetada. Uuringuid on sellel teemal tehtud juba piisavalt ning mõistagi peaksime lähtuma teaduslikust analüüsist. Praktika on aga näidanud, et kellakeeramine mõjub negatiivselt suurele osale meie kodanikele, mistõttu on meil olemas piisav põhjus ja motivatsioon see lõpetada. Inimeste ja loomade tervis on väga olulised ning selle eest tuleks ennekõike seista.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – This motion is asking for the consideration of stopping the annual summer—time change of clocks, or at least to allow each Member State to decide individually on this matter. One has to note that the concept of Daylight Saving Time (DST) was introduced to save energy. This practice may have made sense in the past when lighting made up the major part of energy consumption in the household. However, today’s energy expenses are different. For example, the cost of air conditioning outweighs the benefits of not needing lighting. Energy saving lighting further reduces such expenses. Many also argue that DST has negative health effects, leads to productivity loss, and increased risk of accidents. This mainly results from sleep deprivation that takes place until the body gets used to the new timing. Studies have shown that this period correlates with increased cardiac arrest rates by 24%, work—related accidents by 6%, traffic accidents by 8% and a productivity loss of nearly 20%. Finally, and most essentially, we have to look at the impact DST has on our schoolchildren. I am not happy with seeing kids heading to school in darkness. Any change in the current system must give priority to this issue.

  Tiemo Wölken (S&D), schriftlich. – Ich bin für die Abschaffung der Zeitumstellung. Ich finde aber auch, bevor wir die Sommerzeit endgültig abschaffen, sollten wir die Gründe für und wider in einer Studie gründlich überprüfen. Daher bin ich für die abgestimmte Entschließung.

8. Rozpravy o prípadoch porušovania ľudských práv, demokracie a princípov právneho štátu (rozprava)

8.1. Rusko, prípad Ojuba Titijeva a Centra pre ľudské práva Memorial

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur six propositions de résolution concernant la Russie, le cas d’Oyub Titiev et le centre des droits de l’homme «Mémorial» (2018/2560(RSP)).

  Heidi Hautala, laatija. – Arvoisa puhemies, käsittelemme tässä Tšetšenian Memorial-järjestön johtajan äskeistä pidätystä, joka perustuu tekaistuihin syytteisiin.

Hänen hallustaan muka löydettiin marihuanaa, ja henkilöt, jotka tuntevat herra Titijevin, sanovat, että on paljon todennäköisempää, että hän osallistui Napoleonin murhaan kuin että häneltä olisi löydetty huumeita. Ja valitettavasti tämä on osa sarjaa erilaisia laittomuuksia, joita Tšetšeniassa tapahtuu ja joista Memorial-järjestö aivan erityisesti on saanut kärsiä.

Nimittäin tätä Titijevin pidättämistä seurasi se, että Ingušian pääkaupungissa Nazranissa tapahtui tuhopoltto heidän toimistossaan ja sitten tämä väkivalta levisi Dagestaniin Memorialin toimistoon. Meidän täytyy puolustaa Titijeviä, koska hän on saanut Saharovin palkinnon ja tämä on täysin laitonta.

  Kosma Złotowski, autor. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Represje wymierzone przez reżim Władimira Putina w działaczy stowarzyszenia Memoriał to próba uciszenia organizacji, która od upadku ZSRR pełni rolę sumienia rosyjskich elit. To właśnie dzięki zaangażowaniu Memoriału i ogromnej odwadze wielu jego członków udało się odkryć przed opinią publiczną skalę zbrodni sowieckich komunistów. Zbrodni, których ofiarą padali nie tylko przedstawiciele narodów zniewolonych przez Rosję Sowiecką, ale także sami Rosjanie, którzy nie godzili się na życie w ogromnym, zarządzanym z Moskwy łagrze. Władze rosyjskie bezpośrednio lub poprzez prowokację prześladują organizację, która nie tylko bada przeszłość, ale prowadzi działania edukacyjne, odkłamując kłamstwa sowieckiej propagandy.

Sprawa Ojuba Titijewa to jeden z najnowszych przykładów represji wobec organizacji walczących o prawa człowieka w Rosji. Podobnie jak w innych przypadkach musimy stanowczo tego rodzaju działaniom się przeciwstawiać.

  Tunne Kelam, author. – Madam President, I am happy that all Groups are voicing joint concern and protest about the arrest of Memorial representative Oyub Titiev in a place most hostile and deadly to human rights, namely Chechnya.

Chechnya was the original base for Putin’s rise to power. And Titiev’s case is not just one more violation of basic human rights. Memorial is a winner of the Sakharov Prize. An attack against this organisation and its representatives is an attack against us – a hostile act against the EU’s highest democratic body.

However, can we hope to have a serious impact on the behaviour of the Russian authorities if our protest is limited to deploring and worrying? Political gangsters value only determination and ability to cause real pain. To make a change, all Member States need to introduce Magnitsky-type lists against those responsible, and we need strong resolve to apply further sanctions if the Russian authorities do not allow free elections and free NGOs.

  Petras Auštrevičius, author. – Madam President, Sergei Kovalev, a prominent Russian dissident, upon receiving the Sakharov Prize in 2009 on behalf of Memorial addressed this very hall with the following words: ‘It is Europe’s duty not to remain silent but, again and again, to repeat and remind, and insist respectfully and firmly that Russia meet its obligations … failure to remind will certainly be understood by the Russian authorities as indulgence’. This was the call of a wise man who spent 10 years of his life in Soviet jails and labour camps. A call more than ever valid today when we see European leaders queuing up for yet another business contract to be blessed by the Kremlin. To maintain and fully implement effective sanctions must be the EU’s response to Russia’s authoritarian elites and their aggressive policy.

  Soraya Post, author. – Madam President, on 17 January, the office of the Russian human rights NGO Memorial was set on fire. The week before, Mr Titiev, the head of Memorial’s office in Chechnya, was arrested on, according to human rights organisations, fabricated charges of drug possession. According to reports from human rights NGOs, the number of political prisoners in Russia has increased. There is also great concern regarding the human right abuses and torture of LGBTI people in Chechnya. Russian authorities, you have to investigate and stop the assault on human right defenders in Chechnya and in other parts of your country. This is a clear breach of all the international human rights conventions that you have signed. I, as a feminist, find the constant harassment and assault on human rights in Russia unacceptable and the EU cannot ignore these attacks on human rights. We cannot stay silent. The Commission and Member States have to assist those who have fled Chechnya, but also the human rights defenders who are still in Russia.

  Helmut Scholz, Verfasser. – Frau Präsidentin! Es klingt wie Hollywood, ist aber bitterer Ernst: Da kontrolliert die Polizei wegen eines angeblich defekten Abblendlichtes eine Person und findet dabei angeblich dieser Person gehörende große Mengen Drogen. Die verhaftete Person ist für ihre Anwälte dann angeblich nicht aufzufinden. Bei den sich anschließenden Untersuchungen erkennt ein angeblicher Zeuge den angeblichen Täter wegen einer angeblichen mangelnden Ausbildung des polizeilichen Protokollanten nicht. Dumm, aber dann macht die Anklage ihn halt einfach selbst zum Zeugen, und so weiter und so fort im Drehbuch.

Zwischenziel erreicht für die Autokraten in Grosny, der Hauptstadt eines erschreckend rechtsfreien Raumes mitten in der Russischen Föderation. Nach den Verwüstungen zweier Kriege entwickelt sich dieses Land, baut wieder auf und sucht sich zugleich selber. Das hierfür gewünschte Modell das Oberhauptes vor Ort ist klar: Absicherung persönlicher absolutistischer Ansprüche mit dem Geld aus Moskau und eigenen Milizen sowie zugehörigen staatlichen Strukturen. Da stören selbstverständlich Menschenrechtsorganisationen wie Memorial und Menschen wie Ojub Titijew. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass die Menschen in Tschetschenien und auch Moskau verstehen: Rechtsfreiheit hat noch nie Stabilität gebracht. Denn dort, wo es Lebendigkeit erfordert, steht sie nur für Stillstand.

  Cristian Dan Preda, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, en 2009, après l’assassinat brutal de sa collègue, Natalia Estemirova, Oyub Titiev était devenu directeur du bureau du centre des droits de l’homme «Mémorial», en Tchétchénie, et n’a pas cédé à la pression qui suggérait que fermer cette antenne était le plus raisonnable, au vu des crimes et abus que les militants des droits de l’homme et les journalistes subissaient dans cette région.

Il faut beaucoup de courage, au jour le jour, pour défendre les libertés les plus élémentaires en Tchétchénie, car Ramzan Kadyrov – le protégé de Poutine – considère, dans la région qu’il dirige de manière autoritaire, que la société civile et les journalistes devraient être des agents de sa propagande et du culte de sa personnalité.

Voilà pourquoi Oyub Titiev et le journaliste Zhalaudi Geriev sont en prison, aujourd’hui, et que les bureaux du centre «Mémorial» dans une république voisine ont été attaqués. C’est aussi pour cela que l’assassinat de Natalia Estemirova n’a jamais fait l’objet d’une enquête et n’a jamais été résolu.

Je demande aux autorités russes, au nom de mon groupe politique, initiateur de ce débat, de libérer Oyub Titiev et de s’assurer de la cessation des abus contre le centre des droits de l’homme «Mémorial» sur leur territoire.

  Francisco Assis, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, a prisão de Oyub Titiev reveste-se de um significado muito especial dado ser um galardoado com o Prémio Sakharov.

Sakharov, que foi, como sabemos, vítima do despotismo comunista, tornou-se um símbolo universal da dignidade e da luta pela liberdade humanas. Um galardoado do prémio Sakharov transporta consigo precisamente também essa dimensão. Ele próprio é um símbolo da liberdade, ele próprio é um símbolo da luta pela dignidade humana.

A sua prisão, totalmente ilegítima, atrabiliária, tem que ser veementemente condenada por este Parlamento. Mas temos que ir, naturalmente, mais longe e exigir a imediata libertação de um homem que não cometeu outro crime que não fosse o de lutar pelos direitos humanos, que não fosse o de lutar pela liberdade, que não fosse de lutar pela dignidade dos seus concidadãos.

Por isso mesmo, há que fazer aqui uma denúncia muito clara do que tem sido um comportamento totalmente inaceitável da parte da Federação Russa em matéria de direitos humanos, em matéria de desrespeito total pelas liberdades fundamentais.

  Mark Demesmaeker, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Mevrouw de voorzitter, de Russische Federatie staat vandaag op plaats 135 op de democratie-index van The Economist en de Tsjetsjeense leider Kadyrov doet er blijkbaar alles aan om die positie veilig te stellen. Het laatste wapenfeit van deze despoot die door het Kremlin geïnstalleerd is, is de arrestatie van Titiev, afdelingsdirecteur van Memorial, een organisatie die in 2009 in dit Parlement de Sacharovprijs kreeg. Als hoofd van Memorial in Tsjetsjenië en moedige opvolger van de vermoorde Natalja Estemirova is Titiev al lange tijd een luis in de pels van Kadyrov. Maar onder constante bedreiging bleef Titiev zich dagelijks inzetten voor democratie, mensenrechten en een betere toekomst voor de Tsjetsjenen – iets wat hij vandaag bekoopt met z'n vrijheid.

Titiev, collega's, is een voorbeeld voor ons allemaal en zijn arrestatie raakt ons ook zeer diep. Ik roep de commissaris, de hoge vertegenwoordiger en alle staats- en regeringsleiders op om publiekelijk hun verontwaardiging uit te drukken, zijn vrijheid te eisen en de druk op de Russische Federatie te verhogen. We kunnen niet toelaten dat een belangrijke partner als Memorial uit Tsjetsjenië wordt verdreven.

  Dita Charanzová, za skupinu ALDE. – Paní předsedající, považuji za nepřijatelné, aby organizace, která se zasazuje o ochranu lidských práv, čelila kvůli své práci útokům, žalobám, vězení či v krajním případě i smrti. Tím spíše, pokud se jedná o organizaci, která se slouží k uctění památky obětí zločinů páchaných komunistickým režimem.

V případě Čečenska je v tomto ohledu zarážející, jak často jsou představitelé občanské společnosti obviňováni, například v drogových deliktech. Je naší povinností na tuto situaci upozornit a je na místě požadovat okamžité propuštění pana Titijeva a všech ostatních politických vězňů, ať jsou zadrženi v Čečensku anebo v Rusku. Od první války v Čečensku brzy uplyne třicet let a je smutné, že lidé v této zemi i nadále žijí ve strachu a represi kvůli svému přesvědčení.

  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Paní předsedající, v roce 2009 udělil Evropský parlament Sacharovovu cenu ruskému Memoriálu. Jeho reprezentantem v té době bych obhájce lidských práv Sergej Kovaljov. O devět let později byl pod falešnou záminkou zadržen a uvězněn jiný představitel Memoriálu Ojub Titijev. Dovolte mi, dámy a pánové, abych připomenul okřídlená slova Sergeje Kovaljova: „Porušování lidských práv nemůže být vnitřní záležitostí žádného státu.“ Platí to i dnes, platí to i pro Ojuba Titijeva.

Rád bych vám připomenul slova jiného velkého muže, českého spisovatele Karla Čapka: „Musí být neustále opakováno, že zločin je zločin a nesmíme dopustit, aby byl mravní řád na svou dobu suspendován.“ I Čapkova slova platí pro Ojuba Titijeva a platí i pro zločinný režim takzvaného čečenského prezidenta Ramzana Kadyrova a platí konec konců i pro celou imperiální politiku dnešního Kremlu.

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Madam President, despite a Russian signature on human rights agreements, in practice violations are rampant and the perpetrators often go unpunished. Such violations may well be condoned or sanctioned from very high up. The arrest of Oyub Titiev of Memorial, which is, indeed, a well-respected Sakharov Prize winner and the last independent NGO operating in Chechnya, is a case in point.

New laws throughout Russia target NGOs and restrict free speech and freedom of assembly. On top of that, the targeted abuse of the rights of LGBTI people is of particular concern for our Group. We call for Titiev’s unconditional release, as well as the release of all political prisoners. Russia needs to reverse its course towards its people, their NGOs and their opposition representatives.

For the EU, too, it is important to take responsibility, to follow the money and, at least, to shelter those who need our protection most.

  Pavel Svoboda (PPE). – Paní předsedající, situace obránců lidských práv v Rusku se stále zhoršuje. Musíme si připomínat Memoriál, který má za sebou úctyhodnou činnost v oblasti ochrany lidských práv. Rusko musí vědět, že případ Ojuba Titijeva sledujeme a povedeme k odpovědnosti všechny ty, kteří pana Titijeva a organizaci Memoriál takto nehorázně zastrašují a pronásledují.

Důrazně žádáme jeho okamžité propuštění, stažení falešného obvinění a vyšetření všech způsobů zastrašování, kterému je Memoriál v Čečensku i jinde vystaven. Nemáme kam ustupovat, jde o životy konkrétních statečných lidí, a i když opustíme hodnotovou debatu o lidských právech, ze statistik přímo vyplývá, že demokracie a lidská práva přímo souvisejí s blahobytem. Takže obyčejní Rusové by si měli doma udělat pořádek ve svém vlastním zájmu.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Madam President, it is not an enviable position to be the director of a human rights NGO in Chechnya. Beyond trivial things, such as your work and person being continuously discredited by the authorities, or the fact that the organisation you lead could be closed down at any time, you are very likely to end up in prison, and it can also happen that you are shot dead, as the terrible case of Natalya Estemirova shows.

In this sense one could say that we should be relieved that the 60-year-old human rights activist Oyub Titiyev only faces 10 years in prison on charges that are, in all likelihood, fabricated. The arrest of Mr Titiyev falls into the clear pattern in which the authorities of the Chechen Republic try to crush all criticism of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya. I hope that the High Representative and the EEAS will give this and all other cases of political persecution the adequate weight they deserve in EU-Russia discussions.

Interventions à la demande

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já se chci připojit k vystoupení svých kolegů. Kauza Titijev je obžaloba Putinova ruského režimu. Putin je přímo odpovědným za to, jak jsou porušována lidská práva v Čečensku, a takto to musíme pojmenovávat. V Čečensku je loutková vláda, která přímo spadá pod vládu Kremlu, a jenom připomínám, že jsme zde nedávno projednávali porušování lidských práv v Čečensku v souvislosti s trestní šikanou, mučením homosexuálů v této malé zemi. To znamená, opětovně se ukazuje, jakou tvář má Putinův režim, který nechává tamní autonomní vládce páchat na území Čečenska takováto zvěrstva. Je proto dobře, že toto usnesení přijímáme, ale opravdu bychom měli mít na paměti, co se v Rusku děje, při všech jednání evropských států s Ruskou federací a měli bychom permanentně upozorňovat na to, že Putin a Rusko v této situaci nemůžou být solidním partnerem Evropské unie.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank all the speakers for their contributions to this very important debate at this critical time. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that we have discussed here human rights violations in the Russian Federation. In the past 12 months, we have debated in this Chamber: the repression that followed the anti-corruption demonstrations organised on 26 March 2017; the fate of Ukrainian prisoners in Russia; the situation in the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula, and the persecution of LGBT people in Chechnya.

Today we are discussing the dire human rights situation in Chechnya, and this time specifically the increased pressure on, and harassment of, human rights defenders in the North Caucasus Russian Republic. The arrest and detention of Oyub Titiev, who is the head of the regional office of the respected NGO Memorial, is the main reason we are here today.

The spokesperson for the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy issued a statement on 11 January on the arrest of Mr Titiev, pointing out that it was part of a worrying trend of arrests, as well as attacks on, and the intimidation and discrediting of, independent journalists and human rights defenders who work in Chechnya. Similar cases in the past include those of the journalist Zhalaudi Geriev and the Chair of the Assembly of the Peoples of the Caucasus, Ruslan Kutaev, who were both sentenced to imprisonment on dubious grounds of drug possession, the same charge now being levelled against Mr Titiev.

The case of Mr Titiev is especially of concern, given that his predecessor as head of Memorial in Chechnya, Ms Natalia Estemirova, was killed in 2009 and no one has been brought to justice for that crime. Mr Titiev’s arrest was quickly followed by an arson attack on the Memorial office in neighbouring Ingushetia and by an attack on one of Memorial’s cars in Dagestan. It is clear that the arrest and the attacks are part of a concerted assault on human rights defenders working in Chechnya.

Sadly, recent statements from the authorities, including from the Head of the Chechen Republic, Ramzan Kadyrov, denigrating the work of human rights defenders, leave us with the fear that these attacks are being orchestrated by the Chechen authorities themselves, as was the case in the persecution of gay men last year.

As we have said, we expect the federal and regional authorities in the Russian Federation fully to observe Mr Titiev’s legal rights, in accordance with Russia’s international human rights commitments, and to release him swiftly. It is time for the Russian authorities to call to order the Chechen leadership and ensure that abuses stop once and for all.

Let me conclude by confirming our strong support for the Russian human rights community and independent civil society, and in particular for those working in the most difficult conditions, in terms of human rights violations, in Chechnya. We will continue urging the Russian authorities at all levels to ensure that human rights defenders can continue their work unmolested in all regions of Russia, including Chechnya.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu aujourd’hui.

8.2. Popravy v Egypte

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur sept propositions de résolution concernant les exécutions en Égypte (2018/2561(RSP)).

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, author. – Madam President, Egypt has gone through several difficult challenges since the 2011 revolution, and the international community is supporting the country in its economic, political and security challenges.

Frequent terrorist attacks, for example on the Sinai Peninsula, and all other acts of terrorism against Egypt, as well as the constant attacks on Christian Copts, imply a worrying development. Nevertheless, this cannot be an excuse for the Egyptian authorities to continue carrying out capital punishment, which is inhuman and degrading. I am seriously concerned about the mass trials conducted by Egyptian courts and the large number of death sentences.

I urge the Egyptian authorities to put an immediate and definitive end to such practices and to reverse the death sentences that have been handed down. I call on the authorities to establish immediately an official moratorium on executions, as a first step towards abolition. We, the EU, strongly condemn the use of the death penalty. I call on the Egyptian authorities to stick to their international commitments in the field of human rights.

  Charles Tannock, author. – Madam President, as Egypt makes its transition to democracy, it faces a very serious internal security threat, as illustrated by the large number of devastating ISIS terrorist attacks that were seen across the entire country, particularly in the Sinai and aimed at the Copts.

As we have seen in our own countries, finding the balance between ensuring security and honouring civil liberties in these circumstances is always difficult. Nevertheless, we are right to raise our human-rights concerns with such an important international partner. The continuing use of military courts for trying civilians, the reported use of torture to obtain confessions and the increasing use of capital punishment are all causes for grave concern.

Finally, I would like to welcome the calls in the resolution today for further investigation into the killing of Italian researcher and British resident, Giulio Regini, and the call for greater cooperation in this regard from the Egyptian authorities.

  Judith Sargentini, Indiener. – Voorzitter, de vorige spreker had het over een transitie richting democratie in Egypte. Dat is niet hoe ik de situatie in dat land zou betitelen. De president, die met een coup aan de macht is gekomen, heeft er de laatste maanden immers zeker 23 mensen vermoord.

De doodstraf is iets waar wij als Europa ons al heel erg lang tegen verzetten. Wij wijzen er ieder land ook elke keer opnieuw op als vanuit instituties mensen worden vermoord. Dat is hier het geval. En dat vlak voor de verkiezingen, waar eigenlijk geen serieuze keuze is, want je kunt alleen maar stemmen op meneer Sisi of een vriend van meneer Sisi.

Voorzitter, de vraag van de Groenen is: waarom heeft vicevoorzitter Mogherini deze moord door de regering-Sisi nog niet veroordeeld? Wij staan altijd vooraan. Deze keer niet. Het is nú zaak dat de Europese Commissie hier helderheid over geeft.

  Ignazio Corrao, autore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi ci troviamo a discutere di un paese che ha oltrepassato ogni limite nella violazione dei diritti umani, al punto che non si può più parlare di Stato di diritto. Da quando El-Sisi è al potere, il governo egiziano non solo ha ricominciato a comminare sentenze di morte, cosa che non accadeva più sotto i governi passati, ma anche ha iniziato ad eseguirle.

Come se non bastasse, negli ultimi mesi questo fenomeno sta crescendo a ritmi vertiginosi. Questo è solo il più grave sintomo dello scellerato inasprimento della violenza e del totale crollo dei valori dello Stato di diritto a cui si sta assistendo in Egitto. È questo il contesto in cui un mio connazionale, Giulio Regeni, è stato rapito, torturato e barbaramente ucciso. Un nostro cittadino che non riusciamo a difendere neanche da morto, perché siamo troppo deboli per farlo o perché forse sono troppo forti gli interessi economici di partenariato con l'Egitto.

Se le autorità egiziane hanno permesso che fosse fatto questo a un ricercatore, coscienti che avrebbero avuto i riflettori dell'Occidente puntati su di sé, non riesco neanche a immaginare la triste sorte che tocca quotidianamente ai cittadini egiziani inermi e in totale balia di un despota. Quali altri diritti umani, quali altre norme internazionali deve violare l'Egitto prima che l'Unione europea e gli Stati membri inizino a fare qualcosa che vada oltre indignazione e dibattiti? Perché l'Alto rappresentante per i diritti umani tiene un tono dimesso su quello che sta accadendo in Egitto? Il nostro ruolo come garante dei diritti umani e dello Stato di diritto deve tradursi in fatti, siamo qui per questo.

  Marietje Schaake, author. – Madam President, the repression in Egypt under General Sisi creates a ticking time bomb. Has no one learned from history? On top of stifling dissent, free speech and restricting NGOs, a shocking number of executions – over 2 000 sentenced since 2014 and at least 81 executions carried out – comes on top of these systematic repressions. The circumstances for those facing trial include torture, forced confessions and ill treatment. Yes, Egypt faces security challenges from terrorism, but the answer is never state terror. It is high time that the High Representative as well as Member State leaders speak out and unequivocally condemn these abuses. The silence in fact is deafening. It is interesting to talk about a partnership, but we have to be realistic. If this partnership is not founded on principles that we share, minimum principles and values, then we have to wonder what the added value is, and I think we have to be crystal clear as the EU.

  Soraya Post, author. – Madam President, today we are debating the executions in Egypt. Capital punishment constitutes a violation of the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment against a human being. No challenges, no circumstances whatsoever can motivate the killing of a human being. The position of the European Parliament is global abolishment. We stand for that. The doubling of executions in Egypt in one year is not an exception. Authoritarian regimes use military courts that have harsher sentences than civilian courts, and they use laws on terrorism to specifically target their activities on human rights defenders. Many have been denied access to lawyers during their trials and they have been forced to confess through torture. They have been put in solitary confinement and they have been denied the most basic privileges. I call on President el-Sisi to immediately stop all executions and to abolish the death penalty in your country. I say to Ms Mogherini, you have to stand up for the values of the European Union and condemn the executions.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, auteure. – Madame la Présidente, toutes les ONG nous alertent. Les droits de l’homme n’ont jamais été autant bafoués en Égypte.

On parle de plus de 600 000 arrestations depuis le coup d’État militaire, de plus de 15 000 civils jugés par les tribunaux militaires, dont plus de 150 enfants, au cours des trois dernières années. Disparitions forcées, exécutions judiciaires, aveux sous la torture sont le lot quotidien. Défenseurs des droits, journalistes, LGBTI, ONG en général sont des cibles privilégiées, y compris quand ils osent venir témoigner au Parlement européen.

Le recours à la peine de mort ne semble plus avoir de limites. Terrorisme, atteintes à la sécurité nationale, trafic de drogue, meurtres, viols, enlèvements, la liste envoyée par l’ambassade d’Égypte est longue, loin des normes internationales, c’est un véritable contre-argumentaire. Comment des élections démocratiques peuvent-elles avoir lieu dans un tel contexte, alors que les candidats crédibles ont tous été écartés?

L’Égypte s’enfonce dans un état de non-droit et l’Union européenne ferme les yeux au nom d’un partenariat stratégique, qui reste à démontrer.

  Seán Kelly, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, I think this is a very balanced resolution. It recognises the difficulties Egypt has, especially in relation to ruthless terrorist attacks, where we saw recently attacks on the Coptic Orthodox Cathedral and a mosque in North Sinai killing hundreds and hundreds of people. So in some respects, it may be understandable that the authorities would be over anxious and overreact. Nevertheless, it’s not acceptable when you have mass trials, hundreds of crimes eligible for the death penalty, people being kept in prison for a long time before their trial comes up – and of course all of this is in breach of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights, especially Article 14. So it is right we should encourage the Egyptians to look at this and to have a moratorium for the death penalty with a view to abolition, while at the same time standing with the Egyptian people in both having trade with them and in the fight against terrorism.

Elnökváltás: JÁRÓKA LÍVIA
alelnök asszony

  Pier Antonio Panzeri, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel quadro del partenariato 2017-2020 con l'Unione europea, l'Egitto si era impegnato a promuovere democrazia, libertà fondamentali e diritti umani, in linea con la sua Costituzione e le norme internazionali. Questo impegno non è stato mantenuto e lo dimostrano le numerose sentenze capitali ed esecuzioni, più di venti nell'ultimo mese, che hanno portato alla morte di cittadini, prima sottoposti a torture e trattamenti disumani e giustiziati senza notifica preventiva e con processi farsa davanti a tribunali militari.

Durante la presidenza di El-Sisi questo tragico bollettino ha subito un'accelerazione senza precedenti. L'Unione europea ha più volte riaffermato la sua condanna contro la pena di morte e appare evidente che non è possibile costruire un partenariato solido con questo paese alla luce di quanto sta avvenendo a meno che, sull'altare della Realpolitik, ci disinteressiamo dei diritti umani e diventiamo così moralmente corresponsabili di queste brutalità.

È chiaro che serve un impegno chiaro e preciso per cambiare da parte dell'Egitto e del suo Presidente, senza il quale non si può aprire un capitolo nuovo di questo partenariato. Colgo infine l'occasione per sottolineare ulteriormente il comportamento recidivo di questo regime. Noi stiamo ancora aspettando verità e giustizia per Giulio Regeni, assassinato due anni fa al Cairo. Anche da questo si misura la mancanza di credibilità dell'attuale classe dirigente egiziana.

  Anders Primdahl Vistisen, for ECR-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Dagens debat viser igen ganske akkurat, at EU stod på den forkerte side under det såkaldte arabiske forår. Vi har i al for lang tid med det blinde øje for kikkerten accepteret at samarbejde med kræfter som Det Muslimske Broderskab. Det nuværende egyptiske regime er ikke uden fejl, men det er fuldstændig ude af alle proportioner at bruge så meget tid på at debattere Egypten, når man så, hvor meget stilhed der sænkede sig over de europæiske hovedstæder under de meget nylige optøjer i Iran, og hvad det var for en respons, der i sidste ende kom fra EU på den situation.

Derfor synes jeg, at de folk, der har meget travlt i dag med at snakke om dødsstraf, skulle bruge lige så meget energi på at tale om Iran, Kina, USA, men det er ikke en debat, vi har her hver anden-tredje måned. Så måske skulle folk prøve at sætte dette i perspektiv og anerkende den egyptiske kamp mod terrorisme, som vi deler med dem, og som er en bekymring, som vi har både her i EU og i Egypten.

  Miguel Urbán Crespo, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, después del golpe de Estado de 2013, en marzo habrá elecciones presidenciales en Egipto; unas elecciones donde, posiblemente, no haya oposición, porque los candidatos se han retirado por intimidaciones y arrestos.

Bajo el paraguas de la lucha contra el terrorismo se cometen todo tipo de violaciones de derechos humanos y de actos de represión contra periodistas, sociedad civil y, en particular, contra el movimiento obrero, que, a pesar de ello, continúa organizando de forma habitual manifestaciones y huelgas. Un país donde el último mes veintitrés personas han sido ejecutadas tras haber sido juzgadas por tribunales militares sin ninguna garantía. A pesar de ello, la Unión Europea decide mirar hacia otro lado y reanudar las relaciones, a pesar de la flagrante falta de respeto de los derechos humanos.

Por ello, exigimos que la Unión Europea se pronuncie sobre estas violaciones. Que prohíba la exportación de armas a Egipto y que se abstenga de legitimar un resultado electoral obtenido sin respetar los derechos democráticos más básicos.

  Barbara Lochbihler, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! In den letzten vier Jahren wurden in Ägypten über 2 000 Menschen zum Tode verurteilt und mindestens 81 von ihnen wurden bereits hingerichtet. Es steht zu befürchten, dass die Zahl der Hinrichtungen weiter massiv ansteigen wird.

Zudem ist die Menschenrechtssituation in Ägypten dramatisch schlecht: Regierungskritiker werden bedroht und verhaftet – darunter Anwälte, Journalisten, Menschenrechtsverteidiger –, Menschen werden willkürlich verhaftet und verschwinden. UN-Experten berichten, dass Gefangene systematisch gefoltert werden.

Es ist beschämend, wie zurückhaltend die EU angesichts der fortdauernden massiven Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Ägypten agiert. Das im Juni 2017 angenommene Abkommen der Partnerschaftsprioritäten zwischen der EU und Ägypten enthält zwar beidseitige Bekenntnisse zu Menschenrechtsstandards. Aber angesichts ber dieser massiven Menschenrechtsverbrechen und einer Verschlechterung der Situation in Ägypten darf sich die EU nicht hinter diesen schönen Worten verstecken, sondern muss wirklich entschieden Druck auf die ägyptische Regierung ausüben.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, era il 26 dicembre 2017 quando quindici uomini accusati di terrorismo venivano mandati al patibolo per ordine di un tribunale militare egiziano. Quel giorno l'Egitto di El-Sisi ha battuto un nuovo record, quello del più alto numero di esecuzioni sommarie in un solo giorno dal 1953. Dei condannati, dall'ascesa al potere del generale, non restano che dei corpi senza vita, ricoperti di bruciature, ferite e mutilazioni, segni evidenti di una tortura raccapricciante, brutale e inaccettabile.

Alle uccisioni sommarie si intrecciano le sparizioni forzate di giornalisti, oppositori politici e semplici intellettuali, proprio come il nostro Giulio Regeni, la cui morte resta ancora avvolta da un silenzio agghiacciante. Le gang omicide dei militari non provano pietà neanche davanti ai bambini innocenti, come Yasser e Hamza, di 13 e 15 anni, rapiti nelle loro case e ritrovati morti, qualche giorno dopo, in una strada del loro villaggio.

Le armi che usano sono anche armi europee. Il commercio e la Realpolitik giustificano il silenzio complice dei nostri paesi? È questa la cooperazione per la sicurezza e la stabilità che vogliamo con l'Egitto? Io dico no! Dobbiamo levare alta la nostra voce, chiedere un embargo dell'export di armi e continuare a chiedere verità e giustizia per Giulio Regeni e per tutte le vittime innocenti di questo regime brutale.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass wir eine Debatte zur Menschenrechtssituation bei unserem Nachbarn Ägypten führen. Wir sollten nicht locker lassen, dies zu tun, bis sich die Lage entscheidend verändert hat. Alles andere wäre fahrlässig. Es ist eine trügerische und gefährliche Illusion zu glauben, dass Stabilität durch systematische Repression erreicht werden kann. Wir sind mit Ägypten schicksalhaft verbunden; alles, was in diesem Land passiert, hat unmittelbare Auswirkungen auf uns in Europa.

Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Demokratie und Menschenrechte sind der beste Garant für Stabilität. Deshalb sehen wir mit großer Besorgnis die geradezu obsessive Anwendung der Todesstrafe und die systematische Beschränkung der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit. Wir appellieren an Präsident Sisi, die Verhängung der Todesurteile auszusetzen und die kommenden Präsidentschaftswahlen zum Anlass zu nehmen, endlich demokratische Alternativen zu ermöglichen.

  Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, again we are discussing human rights in Egypt. Today we rightly condemn not only the use of the death penalty in Egypt but its escalation under President Sisi. The Egyptian judicial system has many flaws. The young Irishman, Ibrahim Halawa, can testify to that.

Between 26 December and 30 January, 26 people were executed, 24 of whom were sentenced by military courts using confessions extracted through torture. Even more disturbing, the lawyers of those executed were not notified in time to lodge appeals, the families of those hanged were not permitted to say goodbye, and many now are still trying to find out how they can reclaim their relative’s body.

It is not good enough that we come here and condemn Egypt. We need action. Egypt has human rights obligations under its EU-Egypt Association Agreement and President Sisi’s crack-down on all forms of civil society is undermining stability not increasing it. Egyptian civilians are looking for us to speak up, because they can’t.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Madam President, when we debated Egypt last October the Commission outlined the aspirations of the Egyptian people for security, for democracy and economic growth. I had real reservations about the nature of our partnership then, and have even more so now. We raised our concerns about gross human rights violations, but how does the Sisi regime respond? Almost 30 Egyptian civilians executed in a month; 24 sentenced to death by military courts. Therefore my questions to the Commissioner are, will you clearly outline the repercussions if the Egyptian authorities fail to impose an immediate moratorium on the use of death penalty, and review legislation to meet fair trial standards? When will Member States take measures to stop companies selling equipment to Egypt that helps them repress their citizens. And how will we insist that March elections in Egypt are free and fair, and leverage our EUR 11 billion in aid, if we are not even drawing a line in the sand on capital punishment, a key objective of our human rights policy?

„Catch the eye” eljárás

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, em 2011, milhares de manifestantes na simbólica Praça Tahrir, no Cairo, mostraram ao mundo a vontade de lutar pela democracia e pelo respeito dos direitos humanos. Passados sete anos, praticamente nada sobra do otimismo daqueles dias.

À beira de eleições presidenciais, anunciadas para o final de março, vive-se uma atmosfera repressiva em larga escala e assiste-se a perseguições de jornalistas e ativistas LGBTI e dos direitos humanos. Regista-se um número sem precedentes de desaparecimentos forçados, de confissões obtidas sob tortura, de julgamentos arbitrários e, o mais grave de tudo, a um alarmante aumento das sentenças de morte e execuções, especialmente desde a chegada ao poder do Presidente El Sisi.

Com a justificação do combate ao terrorismo, os tribunais proferiram, em 2017, 186 sentenças de morte, o triplo das impostas em 2016, e, só no passado mês de janeiro, 22 civis foram enforcados depois de condenados à morte por tribunais militares.

Senhor Comissário, a União Europeia, que é o primeiro parceiro económico do Egito, tem que instar as autoridades egípcias a cumprirem com as obrigações internacionais assumidas em matéria de direitos humanos, condenar veementemente a aplicação da pena de morte naquele país e apelar à suspensão de todas as execuções iminentes.

  Isabella De Monte (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi approveremo una risoluzione comune dai contenuti chiari. Nel Terzo Millennio in nessuno Stato del mondo possono ancora esserci torture, esecuzioni sommarie e mancato rispetto dei diritti umani. L'Unione europea è il primo partner economico dell'Egitto, ma non possiamo chiudere gli occhi dinanzi a trattamenti crudeli e disumani.

Parliamo di Giulio Regeni, un giovane ricercatore barbaramente torturato e poi ucciso in Egitto, che era figlio di questa Europa fondata su diritti e libertà che sono stati calpestati. Forse qualcuno sperava che dopo poco tempo tutto sarebbe stato dimenticato. Ma come Parlamento europeo non intendiamo tacere e chiederemo sempre e con forza che su questo omicidio si faccia chiarezza. Le autorità egiziane dopo due anni devono ancora dare una risposta chiara, che va data ai familiari, agli amici di Giulio, ma anche a 500 milioni di cittadini europei. Diversamente non potremo pensare che l'Egitto sia ancora un buon partner e una destinazione sicura dove andare.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, i já se připojuji ke svým kolegům, pokud namítali zásadní nepřípustnost trestu smrti a uváděli ty konkrétní případy. Já bych se chtěl ve své minutě zaměřit na něco jiného a to je na roli diplomacie. Myslím si, že je v diplomatických možnostech právě institucí Evropské unie, aby zásadně zatlačily nejen na egyptskou vládu, ale i otevřely toto téma nepřípustnosti trestu smrti na mezinárodním poli. My bohužel na mezinárodním poli v této otázce nemáme příliš partnerů a myslím, že by slušelo právě Evropské unii, aby tuto otázku zásadním způsobem posunovala dál.

A potom bych rovněž zdůraznil určitou teorii podmíněnosti pokračování spolupráce a podpory. Myslím si, že je třeba i v tomto zásadním požadavku, který je zde zmíněn napříč všemi politickými frakcemi, podporovat ty státy, které v dané otázce nepřípustnosti trestu smrti jaksi ukážou jistou ochotu spolupracovat. A potom by se to mělo projevit i na naší podpoře, kterou jim adresujeme.

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége)

  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the European Union is definitely following the situation in Egypt very closely. Our position on the death penalty is well known. The European Union opposes capital punishment under all circumstances and I completely agree with you that, for us, it represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity.

At the meeting of the EU—Egypt Subcommittee on Political Matters, Human Rights and Democracy, which took place in Cairo last month, the Union shared its concerns with the Egyptian authorities. This was about the recent execution of more than 20 people, and we reiterated our principled position against the death penalty. We have called on Egypt to commute death sentences whenever possible and to establish a formal moratorium with a view to the abolition of capital punishment. Furthermore, we encourage Egypt to take concrete steps to end military trials for civilians, and, in accordance with international standards for a fair trial, to retry in civilian courts citizens convicted by military courts.

At the same time, I would like to mention a number of other issues concerning websites and human rights organisations. The EU raised, in its position for the EU—Egypt Association Council of July 2017, clear concerns regarding the blocking of websites and the ongoing pressure on human rights organisations and defenders. That position was also expressed in the recent EU statement at the Human Rights Council under item 4, as well as during the latest meeting of the EU—Egypt Subcommittee on Political Matters, Human Rights and Democracy, in January.

Egypt is a key partner for the EU and a significant regional player. The sustainable stability and security of this country are crucial, not only for all Egyptians but also for the entire region, for the European Union and for our Member States. It is our firm conviction that democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms are crucial for this purpose, especially in the context of the many challenges that Egypt is facing. We appreciate the difficulties and we stand side by side with Egypt in addressing them. This view is based on universal values and we regularly discuss these with our Egyptian counterparts within the framework of the new Egypt partnership priorities that were adopted in July 2017.

The protection and promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law are guiding principles for EU external action. You can count on us to continue actively to promote and defend these principles in our engagement with Egypt, as we do with all our neighbours and partners around the world. This is the situation, and we are trying hard to exert pressure in relation to these very important issues.

  Elnök asszony. – A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2018. február 8-án, csütörtökön kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (162. cikk)

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR), schriftelijk. – Sinds 2014 werden 2116 mensen terechtgesteld door het regime van generaal Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, 891 mensen wachten nog op hun terechtstelling. Het is erg gesteld met de mensenrechtensituatie in Egypte. Folteringen, onmenselijke behandelingen en terechtstellingen van minderjarigen zijn maar enkele van de technieken die de Egyptische overheid hanteert om de spanningen in het land onder controle te houden. Terreur, onlusten en criminaliteit houden Egypte in een houdgreep. Toch is voor de N-VA het toepassen van de doodstraf en het miskennen van de fundamentele mensenrechten onder geen enkele omstandigheid geoorloofd. Wij zijn daarom bezorgd over deze situatie en steunen de voorliggende resolutie, waarin deze praktijken scherp worden veroordeeld. Wij zullen ons blijven verzetten tegen de doodstraf en roepen de Egyptische regering op om al haar mensenrechtenverplichtingen na te komen.

8.3. Detské otroctvo na Haiti

  Elnök asszony. – A következő napirendi pont: vita hat, a „Gyermekrabszolgaság Haitin” témával kapcsolatos állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványról (2018/2562(RSP)).

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska, autorka. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Haiti jest najbiedniejszym krajem zachodniej półkuli i jednym z najbiedniejszych na świecie. Aż 60% ludności żyje poniżej granicy ubóstwa. Niestety to również kraj, który zajmuje ósme miejsce w światowym indeksie niewolnictwa. Restavek – bo tak nazywane są zniewolone dzieci – rodzą się w ubogich rodzinach na wsi i są przekazywane bogatym rodzinom z nadzieją na lepszą przyszłość. Niestety tak się nie dzieje. Ta przyszłość dla nich nie jest lepsza. W rzeczywistości zmuszane są do ciężkiej pracy. Są wykorzystywane, niedożywione i rzadko otrzymują edukację. Statystyki są zatrważające: co piętnaste dziecko na Haiti to restavek, z czego 60% stanowią dziewczynki. To niewyobrażalne, aby takie praktyki miały miejsce w XXI w., szczególnie że dotykają one najbardziej bezbronnych – dzieci. Dlatego w rezolucji potępiamy rząd haitański za brak ochrony najbardziej potrzebujących i wzywamy do pilnego przyjęcia przepisów, które położą kres tej haniebnej praktyce. Musimy być adwokatami tych dzieci i stanąć w ich obronie. Proszę o poparcie tej rezolucji.

  Michèle Rivasi, auteure. – Madame la Présidente, j’ai envie de dire qu’Haïti n’est pas un pays de merde. C’est M. Trump qui a qualifié de la sorte ce pays, comme vous le savez, où nous sommes allés au mois décembre dans le cadre de la délégation ACP. Au contraire, c’est un pays très attachant, où l’Union européenne investit dans des projets intéressants, mais où la pauvreté est omniprésente. De ce fait, la situation des jeunes est terrible parce qu’il y a là-bas entre 150 000 et 500 000 jeunes qui subissent l’esclavage au sein même des familles. Comment répondre à cela?

J’apporte tout mon soutien à ce texte car il est, me semble-t-il, possible de faire face à ce problème si l’on parvient à éradiquer la pauvreté, car ce sont des familles très pauvres qui confient leurs enfants à d’autres familles, qui le sont un peu moins.

Pour éradiquer la pauvreté, il faut jouer sur l’agriculture. L’Union européenne apporte une aide à cet égard, mais celle-ci est souvent destinée aux très grosses exploitations et ne parvient pas aux petites, qui peuvent, justement, lutter contre la pauvreté.

Quant au régime en place, je vous assure que je n’ai pas vu plus pourris que les parlementaires, qu’ils soient sénateurs ou députés à l’Assemblée nationale.

Il faut par conséquent réorienter les fonds de l’Union européenne pour apporter une aide en faveur de l’éducation parce que cela passe aussi par l’éducation. Plus on aidera la population à savoir lire et écrire, plus il lui sera facile de sortir de la pauvreté.

  Bogdan Brunon Wenta, autor. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Współczesne niewolnictwo ma wiele twarzy. Niedawno na tej sali omawialiśmy sytuację Haratynów w Mauretanii. Dziś tematem są haitańskie restavek – dzieci, które pochodzą z ubogich rodzin wiejskich i są przekazywane, często sprzedawane zamożniejszym rodzinom, gdzie pracują ponad siły, są ofiarami przemocy, nie mają szans na zdobycie podstawowej edukacji. Prawie jedna piąta haitańskich dzieci między szóstym a jedenastym rokiem życia nie uczęszcza do szkoły. To zjawisko ma złożone podłoże ekonomiczno-społeczne, a obecna trudna sytuacja polityczna i brak działań na rzecz zmian w kluczowych aktach prawnych daje przyzwolenie na łamanie praw człowieka i praw dzieci. Także brak systemu ewidencji urodzeń naraża dzieci na bycie ofiarami handlu ludźmi. Władze Haiti muszą wprowadzić środki służące rozwiązaniu problemu niewolnictwa dzieci, zwłaszcza w ramach reformy kodeksu karnego. Kluczowe jest także wdrożenie systemu rejestracji wszystkich nowonarodzonych oraz uregulowanie sytuacji dzieci niezarejestrowanych, jak również zapewnienie odpowiedniego wsparcia ofiarom niewolnictwa domowego.

  Catherine Bearder, author. – Madam President, heaven knows Haiti has its problems. Years of corruption, natural disasters and earthquakes would test any country, so what is unique to Haiti? What is holding them back?

My first speech to this House was after the 2010 earthquake, when children were being sold into slavery. But today we still see the terrible plight of children there. Haiti has half a million children at risk, in slavery and being trafficked. The Haiti custom known as restavek holds the most vulnerable children as slaves and servants for host families. So what is the Haitian Government doing to protect these children? Well, when a government’s budget puts more into cleaning offices than providing health services, you know something is wrong. Corruption is endemic and this has to change.

Poverty, unemployment, poor health services and lack of education must cease to be the reality for Haitians. After all, on the other side of the island, in the Dominican Republic things are not so bad. So it cannot just be geography. The children of Haiti deserve care, education and protection from their Government. This House needs to send a strong signal, and I urge you, colleagues, to support this motion.

  Elena Valenciano, autora. – Señora Presidenta, Haití es un país roto. Es un país roto por la esclavitud, es un país roto por la pobreza, por la colonización, por la ocupación y por una deuda ilegítima. Es también un país roto por la miseria, por los accidentes naturales, por los desastres, por las plagas. Y es un país roto por su clase política y económica, que es la más depredadora que yo he visto en mi vida en ningún país del mundo.

Es verdad, por lo tanto, que el país sufre y sufre la pobreza y, cuando se sufre la pobreza, los que más sufren son los niños y las niñas. El fenómeno de los restaveks —cientos de miles de niños esclavizados— es intolerable, insoportable. Pero por eso hay que apoyar a Haití y no lo contrario.

Por eso el mensaje frente a todos aquellos que ahora quieren reducir la ayuda al país haitiano es el contrario: más ayuda, más confianza en el nuevo Gobierno haitiano que se abre camino a brazadas contra todos los elementos, entre otros, contra una clase económica totalmente depredadora. Para acabar con los restaveks, hay que apoyar al Gobierno haitiano.

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez, Autora. – Senhora Presidente, o Haiti é um país empobrecido, devastado e também afogado pela dívida imposta pela França e outras instituições internacionais. Enfrenta também uma grave situação de insegurança alimentar. As crianças são as principais vítimas.

Nós propomos que as autoridades do Haiti ratifiquem a Convenção 189 da OIT e assegurem o fim da escravatura, da exploração infantil e da violência, também a sexual, prestando especial atenção à ocorrida no trabalho doméstico, porque, seguramente, é a mais invisível, que a ajuda ao desenvolvimento não seja usada para pressionar a OIT a ratificar o Acordo de Associação com a União Europeia, que a ajuda europeia seja concedida em forma de doação e que a França reembolse a dívida colonial.

E, finalmente, o respeito pela direito do Haiti à soberania alimentar, apoiando camponeses e camponesas para produzir o alimento para o seu povo.

  Tomáš Zdechovský, za skupinu PPE. – Paní předsedající, odhaduje se, že v sirotčincích na Haiti žije asi třicet tisíc dětí. Málokdo ale ví, že 80 % těchto dětí má minimálně jednoho rodiče. Jaký je důvod, že tam ty děti jsou? Hlavní důvody jsou ekonomické. Tato země, jak tady už bylo zmíněno, prošla zemětřesením. Prošla za minulý rok dvěma velikánskými hurikány a řada rodičů prostě nemá peníze na to, aby se o své děti postarala.

A tady je náš úkol jako europoslanců, Evropanů, Evropské unie, abychom apelovali na úřady na Haiti. Především na státní správu, aby s touto situací začala něco dělat. V roce 2015 sice zřídila úřad, který měl tuto situaci řešit, ale ten nevyužívá dostatečně své kompetence. A proto jsem rád, že máme tady poměrně silného komisaře, který dokáže s touto situací něco udělat, a věřím, že napomůže Haiťanům tuto situaci změnit.

  Norbert Neuser, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Ich denke, es ist ganz wichtig, dass dieses Thema heute im Europäischen Parlament besprochen wird. Die Restavek, die Kindersklaven in Haiti, haben keine Lobby. Es gibt wenige NGO, die sich um deren Schicksal kümmern. Deswegen freue ich mich, dass wir dies heute in den Mittelpunkt der Debatte stellen.

Haiti verdient Unterstützung nach dem Erdbeben und aufgrund seiner großen Armut, die im Land weiterhin herrscht. Aber wir haben als EU auch Möglichkeiten, und die müssen wir nutzen. Wir geben einen budget support, das ist gut, das gibt Vertrauen in die Regierung. Aber die Regierung muss dieses Vertrauen auch rechtfertigen, indem sie sich mehr auf den Bildungsbereich konzentriert, dass die Ausgaben, die Haiti tätigt, dort besser konzentriert werden. Dazu gehört, dass wir eine Registrierung der Kinder bekommen, und dazu gehört, dass die Regierung dafür sorgt, dass ein regelmäßiger Schulbesuch stattfinden kann. Ich glaube, dies sind erste Schritte, und wir müssen dies als EU weiterhin begleiten.

  Urmas Paet, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I am appalled that we even have to have a global slavery index. Slavery is something that should not exist anymore.

Even more saddening is the situation in Haiti, with child slavery ranking high. One in 15 children lives as a restavek in Haiti, and 60% of these are girls. Many of them are also sexually abused. It is a consequence of the huge amount of poverty in Haiti. The international community can, and must, help the Haitians in their fight against poverty and help them make education accessible to each child’s biological family, all over the country. It is imperative to see that resources are spent on community-based services to strengthen the ability of families and communities to care for their own children.

The legislation must be put in place to detect and investigate child slavery cases, traffickers must be brought to justice and labour laws must be updated to address child labour. The European Union can also help Haiti to break free from its cycle of extreme vulnerability to natural disasters and make it more resilient.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, Haití, el país más poblado del Caribe, también es el más pobre y el más desigual de todas las Américas. La extrema pobreza y la vulnerabilidad de la población vienen marcadas por una economía muy dependiente y tremendamente endeudada. En este escenario, como siempre, las mujeres, y los niños y las niñas, son los más afectados. Son las condiciones socioeconómicas las que llevan a miles de menores a la esclavitud y estamos en pleno siglo XXI, en 2018, y estamos aquí, en esta casa, hablando de niños esclavos.

Hasta que no abordemos eficazmente la cuestión ya no solo de pobreza, sino de desigualdad ―y eso implica redistribución—, Haití jamás conseguirá ser resiliente. También es urgente abordar esa insostenible e ilegítima deuda. La Unión Europea como principal donante juega un rol clave. Pero, sin una política de desarrollo eficaz acompañada de una acción exterior coherente con ella, por muchas resoluciones de urgencia que hagamos no conseguiremos nada.

Usemos nuestra fuerza para empujar a este Gobierno a ratificar e implementar los convenios esenciales sobre la lucha contra la esclavitud y el tráfico de menores. Usemos nuestra fuerza para fortalecer la buena gobernanza y que salvajadas como esta dejen de ocurrir ya. Como ha dicho el colega Neuser, estos niños y estas niñas no tienen ningún lobby aquí dentro que los defienda.

  Mireille D’Ornano, au nom du groupe EFDD. – Madame la Présidente, alors que la République d’Haïti est ravagée par la pauvreté, la corruption et la traite des enfants, l’Union européenne lui a octroyé 420 millions d’euros pour financer principalement des programmes de nutrition et d’éducation des enfants.

La première chose à faire est donc de vérifier que ces fonds soient strictement employés à cet usage pour améliorer le sort des enfants. Malheureusement, il ne suffit pas que l’Union européenne, qui n’a pas légitimité pour cela, ordonne les actions politiques à mener dans ce pays pour que celles-ci se réalisent. Au contraire, l’ingérence peut avoir des conséquences inverses, bien pires pour les plus fragiles.

Combattre l’esclavage des enfants passera avant tout par la ratification rapide, par un maximum d’États, de l’ensemble des textes internationaux relatifs aux droits économiques et sociaux et à la protection contre les disparitions forcées, les traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants.

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, nous tous qui avons été parmi les parlementaires à Haïti, nous avons laissé une partie de notre cœur également dans ce pays. La misère appelle son lot de misères et malheureusement, ce sont toujours les plus faibles qui paient, et particulièrement les enfants. Alors, que faut-il faire?

D’une part, je pense qu’il faut soutenir l’État dans ses politiques de développement rural et d’éducation. C’est la base du développement de ce pays qui a autrefois été le premier exportateur mondial de sucre. Donc, avec double clé pour bien être sûr de l’affectation: d’une part, l’État et, de l’autre, les représentants de l’Union européenne.

D’autre part, il nous faut utiliser nos capacités financières: 4 000 milliards ont été créés de toutes pièces dans l’Union européenne par la création monétaire, 18 000 milliards dans le monde, et pas un euro dans l’économie du développement. Il est absolument nécessaire de lancer un plan Marshall pour le développement.

  Marlene Mizzi (S&D). – Sinjura President, is-sistema restavek fil-Ħaiti, li tuża t-tfal bħala ħaddiema, hija forma inaċċettabbli u intollerabbli tas-skjavitù u t-traffikar tat-tfal. Din hi kawża ta’ faqar estrem f’wieħed mill-aktar pajjiżi foqra fid-dinja.

Fil-forom kollha tiegħu, it-tħaddim tat-tfal jagħmel ħsara kbira lill-istess tfal u jxekkel l-edukazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tagħhom. Imma dak li qed jiġri fil-Ħaiti huwa ferm agħar mit-tħaddim tat-tfal. Huwa skjavitù tat-tfal li jolqot wieħed minn kull ħmistax-il tifel u tifla fil-Ħaiti, fejn 60% minnhom huma bniet. Aktar minn 300,000 tifel u tifla, bħalissa, jinsabu fi skjavitù bħala restaveks fil-Ħaiti.

Din hija ġenerazzjoni futura tal-Ħaiti li suppost għandha taqla’ lill-pajjiż mill-faqar, iżda minflok [ma] qed jiġu edukati u offruti futur b’dinjità u tama għal ħajja aħjar, qed jiġu użati bħala skjavi. Il-problema hi illi s-sistema restavek għandha l-għeruq tagħha fil-kultura tal-Ħaiti u soċjalment hija aċċettata bħala norma.

Nemmen li s-soluzzjoni biex tissolva l-kwistjoni ta’ restaveks tinsab f’idejn il-poplu tal-Ħaiti stess, però nemmen li l-Unjoni Ewropea u l-Istati Membri għandhom is-saħħa li jwasslu għal bidla politika biex ma ninjorawx il-wegħdiet tagħna u ngħinu lill-pajjiż biex jegħleb lil dawn l-isfidi.

  Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Madam President, it is sad that nowadays we are still witnessing not just slavery but its most heinous and awful form, child slavery. In Haiti poor parents from rural areas send their children away under the illusion that they will be educated and well kept and will have brighter opportunities in life.

Restaveks are, in fact, exploited physically and verbally abused, whipped, humiliated and sometimes sexually exploited. Moreover, children live in precarious conditions of health and nourishment. Often prevented from going to school, they are forced to work 18—20 hours per day. Every time a restavek implores to be sent back home, he or she is likely to receive a beating in return. At the end of this nightmare these undefended children will end up on the street.

The two major factors that perpetuate the restavek system are widespread poverty and a social acceptance of the practice. Therefore, I wish to invite the European Union and the Member States to increase their financial support to the Haitian Government on condition that it complies with the obligation to respect the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel preoccupante panorama delle violazioni dei diritti umani vi è una specifica categoria, che forse è la più insidiosa e preoccupante di tutte, mi riferisco alle violazioni che toccano la vita dei bambini. Tra tutte sono senz'altro le peggiori, perché hanno un impatto devastante sulla persona che il bambino diventerà, condannando dunque non solo il suo presente, ma anche il suo futuro e quindi il futuro di tutto il paese nel quale avvengono.

Ad Haiti si usa il termine restavek per descrivere la condizione di un bimbo che è nato in una famiglia povera e viene letteralmente venduto a una famiglia differente, spesso in città. Questa condizione, che riguarda ben 40 000 bambini haitiani, si sta trasformando in una forma di schiavitù moderna. Il 95 % di questi piccoli schiavi subisce maltrattamenti fisici e psicologici e il 25 % delle bambine è oggetto di violenza sessuale prima dei 18 anni, e tutto nel corrotto silenzio della classe dirigente.

Dobbiamo porre fine a questa pratica aberrante. Le autorità haitiane devono ratificare e rispettare la Convenzione ONU sui diritti dell'infanzia e l'Unione europea deve fornire massimo sostegno alla poverissima isola caraibica, sostenendo la lotta contro la povertà e per l'alfabetizzazione. Il senso morale di una società si misura su ciò che fa per i suoi bambini.

„Catch the eye” eljárás

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal rozpravu. Všichni tu popisujeme hrůzy, které se dějí na Haiti dětem, nicméně pokud má mít ta debata nějaký výsledek a nemají to být pouze hraběcí rady, pak opravdu by závěrem té debaty mělo být, že Evropská unie, Komise budou reálně mnohem více pomáhat těmto dětem na tomto ostrově, protože všichni víme, že příčinou je chudoba, rozvrat této země daný přírodními podmínkami, hurikánem a zkrátka a dobře tato země, i kdyby chtěla, tak nebude schopna problémy dětí v otroctví vyřešit. Takže jediná šance, jak s tím něco udělat, je, že my budeme mnohem více pomáhat, ohlídáme, kam těch 420 milionů EUR reálně půjde, zda pomohou dětem nebo zda ty peníze budou rozkradeny. Dále je třeba, abychom tlačili na ostatní partnery ve světě, kteří slíbili Haiti po hurikánu pomoc. To znamená, ta pomoc musí přijít zvenčí, pak je šance, že se dětem na Haiti bude vést lépe.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisario Stylianides, el pasado mes de diciembre tuvo lugar en Haití la reunión de la Asamblea Parlamentaria Paritaria ACP-UE, en Haití, el país más pobre de América Latina, devastado no solamente por la miseria sino también por catástrofes y huracanes, y conocimos de primera mano esa situación dramática, terrible: 300 000 menores arrastrados a la esclavitud infantil, carentes por completo de derechos sociales, derechos sanitarios, pero también de la alimentación y de la educación más básica.

Es, por tanto, una situación que interpela seriamente a la política de desarrollo y de cooperación humanitaria de la Unión Europea. Porque es un imperativo moral y político de primera magnitud que el esfuerzo europeo en Haití, diplomático y de cooperación, objetive la necesidad de combatir no solamente la pobreza infantil, sino también la humillación, el maltrato y la esclavitud a que están sometidos en estos momentos todos esos niños en Haití.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, στηρίζω το ψήφισμα, το οποίο άλλωστε συνυπογράφω. Πρόκειται για ένα ψήφισμα που καταδικάζει την παιδική δουλεία στην Αϊτή, μια χώρα ιδιαίτερα φτωχή και με ένα τεράστιο εξωτερικό χρέος, το οποίο σύντομα πρέπει να αναδιαρθρωθεί.

Η χρήση παιδιών ως οικιακών βοηθών -restavek, όπως ονομάζονται- στην Αϊτή είναι ένα σύστημα, ουσιαστικά, σύγχρονης δουλείας. Πρόκειται για την εμπορία οικιακών βοηθών. Πάνω από 400.000 παιδιά στην Αϊτή αποτελούν μέρος αυτού του συστήματος, και το 60% είναι κορίτσια. Τα περισσότερα από αυτά έχουν υποστεί και σεξουαλική βία.

Είναι προφανές ότι πρέπει να δοθεί τέλος σε αυτήν την απαράδεκτη κατάσταση. Πρέπει να υποχρεωθεί η κυβέρνηση της Αϊτής να υπογράψει τη Σύμβαση 189 του ΟΗΕ και πρέπει να ληφθούν συγκεκριμένα μέτρα για την προστασία των παιδιών, προκειμένου να καταργηθεί αυτό το σύστημα σύγχρονης παιδικής δουλείας.

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caros Colegas, no Haiti, entre 150 e 500 mil crianças entre os 7 e os 14 anos, a grande maioria meninas, são emprestadas pelos seus pais a famílias que os empregam nas tarefas domésticas, em condições de verdadeira servidão.

Impedidos de ir à escola, são sobrecarregados com trabalhos e sujeitos a violência física, verbal e sexual, e muitas vezes vítimas de redes internacionais de tráfico e prostituição de crianças.

Não deixa de constituir uma triste ironia que o país onde se deu a primeira abolição da escravatura na História, e o único cuja independência teve início uma revolta de escravizados, mantenha em pleno século XXI a tradição dos “Restavek”. Esta autêntica forma de escravatura moderna continua hoje a ser culturalmente aceite graças à pobreza extrema da população, especialmente a rural.

A ausência de serviços sociais e de escolas públicas gratuitas agravou-se ainda mais depois do devastador terramoto de 2010 e das catástrofes naturais que se lhe seguiram.

Senhor Comissário, a União Europeia deve condenar esta situação indigna e instar as autoridades do Haiti a harmonizarem a sua legislação interna com as obrigações internacionais assumidas em matéria de direitos humanos e direitos da criança e a porem cobro à impunidade com que as redes de tráfico de menores operam naquele país.

  Bernd Lucke (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Kindersklaverei ist eine fürchterliche Geschichte. Aber wir verschließen unsere Augen vor einem wesentlichen Teil des Problems, und wir machen es uns zu leicht, wenn wir das hier jetzt darauf zurückführen, dass das Land so schrecklich arm ist. Es gibt viele arme Länder in der Welt, in denen es keine Kindersklaverei gibt. Wir müssen schon die wahren Verantwortlichen auch benennen, und die wahren Verantwortlichen für diese schreckliche Kindersklaverei, das ist die Führungselite dieses Landes, das ist die politische und wirtschaftliche Führungselite dieses Landes, und die müssen wir beim Portepee packen und an ihre Verantwortlichkeit erinnern.

Wenn das nichts nützt, dann müssen wir Zwangsmaßnahmen anwenden. Wir haben Reisebeschränkungen eingeführt für die russische Führungselite, als Russland das Völkerrecht in der Ukraine brach. Warum führen wir nicht Reisebeschränkungen ein für die haitische Führungselite, wenn sie die Menschenrechte in solch eklatanter Weise bricht oder es duldet, dass die Menschenrechte gebrochen werden? Wir müssen entschiedener handeln als einfach nur die Armut zu beklagen. Wir brauchen konkrete Maßnahmen, und die müssen sich an die Führungselite dieses Landes richten.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych chtěl říci, že to je takový začarovaný kruh, chudoba, korupce, nedostatek vzdělání, nedostatek placené práce, tragické zdravotnictví a vlastně nefunkční stát, který se ocitá v troskách i v důsledku několikanásobných přírodních katastrof.

Otroctví je samozřejmě zásadně nepřípustné, ať se nazývá jakkoliv, nicméně na Haiti, zdá se, že existuje jakási přímá souvislost právě mezi chudobou a tímto otroctvím. Já souhlasím s kolegou Luckem, že za tuto situaci je zodpovědná vláda, ale nejsem si jist, jestli máme díky tomu uvalovat sankce nebo vůbec otevírat tuto otázku, protože to, na koho tyto sankce dopadnou, v první řadě budou právě ty děti. A myslím si, že jediná šance je opravdu více strážit peníze, které na Haiti posíláme, spolupracovat v této věci s nezávislými nestátními organizacemi a více tedy skutečně hlídat tyto peníze, protože jenom tak můžeme přinést alespoň nějaký užitek těm dotčeným skupinám.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I reiterate the calls for the European Union to contribute as best as it can to the Haitian Government’s efforts to improve the extremely troubling living conditions of children in Haiti. It is crucial to protect vulnerable minors from abuse and to have more community values that foster a stable and safe environment for children. I welcome the call for effective mechanisms in Haiti to establish protection for children who may fall victim to abuse and child labour as a result of the restavek system, whereby hundreds and thousands of children are sent to families other than their own. Most of them don’t go to primary school. One in four girls and one in five boys become victims of sexual abuse before 18 years of age, and 85% of children are subject to violent discipline. This is a result of the social norms that exist there, and I think that we must work hard to ensure that those social norms are cast aside. I also agree that we should be increasing, not decreasing, humanitarian development aid to Haiti.

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége)

  Christos Stylianides, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the protection of children’s rights is a top priority in our external action worldwide, in particular in development and humanitarian aid. We have been actively engaged in the fight to end child labour, boost access to education and, of course, strengthen children’s rights.

I totally agree with you regarding the powerful role of education in such difficult conditions on the ground, and that is why, as Commissioner, from the beginning of my term of office I decided to increase our budget for education in emergencies eight times. It is quite important to realise that sometimes, in such conditions, education is the only way to protect children.

In this regard, Haiti is no exception. The Haitian population – and in particular, the most vulnerable groups, including children – have been particularly affected by natural disasters and instability. We are also fully aware of the so-called restavek practice, which exposes children to exploitation, sexual abuse and isolation, condemning them to illiteracy and perpetuating poverty. The European Union is very sensitive to these major human rights issues and that is why among our top priorities for cooperation with Haiti is the promotion of education and human rights, with several programmes under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) aimed at fighting these practices, which are shameful, frankly speaking.

Children’s rights are also one of the priority issues for the periodical EU political dialogue with the Haitian authorities. We, as the European Union, clearly intend to maintain and further increase our involvement in this issue. At the most recent political dialogue, which took place in Port-au-Prince on 30 January, we conveyed our concern regarding the precarious situation of children and their rights. In particular, we reiterated the need to follow up on the latest Universal Periodic Review recommendation in this regard.

Two EU projects, each worth EUR 0.5 million, have been approved: one focusing on access to justice and legal protection for children, and the other dealing with the protection of children in urban areas near the border with the Dominican Republic where, unfortunately, there is a higher incidence of child trafficking. These projects will be implemented until 2020.

The European Union will also continue to advocate the ratification and effective implementation of relevant international conventions such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 182 on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, and ILO Convention 138 on the Minimum Age for Admission to Employment. These are our activities in order to alleviate the suffering of children in Haiti. Thank you for your attention.

Elnök – A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2018. február 8-án, csütörtökön kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (162. cikk)

  Rolandas Paksas (EFDD), raštu. – Tiek nacionaliniu, tiek tarptautiniu lygmenimis būtina užtikrinti griežtą vaikų teisių apsaugos normų laikymąsi. Haitis privalo imtis efektyvių ir neatidėliotinų priemonių, siekiant užkirsti kelią vaikų prekybai, vergovei, išnaudojimui, prievartai ar bet kokiam kitam nežmogiškam traktavimui. Jaunesnioji karta yra visuomenės pamatas ir ateitis, todėl privalu garantuoti kokybišką švietimą, sveikatos apsaugos priemones, įdarbinimo ir kitas asmenybės vystymuisi būtinas garantijas. Haičio valstybei neatidėliotinai būtina tvari teisinė bazė ir griežtas šių normų įgyvendinimo užtikrinimas, siekiant atstatyti šalies socialinę ir ekonominę padėtį, užkirsti kelią vaikų prekybai ir vergovei, riaušėms, neramumams, padidėjusiam nusikalstamumo lygiui ir humanitarinei krizei. Pabrėžiu, jog Haičiui yra ypatingai svarbu vystyti tarptautinį bendradarbiavimą žmogaus teisių srityje tam, kad kuo įmanoma greičiau užkirsti kelią vaikų vergavimui už išlaikymą, įgyti galimybę suteikti reabilitacijos priemones aukoms, siekiant atstatyti jų emocinę, psichologinę būklę ir garantuoti tolesnį darnų vystymąsi.

(A 11.28 órakor megszakított ülést a szavazással folytatják.)

Preşedinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAŞCU
Vicepreședinte

9. Pokračovanie prerušeného rokovania

(The sitting was resumed at 12.01)

10. Vyhlásenie Predsedníctva

  President. – Before we start our voting session, I have to make two announcements and I would like to have your attention.

The first announcement is related to the Taiwan earthquake. At the resumption of this plenary sitting, our thoughts go out to the victims of the powerful earthquake in Taiwan yesterday, some of whom are still missing. We wish the victims, their families and the emergency workers, who are still working round the clock to help as many people as possible, every strength in the aftermath of this natural disaster.

11. Zloženie Parlamentu

  President. – The second announcement is that the competent authorities of France have notified the election to the European Parliament of Jacques Colombier, with effect from 2 February 2018, replacing Edouard Ferrand. I welcome our new colleague and remind him that he takes his seat in Parliament and on its bodies and enjoys all the rights attaching thereto under the conditions laid down by the regulation.

***

  David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, I note that we are discussing the European Investment Bank, but we have not discussed the fact that the British are owed 35 billion and we would like our money back. That means that all the stuff they are talking about is irrelevant and it has to be looked at again.

12. Hlasovanie

  President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details of the vote: see Minutes).

12.1. Rusko, prípad Ojuba Titijeva a Centra pre ľudské práva Memorial (RC-B8-0096/2018, B8-0096/2018, B8-0098/2018, B8-0099/2018, B8-0102/2018, B8-0105/2018, B8-0106/2018) (hlasovanie)

12.2. Popravy v Egypte (RC-B8-0109/2018, B8-0109/2018, B8-0111/2018, B8-0112/2018, B8-0113/2018, B8-0114/2018, B8-0115/2018, B8-0116/2018) (hlasovanie)

12.3. Detské otroctvo na Haiti (RC-B8-0100/2018, B8-0100/2018, B8-0101/2018, B8-0104/2018, B8-0107/2018, B8-0108/2018, B8-0110/2018) (hlasovanie)

12.4. Menovité zloženie osobitného výboru pre postup Únie pre povoľovanie pesticídov (hlasovanie)

12.5. Monitorovanie a nahlasovanie emisií CO2 a spotreby paliva nových ťažkých úžitkových vozidiel (A8-0010/2018 - Damiano Zoffoli) (hlasovanie)

– Before the vote:

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Mr President, I would say that there is inflation in the number of cases in which this House votes to enter into negotiations on the basis of a mandate that is put to the vote in committee and not in plenary, and that is problematic. It is, of course, reasonable if there is a broad consensus in the relevant committee on the substance, but, in this case, on the most important parts of this matter, there were only three votes that made the difference. That is not enough. There should also be a reflection of what is voted on in committee and in other opinion-giving committees, which again is not the case here, as the outcome does not reflect, for example, the Transport Committee’s vote. Essentially the issue is, of course, less about how much information truck users should give away to help us know how much CO2 emissions they produce and more about how much information they should give away so that Chinese competitors can get their upper edge. The principal question, which is probably more important, is that the European Parliament plenary should decide on the mandate for the European Parliament to enter into negotiation and should not regularly delegate that decision to the Environment Committee, or any other committee for that matter. Therefore we should vote against entering negotiations on the basis of this mandate without scrutinising it.

(Applause)

12.6. Zriadenie centralizovaného systému na identifikáciu členských štátov, v ktorých sú k dispozícii informácie o odsúdeniach štátnych príslušníkov tretích krajín a osôb bez štátnej príslušnosti (TCN), s cieľom doplniť a podporiť Európsky informačný systém registrov trestov (ECRIS-TCN) (A8-0018/2018 - Daniel Dalton) (hlasovanie)

- Înainte de votare:

  Helga Stevens, deputising for the rapporteur. – Mr President, firstly, Mr Dalton apologises that he is unable to be here to speak on this report himself.

This regulation is an important step to close loopholes and improve cooperation between Member States in the fight against criminality. The efficient exchange of information on previous criminal convictions in the EU Member States is vital, in order to ensure trust, confidence and mutual recognition in the area of judicial cooperation. It is also only right that there is equality in the exchange of information on convictions of EU nationals and third-country nationals. Today, under the current European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), we identify previous criminal convictions in the EU for EU nationals but not for third-country nationals. Our report closes this gap.

The report had wide support in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) precisely because it provides a fair balance between protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring that past criminal convictions are correctly attributed. It is about ensuring that judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies have a complete picture in order to carry out their work. As an instrument it offers clear safeguards and protection. It is only for convictions handed out by EU Member States, and it can be accessed only under certain very specific circumstances. A robust and secure system for sharing conviction information with clear safeguards is needed, and this is what the LIBE Committee has proposed.

  João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, é um ponto de ordem à mesa. Já trouxemos esta questão aqui ao plenário. Estamos a pronunciar-nos sobre um relatório que está apresentado aos deputados desta Câmara apenas numa versão linguística, em inglês.

Trata-se de uma clara violação do princípio do multilinguismo que decorre também daquilo que são os cortes que esta Casa tem aprovado, nomeadamente nos mecanismos de tradução. É inaceitável a pronúncia dos deputados num documento que só é apresentado numa única língua.

  President. – As I was reminded, we are now deciding on the decision of the committee and not on the text as such.

12.7. Garančný fond pre vonkajšie opatrenia (A8-0132/2017 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) (hlasovanie)

12.8. Záruka EÚ pre Európsku investičnú banku za straty z finančných operácií na podporu investičných projektov mimo Únie (A8-0135/2017 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) (hlasovanie)

12.9. Výročná správa o finančných aktivitách Európskej investičnej banky (A8-0013/2018 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial) (hlasovanie)

12.10. Súčasná situácia v oblasti ľudských práv v Turecku (B8-0079/2018, RC-B8-0082/2018, B8-0082/2018, B8-0084/2018, B8-0091/2018, B8-0092/2018, B8-0095/2018, B8-0097/2018, B8-0103/2018) (hlasovanie)

- Înainte de votarea alineatului (8):

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Mr President, in paragraph 8, which deals with political pressure on journalists, I propose to add one sentence: Urges Turkey to drop charges against a Finnish-Turkish journalist, Ayla Albayrak, who has been convicted by the Turkish court in absentia.

(Amendamentul oral a fost reținut)

12.11. Situácia vo Venezuele (RC-B8-0078/2018, B8-0078/2018, B8-0080/2018, B8-0081/2018, B8-0083/2018, B8-0087/2018, B8-0094/2018) (hlasovanie)

12.12. Situácia UNRWA (RC-B8-0085/2018, B8-0085/2018, B8-0086/2018, B8-0088/2018, B8-0089/2018, B8-0090/2018, B8-0093/2018) (hlasovanie)

12.13. Úprava letného času (B8-0070/2018, B8-0071/2018) (hlasovanie)

  Preşedinte. – Votarea a luat sfârșit.

IN THE CHAIR: PAVEL TELIČKA
Vice-President

13. Vysvetlenia hlasovania

13.1. Garančný fond pre vonkajšie opatrenia (A8-0132/2017 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial)

Oral explanations of vote

  Monika Smolková (S&D). – Pán predsedajúci, vytvorenie garančného fondu pre vonkajšie opatrenia je súčasťou európskeho vonkajšieho investičného plánu. Popri európskom fonde pre strategické investície a podpore investičných projektov mimo Únie je garančný fond tretím pilierom tohto plánu pre vonkajšie investície. Celkovo by malo byť v jeho rámci mobilizovaných až 44 miliárd eur investícii v Afrike a v susedstve EÚ. Keď ide o garančný fond, tak jeho účelom je pôsobiť ako záruka rozpočtu pre tretie krajiny, aby sme predišli platobnej neschopnosti. Súhlasím s tým, aby mala garančný fond vo svojej správe Komisia. Mám dôveru v jej personálne kapacity a odbornosť zamestnancov. Zároveň sa týmto presunom z Európskej investičnej banky ušetria poplatky, ktoré by jej inak boli vyplácané. Na druhej strane zastávam názor, že musí byť Komisia otvorená kontrole Európskemu parlamentu a Dvoru audítorov. Verím, že Komisia bude garančný fond spravovať na základe princípov dobrého hospodára.

13.2. Záruka EÚ pre Európsku investičnú banku za straty z finančných operácií na podporu investičných projektov mimo Únie (A8-0135/2017 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial)

Oral explanations of vote

  Monika Smolková (S&D). – Pán predsedajúci, posledné roky boli poznačené viacerými klimatickými katastrofami a ozbrojenými konfliktmi, ktoré uviedli do pohybu milióny ľudí. Utečenecká a migračná kríza má svoje korene za hranicami Európskej únie, preto je veľmi dôležité, aby sme jej príčiny riešili priamo na mieste.

Z tohto dôvodu podporujem zriaďovanie investičných projektov mimo Únie v rámci vonkajšieho investičného plánu. Prostredníctvom Európskej investičnej banky investujeme do projektov podporujúcich udržateľný rozvoj a inkluzívny hospodársky rast. Projekty financované vonkajším investičným plánom sa musia zameriavať na dlhodobý program rozvoja, čo znamená riešiť základné príčiny migrácie. Do toho je potrebné zahrnúť aj miestny súkromný sektor. Sú to práve miestne podniky, miestni ľudia v ťažko skúšaných krajinách Afriky, blízkeho východu či Ázie, ktorí sa musia naučiť bojovať s chudobou, hladom a konfliktmi. A za týmto účelom zriaďujem aj vonkajší investičný plán, ktorý by mal byť katalyzátorom udržateľného rastu a tvorby pracovných miest.

13.3. Výročná správa o finančných aktivitách Európskej investičnej banky (A8-0013/2018 - Eider Gardiazabal Rubial)

Oral explanations of vote

  Rosa D'Amato, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la relazione della collega Gardiazabal Rubial sulla relazione annuale della Banca europea per gli investimenti ha il pregio di essere senz'altro completa. Sono d'accordo in via di principio sul potenziale della BEI nel migliorare la situazione economica all'interno dell'Unione europea, e mi riferisco ai prestiti agevolati forniti alle piccole e medie imprese, al potenziale della stessa nel nostro vicinato.

Avevo però già fatto notare in sede di commissione per lo sviluppo regionale i problemi legati alle operazioni a rischio elevato della BEI, le cosiddette attività speciali. In sostanza, parte del nostro bilancio garantisce, con operazione di ingegneria finanziaria, le operazioni più a rischio della BEI, mettendo al riparo gli investitori privati. Ancora una volta, privatizzazione dei profitti e pubblicizzazione delle perdite in piena crisi.

Riconosco che grande importanza viene data ai meccanismi per evitare finanziamenti a società che compiono frodi fiscali, ma avrei voluto che la relazione affrontasse con maggiore coraggio, la mancanza di trasparenza per quanto riguarda l'accesso ai dati relativi ai progetti finanziati dalla BEI. Infine, avevamo presentato una serie di emendamenti per condannare il coinvolgimento della BEI nel finanziamento di grandi progetti infrastrutturali ad alto impatto ambientale, come la TAP.

Mi preme qui sottolineare, Presidente, che la nostra posizione nasce dalla condivisione di quegli stessi principi di cui la BEI si fregia e che poi smentisce nei fatti. La realizzazione della TAP viola non solo il principio di precauzione, che tutti in quest'Aula sembrano condividere soltanto a parole, ma soprattutto le aspirazioni della banca, che ricordo essere investimenti responsabili a livello sociale e ambientale.

Non vedo nella realizzazione di un'altra opera mostruosa, dagli impatti ambientali e sociali disastrosi, una scelta né tantomeno un investimento responsabile. Per questa motivazione, il nostro voto è stata l'astensione.

  Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this report. The far snazzier 378 new carriages for trains in East Anglia is thanks to EUR 60 million from the European Investment Bank, the amazing facilities at Stanford-le-Hope superport in London Gateway (EUR 100 million), the Galloper Wind Farm off the Suffolk coast (EUR 225 million), and schools across Luton and Hertfordshire, like Westfield Academy in Watford (EUR 63 million). That is what being part of the European Investment Bank has meant for the East of England, and I say ‘long may it continue’. I hope that the UK Government takes note that the Investment Bank’s AAA credit rating is higher than its own and so prioritise Britain’s continuing to maintain the closest possible relationship into the future, so that our companies can continue to finance big-ticket infrastructure projects.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). – Pán predsedajúci, Európska investičná banka zohráva pozitívnu úlohu pri zmierňovaní nedostatku verejných investícií. Chcem oceniť, že v sociálnom sektore požičiava v priemere 1 miliardu ročne na projekty sociálneho bývania, 1,5 miliardy na zdravotnícku infraštruktúru a 2,4 miliardy eur na vzdelávacie projekty v oblasti infraštruktúry.

Naopak, EIB ako verejná finančná inštitúcia, ktorá financuje projekty zamerané na vykonávanie politík a priorít EÚ, by mala tiež prispievať k hospodárskej, sociálnej a územnej súdržnosti, a to aj menej rozvinutých regiónov.

Zo správy o finančných aktivitách EIB však vyplýva, že až 54,11 % všetkých úverov poskytnutých v roku 2016, získalo päť ekonomicky najsilnejších členských štátov.

Preto sa pripájam k výzve, aby EIB a Komisia preskúmala príčiny tohto stavu a aby o nich informovali EP a súčasne prijali opatrenia pre širšie územné rozdelenie finančných prostriedkov v záujme znižovania regionálnych rozdielov.

13.4. Súčasná situácia v oblasti ľudských práv v Turecku (B8-0079/2018, RC-B8-0082/2018, B8-0082/2018, B8-0084/2018, B8-0091/2018, B8-0092/2018, B8-0095/2018, B8-0097/2018, B8-0103/2018)

Oral explanations of vote

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Mr President, I have always been a supporter of Turkey, including its attempt to join the European Union, but I have to say that even I am gradually changing my mind because what is going on in Turkey these days is simply crossing a red line. We see that gradually democracy in this country is being curbed. We see political pressure on free media, on the judiciary, on state administration, on the school system and universities. We see various strange conspiracy theories being spread around and we see also a gradual departure from the secular character of the State. I think that it is time, therefore, to call particularly on the ruling party to stop this and therefore such a resolution is fully justifiable, and I supported it.

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, mă bucur că am colegi de la ECR care împărtășesc această viziune. Am votat pentru această rezoluție privind condamnarea Turciei și, de altfel, am avut acest discurs, constant, de-a lungul vremii, de când Erdogan a instaurat dictatura.

Mii de persoane au fost strămutate și câteva sute au fost ucise de la începutul incursiunii militare a Guvernului turc împotriva unor miliții kurde în enclava Afrin din nord-vestul Siriei. Observatorul sirian pentru drepturile omului estimează că 67 de cetățeni sirieni au fost uciși ca urmare a acestei operații militare. Din acești 67, 20 sunt copii.

Situația este foarte gravă și se deteriorează. Guvernul Turciei este hotărât să încalce orice obligație internațională, orice tratat internațional, ignoră faptul că este membru al ONU, astfel încât nu cred că discuțiile diplomatice vor mai putea avea o finalizare pozitivă.

Reamintesc că Olanda, recent, a întrerupt relațiile diplomatice, a înghețat relațiile diplomatice cu Turcia, spunând că, în acest moment, nu este cazul să mențină relații diplomatice. Toate statele membre ar trebui să facă asta.

  Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, I supported the resolution on human rights in Turkey, but I want to focus on Afrin, where Turkey is justifying its intervention as self-defence against terrorism. Yet there has been no attack from Afrin on Turkey. This is a blatant violation of international law, with Turkish bombs targeting hospitals, civilians and children. Turkey is even teaming up with the Jihadist militia to kill Kurdish fighters, who have been our key allies in pushing back the Daesh.

Language used by authorities on social media reeks of ethnic cleansing, leaving little room for doubt about the Turkish agenda, and this is yet another blow to the Geneva process. We need to break silence on the Turkish invasion – not only in the UN, but also in NATO – ensure humanitarian access to Afrin and put this high on the agenda of the upcoming Syria Donor Conference, and adopt a leading role on Syria, bringing the Geneva process back to the forefront and making the EU strategy adopted last year worth its name.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, tacaím go hiomlán leis an dtuairisc seo. Is páirtnéir tábhachtach don Aontas Eorpach í an Tuirc agus mar thír iarrthóra tá uirthi caighdeán árd daonlathais a choimeád.

Táim buartha faoin nós atá sa Tuirc ball de lucht an fhreasúra dhaonlathaigh, iriseoirí, cosainteoirí na gceart daonna, dlíodóirí, ionadaí den tsochaí shibhialta agus fir agus mná léinn a chur sa phríosún. Tá tuairiscí á dtabhairt mar gheall ar an drochíde a thugtar do na bpríosúnaigh seo agus ar an gcéasadh a dhéantar orthu.

Níl meas dá laghad ar shaoirse creidimh agus tá an t-ardú san idirdhealú in aghaidh na gCríostaithe go huafásach ar fad. Muna n-athróidh an Tuirc go luath, ní féidir léi, ná an tAontas a bheith dáiríre faoina stádas mar thír iarrthóra chun a bheith ina bhall den Aontas Eorpach. Tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh athrú ar an scéal go luath sa Tuirc.

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo sia un fatto assolutamente positivo che il Parlamento europeo abbia espresso tutta la sua preoccupazione per il deterioramento dei diritti umani in Turchia, a danno di accademici, a danno di giornalisti, a danno delle opposizioni.

In prima persona ho potuto constatare ad Ankara, dove mi sono recata nel mese di dicembre per provare ad assistere al processo dei due copresidenti dell'HDP, quale sia la gravità di questa negazione, alla delegazione internazionale è stato impedito di assistere ai processi. Aggiungo che però la risoluzione non basta. Noi dobbiamo richiedere che il PKK sia eliminato dalla lista delle organizzazioni terroristiche e dobbiamo solidarizzare con il Rojava, con le donne curde, e dobbiamo condannare seriamente, senza se e senza ma, quello che il governo turco sta facendo ad Afrin.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). –Mr President, as we all know, Turkey is becoming less and less respectful of human rights. At the same time it is becoming a more and more important regional power and its every political move may have severe repercussions on security in Europe. Erdoğan is able to justify any human rights repressions and the use of brutal force as a pretext for fighting terrorism and the desire for revenge for the failed attempted coup in 2016.

This strategy means that we are probably going to see even more crackdowns on civil society in the months to come. What is even more worrying is that the international community is going to have less information on what really happens in Turkey. I have a journalistic background and I can personally testify to the crucial importance of free mass media in a country’s political trajectory. Current persecutions, jailing and physical attacks on journalists is unacceptable. That is why I voted in favour and sincerely hope that corresponding political decisions by the Member States will follow.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the current human rights situation in Turkey as I am deeply concerned about the situation. The government’s repressive measures under the state of emergency are disproportionate and they breach the basic rights and freedoms enshrined in international conventions to which Turkey is a state party.

The lack of respect for the freedom of religion and increased discrimination against Christians is as worrying as the imprisonment of a large number of members of the democratic opposition and journalists like the German, Deniz Yucel, human rights defenders like peace activist, Osman Kavala, lawyers, civil society representatives and nearly five thousand academics in Turkey.

I expect a candidate country to uphold the highest standards of democracy, including respect for human rights, the rule of law, fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, as fundamental pillars of any democratic society.

13.5. Situácia vo Venezuele (RC-B8-0078/2018, B8-0078/2018, B8-0080/2018, B8-0081/2018, B8-0083/2018, B8-0087/2018, B8-0094/2018)

Oral explanations of vote

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Pane předsedající, situace ve Venezuele je vážná, zaslouží si naši pozornost, zaslouží si naši kritiku. My jsme se ostatně vyjadřovali ke stavu lidských práv a demokracie v různých zemích. Pokud jde o Venezuelu, máme tady exemplární příklad vlastně krachu reálného socialismu, respektive jeho latinskoamerické verze. Krachu znárodněné ekonomiky a krachu centrálního řízení. A máme tady také příklad určitého pokrytectví zejména levé části politického spektra tohoto parlamentu, která, pokud si dobře pamatuji, byla velice kritická třeba k situaci v Kolumbii, protože tam vládla vláda pravého středu, takže Kolumbie byla ostřelována z různých politických pozic. Byla tady snaha dokonce zablokovat vyjednávání nebo ratifikaci dohody o volném obchodu s Kolumbií a teď najednou, když tady máme podobný případ ve Venezuele, tak je evropská levice v tomto parlamentu zticha. Já myslím, že je to poněkud pokrytecké, že je zapotřebí měřit všem stejným metrem.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, pues mientras que con Venezuela ya son innumerables las declaraciones, resoluciones y, al fin, las injerencias de este Parlamento, en Honduras todavía están esperando a que esta casa se pronuncie y condenemos los más de cuarenta asesinatos por las fuerzas policiales, los más de doscientos heridos y las más de mil detenciones, la militarización de las calles y la supresión de libertades fundamentales. Todo esto tras una elecciones de muy dudosa limpieza —la Unión Europea lo sabe―, de las cuales ha salido un Gobierno que es ilegítimo. Y eso no lo digo yo, lo dice la Constitución hondureña, que prohíbe expresamente la reelección.

Con nuestro silencio estaremos amparando un régimen que tiene secuestradas todas las instituciones, incluidos el poder judicial, el tribunal electoral y las fuerzas de seguridad; un régimen al que no se le puede llamar democracia. El pueblo hondureño se desangra mientras el mundo mira para otro lado. ¿A qué estamos esperando en esta casa para exigirle al Gobierno de un socio comercial y de desarrollo como Honduras que deje de matar y de reprimir a su pueblo?

Seamos coherentes y exijamos los derechos humanos y los valores democráticos en todas las partes del mundo por igual. El pueblo hondureño no puede esperar más. Los derechos humanos no tienen color político, ¿o sí lo tienen?

  President. – Thank you, although it was not on Venezuela.

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, în Venezuela, președintele Maduro a înlocuit parlamentul cu o construcție marionetă, prin care vrea practic să concentreze toate puterile în mâinile sale.

Mai departe, președintele anunțat alegeri prezidențiale în aprilie, însă a interzis candidaturile oponenților săi reali. Deci, iarăși vor fi niște alegeri fantomă, făcute special ca el să recâștige. Mai mult, executivul de la Caracas a folosit forța în mod brutal și repetat împotriva cetățenilor care au ieșit în stradă să-și ceară drepturile. În 2017, avem rapoarte care arată că peste 120 de oameni au murit, câteva mii au fost răniți și peste 300 au fost închiși din considerente politice.

Inflația de peste 4 000% a transformat criza economică din Venezuela, practic, într-o criză umanitară și avem de-a face cu o situație de securitate alimentară. Nu putem tolera acest aspect și trebuie să ajutăm oamenii, dar nu guvernul.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the situation in Venezuela. We must stand together with the Venezuelan people in their fight for human rights and democratic ruling of the country. We condemn the decision of the illegitimate National Constituent Assembly to call early presidential elections by the end of April 2018. It is of the utmost importance to continue imposing EU sanctions and in particular to extend them to the main perpetrators responsible for the increased political, social, economic and humanitarian crisis, namely President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle, Vice-President Tareck El Aissami, Minister of Defence Vladimir Padrino Lopez and the High Military Command. I call on the High Representative, Madame Mogherini, to take the necessary measures in this regard. The elections in Venezuela must be free and fair without any discrimination, qualifications or political prisoners.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, when I was growing up in South America in the 1970s Venezuela was the country that people emigrated to in order to get away from poverty and oppression. How quickly the application of socialism can turn a prosperous, functioning, modern economy into a disaster zone! 800% inflation, running out of food and basic medicines – and, incredibly, documented cases of malnutrition. All the way through the Chavez experiment we had voices on the left in this House and in the national governments cheering it on and saying that it should be a model for our European governments. Now, suddenly, it wasn’t socialism at all – it was sort of an experiment that went wrong, like all of the others, like Yugoslavia, like Romania, like Cuba, China, Russia. It’s always wonderful until it goes wrong, and then it was ‘never proper socialism in the first place’. Invariably the pattern is the same, with the displacement activity we just heard to the effect that, you know, something else bad is happening in Honduras and therefore we shouldn’t care at all. The reality is it was perfect textbook socialism control of an economy that reduced a once—wealthy country to poverty and dirt. When are we going to learn the lesson?

(Applause from certain quarters)

13.6. Situácia UNRWA (RC-B8-0085/2018, B8-0085/2018, B8-0086/2018, B8-0088/2018, B8-0089/2018, B8-0090/2018, B8-0093/2018)

Oral explanations of vote

  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, în primul rând transmit condoleanțe familiilor soldaților israelieni uciși, Hadar Goldin și Oron Shaul. Hamas și Autoritatea Palestiniană trebuie să returneze trupurile acestora.

În plus, acțiunile umanitare din Gaza ale Agenției Națiunilor Unite de Ajutorare și Lucrări pentru Refugiații Palestinieni din Orientul Apropiat trebuie susținute, pentru că sunt esențiale, fiindcă această agenție sprijină aproximativ 5 000 000 de refugiați palestinieni. Cerem Agenției să eficientizeze costurile, să le reducă, să le raportăm la beneficii, să continue reformele în domeniul educației pentru a o alinia la standardele ONU și să condamne folosirea facilităților sale de către Hamas, lucru care se întâmplă și nu este condamnat.

Agenția are în continuare nevoie de sprijin. Vom cere statelor arabe să suplimenteze finanțarea, dar și Agenția trebuie, la rândul ei, să fie vizibil eficientă.

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, con questa risoluzione il Parlamento europeo non solo ribadisce il sostegno all'attività dell'UNRWA, ma riafferma anche i principi del diritto internazionale, in primis lo status di Gerusalemme. Diritti palesemente violati e calpestati dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti Trump con la sua decisione unilaterale di riconoscere Gerusalemme come capitale di Israele in violazione alle risoluzioni ONU.

L'UNRWA esiste non perché lo vogliano i palestinesi, esiste perché esistono ancora i profughi palestinesi, cacciati dalle loro case e dalle loro terre, che dopo decenni rimangono rifugiati. Esiste perché Israele continua a occupare territori non suoi e il governo di Netanyahu ha di fatto boicottato quel poco che rimaneva del processo di pace. Bene quindi che il Parlamento ribadisca il suo sostegno all'UNRWA, ma non basta. Non basta quando le scuole finanziate dall'UNRWA vengono boicottate, vengono bombardate da Israele.

Come Unione europea abbiamo un accordo di associazione con Israele che prevede una clausola di sospensione in caso di violazione dei diritti umani. Sarebbe ora di farla valere.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, důvodem, proč jsem se stal vyjednávačem této dohody, bylo to, abych odstranil to, co říkala moje před řečnice. Aby se tato věc celá politizovala. To není zápas UNRWA, této organizace, to není zápas mezi Izraelem a Palestinou, to není zápas mezi Evropskou unií a Spojenými státy, to je o tom, že musíme pomáhat lidem, kteří to potřebují. Ale my musíme mít zároveň také nároky na tuto organizaci. Musíme jí sdělit jasně, že nehodláme trpět to, že budou třeba v učebnicích návody, jak útočit na Izrael, a musíme také říci, že nebudeme podporovat žádné školy, které jsou pojmenovány po teroristech. Tato věc není politická. Tato věc je humanitární a doufám, že i po této rezoluci ji bude takto Evropský parlament vnímat.

13.7. Úprava letného času (B8-0070/2018, B8-0071/2018)

Oral explanations of vote

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil postup té části Evropského parlamentu, která si myslí, že je dobře, abychom zavedli pouze jeden čas, aby se nestřídal letní a zimní čas. Jsem přesvědčený, že v dnešní době, kdy i odborníci jasně říkají, že střídání času nepřináší žádné ekonomické výhody, tak zachovat střídání času ve chvíli, kdy to způsobuje problémy určitým skupinám evropské populace, starším lidem, nemocným lidem, malým dětem, podle mě ztrácí svůj smysl. Proto si myslím, že je dobře, že jsme dneska přijali určitou rezoluci, i když v té měkčí formě, a bylo by dobře, aby se Evropská komise tímto zabývala a abychom časem opravdu zachovali v Evropě pouze jeden čas, který nebude způsobovat žádné skupině našich obyvatel problémy a dokonce nebude způsobovat problémy ani určitým druhům hospodářských zvířat.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, as the only Irish member on the ad hoc committee which has been looking at clock change for a couple of years now, I want, on behalf of my country, to thank Parliament firstly for putting this into the debate today, which unfortunately I couldn’t attend, because it clashed with shadows’ meetings that I had to engage in, but also for the vote that we have had here today. The vote is very conclusive. 384 voted in favour of the resolution, 153 against and 12 abstained. So now there’s a clear imperative for the European Commission to take this seriously, do a thorough assessment and then, hopefully, as a result of that assessment, come forward with a legislative proposal that will – hopefully – end this biannual change, which our evidence suggests is good neither for man or beast nor for energy.

  Jiří Payne (EFDD). – Pane předsedající, obvykle bývám velmi kritický k Evropské unii, ale v této věci musím říci, že Evropský parlament dnes přijal rezoluci, která vlastně otevírá cestu k deregulaci ve věci střídání zimního a letního času. Pro zajímavost, v Rusku zrušili střídání zimního a letního času již před sedmi lety. Když si pospíšíme, a já chápu, že v Evropské unii nám všechno trvá déle, tak naše zpoždění proti Rusku nebude až tak veliké. Dohodneme-li se na tom, že by se mělo zrušit střídání zimního a letního času, pak se velice hlásím k tomu, aby byl zrušen zimní čas. Abychom si pro Evropskou unii ponechali trvale čas letní.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, colleagues, in dealing with the issues that closely touch the everyday lives of European citizens, we have to stick to the evidence-based approach. The research that has so far been produced by the European Commission has shown that the summer-time change has very little impact on a person’s well-being. In addition to energy savings, it provides major opportunities for evening activities. Certainly we should encourage further research into this topic to find new evidence. If the need to stop changing the clocks is underpinned by the national governments, there will be a reason for us to consider adopting a relevant regulation. Otherwise, if this issue is not a priority for citizens or for the governments and would not bring meaningful benefits to the internal market, what is the reason for adopting new measures here in the European Parliament? Personally, colleagues, I’m not convinced so far about the need to change the current arrangements and I therefore voted against the resolution calling for the summer-time clock change to be stopped.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěl připomenout, že s touto iniciativou jsem se poprvé setkal u obyčejného pekaře na malé vesnici nedaleko Chrudimi. Jmenoval se pekař Pecka. A tehdy mu Petr Pithart slíbil ve volebním boji, že když ho podpoří v druhém kole, bude tuto změnu střídání letního a zimního času prosazovat. Bohužel se tak nestalo. Pak ji začal prosazovat Petr Šilar a následně se dostala i do našeho programu. Já si nemyslím, že dnešní hlasování by nějakým způsobem bylo zásadní. Ale myslím si, že to je dobrý pocit k tomu, abychom tu zaběhnutou rutinu střídání letního a zimního času, která nemá žádný ekonomický a jiný význam, prostě změnili. A myslím si, že je jedno, jestli bude letní nebo zimní čas. Myslím si, že nám, kteří jsme hlasovali pro tuto rezoluci, nejvíce vadí to, že se ten čas střídá. A doufejme, že se toho zrušení jednou dožijeme.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, 384 glasa za i 183 protiv jasan su znak Europskoj komisiji da se treba pozabaviti analizom računanja ljetnog i zimskog vremena i treba dokaze.

U svakom slučaju osobno se zalažem za ljetno računanje vremena i nadam se da to većina naših građana Europske unije, a i Hrvatske, podržava. U svakom slučaju, radi se o uštedi energije, radi se o zdravlju.

Međutim, bez temeljitog istraživanja ne bismo o ovome mogli govoriti i to je razlog zašto smo danas glasovali za Rezoluciju koja upućuje Komisiju na dodatna istraživanja. Nadam se da će doći do ovog rezultata koji većina nas priželjkuje, a to je ljetno računanje vremena.

  President. – That concludes the explanations of vote.

14. Opravy hlasovania a zámery pri hlasovaní: pozri zápisnicu

(The sitting was suspended at 12.57)

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

15. Pokračovanie prerušeného rokovania

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 Uhr wieder aufgenommen.)

16. Schválenie zápisnice z predchádzajúceho rokovania: pozri zápisnicu

17. Väčšie interpelácie (rozprava)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Große Anfrage gemäß Artikel 130b der Geschäftsordnung von Rosa D'Amato und Dario Tamburrano im Namen der EFDD-Fraktion an die Kommission betreffend die Transadriatische Pipeline in Italien (O-000086/2017 – 2017/3031(RSP)) (B8-0615/2017).

  Rosa D'Amato, autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Banca europea per gli investimenti stanzia un miliardo e mezzo per il Trans Adriatic Pipeline, la TAP. Un progetto inutile, dannoso, che va contro i principi, gli standard che l'Unione europea professa. La stessa Unione europea, persino attraverso i Fondi strutturali, ha finanziato questa opera. I cittadini lo denunciano da anni, ma l'Europa fa finta di non vedere. L'Europa non è solo cieca, per noi è complice. È complice di una truffa ai danni dei cittadini, perché TAP costa decine di miliardi e non serve all'Unione europea, non serve all'Italia.

Costruire la TAP non servirà a rilanciare l'economia, a uscire dalla crisi. La TAP ha una vita utile di almeno trent'anni e, vista la transizione energetica in atto, fra dieci o vent'anni avremo ancora bisogno di così tanto gas? I dati dicono di no, ci dicono che il gasdotto serve a emancipare l'Unione europea e l'Italia da approvvigionamenti di altri paesi, alcuni ad alto rischio come la Libia. Peccato che anche la TAP, che approderà in Puglia, passi per nazioni che potrebbero dare qualche preoccupazione: la Georgia, l'Azerbaigian, la Turchia.

A proposito di Azerbaigian, ci siamo dimenticati dell'inchiesta su quanto è avvenuto al Consiglio d'Europa con la compravendita di voti per fermare la mozione di condanna dell'Azerbaigian, che avrebbe impedito i finanziamenti della BEI? Ci siamo dimenticati dell'inchiesta giornalistica che rivela un intreccio di manager in odor di mafia, valige di contanti, oligarchi russi, affaristi italiani legati alla politica, casseforti anonime con la targa off shore? Tutto questo non merita un minimo di attenzione da parte di Bruxelles?

La verità è che costruire la TAP è un mega affare, in cui fondi di investimento, banche e assicurazioni sono pronti a tuffarsi, a patto che i rischi siano coperti da governi, dalla Commissione europea o da istituzioni finanziarie come la BEI, ossia dai soldi dei contribuenti.

La TAP è insostenibile anche sotto il profilo ambientale. Ricordo alla Commissione che le praterie di Posidonia sono nursery di specie di interesse commerciale, sono fondamentali per la salvaguardia dell'ambiente marino e costiero e per la pesca artigianale. Ricordo che, negli ultimi cinquant'anni, la Posidonia ha registrato una regressione del 10 % a causa, tra l'altro, dell'alterazione del regime sedimentario, la posa di cavi sottomarini e gasdotti. Non a caso, l'approdo è fra due aree SIC. Da un lato, l'Unione europea spende risorse attraverso i progetti LIFE per proteggere il nostro mare e, dall'altro, presta il fianco a ecomostri come la TAP che distruggono l'ambiente marino.

Non a caso, come ho scritto al Commissario, che ringrazio per la sua presenza, il ministro dell'Ambiente italiano ha avvocato a sé le verifiche di ottemperanza di ben undici prescrizioni per la realizzazione del gasdotto, sottraendole agli enti locali, tra cui la Regione. Pertanto, chiediamo di sapere se questa decisione violi la direttiva 2011/92/UE concernente la valutazione dell'impatto ambientale di determinati progetti pubblici e privati.

La VIA sulla TAP è stata rilasciata sulla base di uno studio di fattibilità e non di un progetto esecutivo. Le autorizzazioni ministeriali sono state concesse a fronte delle autocertificazioni di TAP, talvolta parziali e modificate in itinere. Un po' come gli studi dell'EFSA sul glifosato, tanto per capirci. La TAP è sicura? Ricordate l'incidente in Austria? Sul terminale di ricezione della TAP, il professor Ghezzi del Politecnico di Milano ha paventato rischi estremamente rilevanti, esplosioni e incendi, rischi accertati anche dalla Regione Puglia e che chiamano in causa la direttiva Seveso. Anche su questo vogliamo dall'Unione europea delle risposte chiare.

La TAP viola anche i diritti dei cittadini e lo Stato di diritto. Il cantiere TAP di Melendugno è un Far West, dove vige la legge del più forte, a scapito dei diritti dei cittadini e delle autorità pubbliche. Persino i vigili urbani hanno dovuto attendere quasi un'ora prima di poter accedere al cantiere, dove volevano soltanto verificare la regolarità e la legittimità di lavori in corso. Siamo dinanzi alla militarizzazione di San Foca. Le proteste pacifiche di cittadini e dei comuni vicini sono state silenziate dalla polizia.

In conclusione, chiediamo a Bruxelles uno studio di valutazione sulle conseguenze ambientali, economiche e sociali del gasdotto, di pronunciarsi sulle proteste degli abitanti di Melendugno e dei comuni interessati, perché lo Stato di diritto va rispettato, perché nell'Unione europea che vogliamo non può vigere la legge delle multinazionali a scapito dei diritti dei cittadini, perché il nostro mare va rispettato, perché la TAP va fermata.

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, today’s debate is a good opportunity to recall the importance of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline as a key infrastructure project for European Union energy security and the internal energy market, and how it fits into the broader European Union picture.

Let me start with a few words to put this project into its full context. Gas remains today a significant source of energy in the European Union, accounting for 22% of the Union energy mix. At the same time, Europe is increasingly dependent on imports of gas. The Union currently imports 70% of the gas it consumes; and, in 2016, 42% of these imports came from a single supplier. Our domestic production is declining at a faster pace than our gas demand, thus our import dependency for gas is expected to further increase, to more than 83% by 2040.

For that reason, the European Union has been pursuing a study of diversification of gas supply sources and routes. This diversification strategy has three key dimensions: first, the opening of the Southern Gas Corridor to bring gas from the Caspian region and the Middle East directly to Europe; second, benefitting from the developing global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market; and, third, developing a liquid-gas hub in the Mediterranean region.

I want to thank the European Parliament in this context for the support it has lent the Commission in our efforts to make gas supplies for our Member States more diversified and more secure, notably by supporting our LNG strategy and helping us achieve an ambitious compromise on the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. In this context, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is a key element of this strategy to promote diversified supply and competitive markets. It will provide a key link to the Southern Gas Corridor and the resources of the Caspian region for Italy and south-east Europe.

For Italy, this additional supply source is particularly important, given that the sale of gas in its energy mix, at 35%, and its substantial dependence – 90% – are both above the EU average. I would also remind you that Italy was the Member State that lost the most, in terms of GDP growth, from the gas cut-offs we saw in 2006 and 2009.

TAP will also be crucial in terms of lessening dependence on a single supplier in south-east Europe, creating a gas hub in the region and integrating this market with the rest of the European Union. We expect the TAP project to improve Europe’s energy security and lead to a more competitive market. This will ultimately benefit consumers, who will pay lower prices.

Let me now turn to the question raised about the potential environmental impact. A high level of environmental protection is, of course, of the highest priority for the Commission. First, I note that the necessary environmental and social impact assessments have been carried out for this project, and these included a list of conditions to be fulfilled before the construction phase, during the construction phase and in the operational phase itself. These assessments also include an appropriate impact assessment as defined by the European Union’s Habitats Directive, to exclude significant effects from the project. And I would point out that the pipeline does not fall into the offshore area protected by the Natura 2000 network.

Lastly, let me confirm to you that the Commission is in contact with the authorities to ensure that the project is carried out in line with the necessary standards and that all necessary measures will be taken to protect nature in the region. I look forward to a good exchange about this project.

  Andrejs Mamikins, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, while the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is an ambitious and game—changing project that can contribute to the EU’s efforts in decarbonising the economy and introducing environment friendly energy supply, it faces several criticisms, and not without reason.

The Trans-Adriatic Pipeline has so far encountered more obstacles than approvals. At least two investigations have been conducted on it, one about connections between the TAP project and Italian organised-crime groups and offshore capital, and the other about a tacit political and economic arrangement between Erdoğan, Aliyev and Russian oligarchic groups. Certainly these are issues that have to be addressed by their national governments.

However, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline is a project we need. It will facilitate gas supply not only to Italy, Bulgaria and Croatia but also to several Western Balkan countries, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. In the context of the current Western Balkan enlargement strategy, that has a specific value. TAP will create a stronger bond between this region and the EU and consequently improve our energy harmonisation. In addition, multiple opportunities will appear for the transport of Caspian natural gas to some of the largest European markets, such as Germany, France and Austria. If we are bound to build greater energy security in the EU, TAP will certainly make a great contribution – and, more than that, TAP means major economic development and job creation for all the countries concerned.

However, while the TAP corridor is a strategic priority for the Italian economy and other partners, it represents a matter of concern to ordinary citizens. Why? Tourism activities represent a big share of income on the Adriatic shore, and environmental security in this regard is a matter of great importance.

Such preoccupations have also frequently been raised by the authorities of Puglia, who are very concerned about the conservation of their olive groves. In Puglia they call olive oil the ‘green gold’ because it is the wealth of their region. Digging up their olive trees may compromise local livelihoods. Around 2 000 olive trees have to be removed and transplanted to make way for the pipeline, and the criticism raised by the head of the region, Michele Emiliano, is perfectly understandable.

So how can we be sure that the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline is in the interests of the private citizens who are actually paying for its construction? How can we guarantee that such large—scale projects are implemented with due democratic accountability to our citizens, and with thorough consultation with local authorities? The answer lies in democratic guarantees that the contracting governments have to give their citizens. We cannot apply the ‘business as usual’ tactic and present the project to the people as an accomplished fact.

In this specific case, a lack of preliminary consultation has brought about delays in the project’s implementation because no substantial compromise had previously been reached. To tell the truth, there was no significant attempt to reach such a compromise.

When we have to deal with such important initiatives, the EU must take the lead in filling the democratic gap. Businesses are often not interested in asking the opinion of the families who will have to live beside their new installations. Citizens need the certainty that TAP does not carry any potentially high industrial risk, such as that of explosions.

This is very important. Citizens need to be asked. I repeat this again and again because, in today’s Europe, where there is a desire to promote democratic consultation and accountability, respect for sustainability and the harmonious life of households, we cannot afford to let business be done only among the big players, while ordinary people stand looking on, without a say. That it is why it is very important to discuss this issue –very important even for my small country, among the Baltic states, Latvia. That is why we are discussing it here in Parliament.

  Urszula Krupa, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Gazociąg transadriatycki, jako końcowy fragment tzw. południowego korytarza gazowego, odgrywa rolę w planach polityczno-biznesowych Europy Zachodniej, szczególnie Niemiec i Rosji. Jednak nie mniej ważny jest aspekt środowiskowy, który jest podnoszony przez obywateli Włoch, gdyż gazociąg przechodzić ma przez obszar także aktywny sejsmicznie. Tektonicznie, obszar fałdowań alpejskich w Abruzji, na Sycylii, jest oceniany przez specjalistów od środowiska jako największe zagrożenie środowiskowe. Trzęsienia ziemi mogą doprowadzić do przerwania ciągłości rurociągu, poza możliwym zagrożeniem energo-terroryzmem.

W przypadku takiej inwestycji powinny być przeprowadzone konsultacje społeczne, które przewiduje konwencja z Aarhus i spory między lokalną społecznością a władzami odpowiedzialnymi za inwestycje powinny być rozstrzygane z wykorzystaniem przewidzianych w konwencji narzędzi. Osobiście bardzo żałuję, że takiej aktywności społecznej nie wykazywali obywatele krajów nadbałtyckich, pozwalając przeprowadzić gazociąg Nord Stream na dnie morza z ogromnym ryzykiem katastrofy ekologicznej Bałtyku, jaka może być spowodowana zaleganiem na dnie broni chemicznej, zatopionej po wojnach światowych we wrakach okrętów i kontenerach. Może Bałtyckie cechuje ogromna wrażliwość na zanieczyszczenia ze względu na ograniczoną wymianę wód z Morzem Północnym, gdzie obieg odbywający się przez wąskie cieśniny duńskie jest powodem, że całkowita wymiana wód bałtyckich na oceaniczne trwa od 25 do 35 lat. Wszystkie obce substancje wnoszone do Morza Bałtyckiego pozostają w nim przez wiele lat, stwarzając ogromne zagrożenie ekologiczne, naruszenie dna morskiego, skał będących siedliskiem dla żywych organizmów.

  Ivan Jakovčić, u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, želim jasno poručiti da podržavam TAP, podržavam Trans Adriatic Pipeline, ali želim isto tako jasno reći da se želim solidarizirati s onima koji će trpjeti zbog toga. I tu moramo pomoći svakom onom koji zaista iskreno želi podržati velike projekte bitne za Europsku uniju, ali istovremeno moramo upravo na taj način pristupiti građanima i pokazati našu solidarnost s njima.

I zato se ja želim solidarizirati s kolegicom iz Puglie, iz Italije, kao što znam da isto tako kao i kod nas u Hrvatskoj postoje slični problemi. LNG terminal koji se želi napraviti na otoku Krku, taj terminal kojega će financirati Europska komisija, novcima koje mi odobravamo ovdje u Europskom parlamentu, ima problema ozbiljnih u svojoj izvedbi. U namjeri tehnologije koja se želi sad nametnuti je nešto što je potpuno neprihvatljivo. Načelo partnerstva s lokalnom zajednicom nitko ovdje ne poštuje. Mi znamo da imamo to načelo u Europskoj uniji.

Evo, ovdje imam zaključak Županijske skupštine Primorsko-goranske županije u kojem se jasno kaže da oni jesu za izgradnju LNG terminala na otoku Krku, ali nisu za plutajući terminal, pogotovo ne za plutajući s tehnologijom koja se sada nudi. Znači ako već imamo partnera koji je spreman trpjeti i prihvatiti jedan LNG terminal pa napravimo ga tako da on bude prihvatljiv za okoliš i prihvatljiv za sve koji žele taj terminal. Naravno da govorim o tome da treba potrošiti nešto malo više novca jer treba napraviti terminal na kopnu, a ne plutajući, pogotovo ne taj, kakav se sad zamišlja s tehnologijom da jedemo možda kvarnerske škampe pune klora. Pa valjda nam to nije cilj. Valjda nam nije cilj uništiti turizam, valjda nam nije cilj uništiti podmorje i morske organizme na Kvarneru.

Dakle, ono za što ja želim se založiti ovom prilikom je: učinimo ono što je najbolje za ljude i za njihov život jer i druga odluka koju imamo, zaključak od Općine Omišalj koji također govori o tome da prihvaća kopneni terminal, ali ne onakav kakav se predlaže.

I zašto mi dajemo novac za nešto što građani ne žele? I nema partnerstva s tim građanima.

Dakle, želim poručiti da osim te lokacije znamo jako dobro da na sjevernom Jadranu imamo mogućnosti i drugih lokacija koje su čak i bolje nego što je taj kopneni terminal na Krku. Imamo na Urinju već, da tako kažem, devastiran prostor, u Plominu je također devastiran prostor i puno bi bolje bilo naći drugu lokaciju. Ali, ako se ne želi odustati od lokacije na otoku Krku, učinimo to napokon u partnerstvu s građanima.

  Eleonora Forenza, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio in primo luogo associarmi integralmente alle parole dette dalla collega D'Amato. Penso che la conoscenza diretta che abbiamo del territorio di cui stiamo parlando, essendo entrambe pugliesi, ci aiuti nella comprensione di quello che sta accadendo e nella condivisione della valutazione del progetto TAP.

Il progetto TAP, si diceva, fa parte del Southern Gas Corridor, il cosiddetto gasdotto del Sud, che per 3 500 chilometri dovrebbe portare il gas dell'Azerbaigian fino all'Italia. Il costo complessivo dell'opera è stimato in 45 miliardi di dollari, col fine di ridurre la dipendenza energetica dalla Russia. Questo è quello che ci ricordava poc'anzi anche il Commissario.

Quello che il Commissario non ci ricordava, o ha omesso di ricordarci, è che queste risorse saranno gettate in primo luogo in pasto a società che fanno parte del consorzio TANAP, che sono invischiate in vicende di corruzione, tant'è che le inchieste giornalistiche definiscono il TAP il "mafiodotto". La Banca europea per gli investimenti ha da poco concesso un prestito pubblico, uno dei più imponenti della storia, di 1,5 miliardi di EUR. È uno scandalo su cui non mancheremo di interrogare ulteriormente la Commissione.

Manca una valutazione seria di impatto ambientale dell'opera. Manca una valutazione circa le emissioni e le perdite, manca una valutazione sulla compatibilità dell'opera con i propositi sanciti dalla COP23.

Poco più di due ore fa abbiamo votato una risoluzione del Parlamento europeo che testimonia la preoccupazione sul tema dei diritti umani in Turchia. Noi andiamo esattamente a stringere affari con il governo di Erdogan, per non parlare della situazione in Azerbaigian.

Ma vorrei qui menzionare alcuni cittadini e cittadine europei, che sono le cittadine e i cittadini pugliesi, il cui parere sembra non contare nella determinazione di questa decisione. Non so se il Commissario è stato a Melendugno, a San Foca, una delle aree costiere più belle della Puglia e del Mar Adriatico. Non so se ha potuto vedere gli olivi abbattuti per la cantierizzazione della TAP, oltre che per la gestione sciagurata della questione xylella. Non so se sa di una terra militarizzata, delle denunce, delle cariche della polizia contro i cittadini che manifestavano contro la TAP. Non so se sa di una totale assenza di coinvolgimento della popolazione locale e della Regione Puglia. Non so se sa che non sono ancora visibili, che sono nascoste, le carte che hanno autorizzato la cantierizzazione. Di tutto questo io mi auguro che il Commissario possa rispondere e rendersi conto che la TAP va fermata.

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), zilās kartītes jautājums. –Forenza kundze! Paldies par jūsu runu, bet es īsti nesapratu, jūs esat, vispārēji runājot, par vai pret šo projektu, jo es pilnīgi piekrītu jums tajā ziņā, ka iedzīvotāju viedoklis ir obligāti jāņem vērā, pirms mēs kaut ko būvēsim vai kaut ko pieņemsim, kaut kādu lēmumu. Bet tā, jā vai nē, plus vai mīnus, jūs esat par vai pret šo projektu.

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Sono contro, totalmente contro questo progetto e ribadisco che non c'è stata nessuna consultazione della popolazione locale e nessun coinvolgimento della Regione Puglia. Credo che questo abbia a che fare non solo con i rischi ambientali del progetto TAP, ma anche con la cancellazione di una decisione democratica sulla realizzazione di quel progetto e con la cancellazione dello Stato di diritto che consegue alla militarizzazione di quel cantiere.

  Laurenţiu Rebega, în numele grupului ENF. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, unul dintre argumentele împotriva conductei Tap și a folosirii gazului, în general, este faptul că este nociv mediului.

Cu toate acestea, sud-estul Europei folosește mai mult cărbune decât gaz pentru energie, cărbunele având un impact și mai mare asupra schimbărilor climatice pe termen lung. Într-adevăr, idealul pentru întreaga Europă și lume este alimentarea cu energie regenerabilă, însă acest ideal este încă în lucru.

Consider că alimentarea Italiei și a Sudului Europei cu gaz și, implicit, asigurarea securității energetice nu trebuie și nu va încetini cu nimic dezvoltarea energiilor regenerabile. Până când idealul alimentării depline cu energie regenerabilă va fi atins, gazul rămâne o variantă viabilă.

Mai mult decât atât, acest proiect are potențialul de a întări cooperarea între țările membre ale Uniunii Europene, precum Grecia, și țările aspirante la Uniunea Europeană, precum Albania. De asemenea, acest proiect poate îmbunătăți infrastructura energetică a întregii regiuni, nu doar a statelor pe care conducta le va străbate, aducând astfel beneficii economice acestor țări și regiuni. Pentru Albania, spre exemplu, construirea și găzduirea conductei poate facilita integrarea europeană prin creșterea stabilității economice și a importanței geostrategice a acestui stat.

Construirea conductei vine și cu beneficii pentru comunitățile locale, prin angajări, achiziții și taxe care vor fi plătite statelor în cauză. Noi, politicienii, suntem în slujba cetățenilor și trebuie să le reprezentăm interesele atât acum, cât și pe viitor. Autoritățile locale trebuie să discute cu cetățenii, nu să se impună cu forța. Trebuie să caute să-i înțeleagă și să-și explice acțiunile într-un mod obiectiv, clar și pe înțeles. Trebuie să comunice cu oamenii și să facă din comunitățile lor parteneri pentru un viitor mai sigur și prosper.

Acum, Europa are legături în privința alimentării cu gaz cu Rusia, Africa și Marea Nordului. Adăugarea unei noi surse și unei noi rute reduce riscul de a deveni dependenți, de a ne confrunta cu crize energetice așa cum s-a întâmplat în 2009 și, nu în ultimul rând, riscul de a ajunge supuși prețurilor și intereselor unora.

Europa are, așadar, nevoie de o alternativă pentru alimentarea cu gaz, dar are nevoie și de dialog deschis și eficient cu cetățenii. Încurajez pe această cale continuarea proiectului, datorită perspectivelor pentru independența energetică a Sudului și - de ce nu? - a întregii Europe.

(Vorbitorul acceptă să răspundă la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonaşului albastru” (articolul 162 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD), domanda "cartellino blu". – Si parla di decarbonizzazione ma qui c'è una difficoltà di fondo a capire che decarbonizzare non vuol dire eliminare il carbone, ma il carbonio, il che vuol dire anche il gas, il che vuol dire le fonti fossili, e invece di sottrarci dalla dipendenza delle fonti fossili noi continuiamo a finanziarle. Un progetto che fra trent'anni sarà sicuramente inutile. Ricordo la Turchia ha appena firmato un accordo – e chiedo al Commissario se è vero – con Gazprom, e quindi il gas continuerà ad arrivare …

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Frau Kollegin D'Amato. Ich möchte erstens daran erinnern, dass man bei Fragen auch fragen sollte, und zweitens, dass ich nach 30 Sekunden ohne großes Klopfen den entsprechenden Redner unterbreche.

Herr Kollege Rebega, möchten Sie trotzdem antworten?

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ENF), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Domnule președinte, nu am înțeles întrebarea. Care este întrebarea?

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I think that some perspective is needed in this debate. While I completely agree that there is a huge need to move towards a system that is primarily based on renewable energy – and I strongly welcome Parliament’s opting for ambition last month when it backed our proposal for a 35% target for renewable energy – this is a more complex issue that I feel is often overly simplified.

First of all, as Commissioner Arias Cañete pointed out, security of supply is of crucial importance, particularly in our eastern Member States which have at various times in recent years actually experienced gas shortages. At the moment we still have a lot of dependency on gas, both for heating and for electricity generation. We have an obligation to push our ambitions on renewables and climate change.

There is no doubt about this, but there is equally an obligation to ensure supply security to our citizens, many of whom have real concerns in this regard. At the moment, diversifying gas supply is our most effective method of doing so in many regions.

Secondly, the transition to renewables is moving quickly, particularly in recent years, but it is still a gradual process. Fossil fuels, preferably gas rather than coal or oil, and biomass will be needed to provide the base-load generation that balances our energy system to ensure the cost effectiveness and feasibility of integrating more and more renewables. I have been at the centre of calls for increased investment, under the ninth Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP9), in the development and improvement of balancing and storage technologies that we hope will be able to replace fossil fuels in time for this purpose. But again, this will take time.

Regarding the wider debate on the inclusion of certain projects on the list of projects of common interest (PCIs), that seems to have inspired this afternoon’s debate: yes, the PCI list includes certain fossil projects, but these are of strategic interest to the European Union. They are about ensuring supply security with interconnectors, pipelines and terminals for liquid natural gas (LNG). They are about helping to improve the functioning of our markets and moving towards a single European internal market for gas and electricity. And perhaps most importantly, they are about helping to ensure affordability of energy for the consumer.

So, all in all, I think that this project is worthwhile. We have to take on board concerns, but at the same time security of supply is of crucial importance and projects that secure supply for our citizens must not be disregarded.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL), domanda "cartellino blu". – Onorevole Kelly, non ritorno su quello che ho già detto durante l'intervento. Ho già spiegato perché non condivido quello che lei ha appena detto. Le chiedo soltanto: lei pensa che si possa costruire un progetto con quell'impatto ambientale contro la volontà delle cittadine e dei cittadini che abitano in quel territorio? Contro la volontà della Regione Puglia, che è l'ente locale che insiste su quel territorio? Pensa che la volontà di quelle cittadine e di quei cittadini europei possa essere completamente ignorata?

  Seán Kelly (PPE), blue-card answer. – No, it’s not. Obviously the views of local populations have to be taken into consideration, but just because the local population objects to something doesn’t mean the whole project should fall. They have to be properly consulted, they have to make their points known, but there is also an obligation on those who run the project to inform them of the full facts, and then people can proceed. And I think in this instance the balance would suggest that the security of supply is absolutely vital because without it the locals, communities and customers in general, will be without gas and without heating and will pay more.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, разбира се природата трябва да се пази, хората в Пулия трябва да се питат, трябва да има пълно участие на гражданското общество. В това няма никакво съмнение. Обаче, уважаеми колеги, нека Ви уведомя, че всяка година, всяка зима ние на Балканите – в България, Румъния, Гърция и Хърватска се чудим дали ще има газ или няма да има, какви са отношенията между Русия и Украйна, ще спрат ли газопровода, няма ли да го спрат и какво ще се случи. Това вреди на нашата икономика и на икономиката на тези държави – на Австрия, Унгария, Украйна и Италия.

Нека бъдем реалисти – трябват ни повече източници на газ и ни трябва източник към нашата индустрия, защото предполагам, че колегите тук в залата не се хранят със слънчева енергия и не ядат само природосъобразни храни. Имаме индустрия и за тази индустрия ни трябва енергоносител. За този енергоносител ни трябва разделяне на източниците. Който е против този газопровод, работи за интереса на една чужда северна държава, а това е малко странно.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността))

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), zilās kartītes jautājums. – Paldies, priekšsēdētāja kungs, īpaši par to, ka jūs apveltījāt manu personību ar visādām dotībām, bet īstenībā jautājums man ir tas pats, ko es uzdevu Forenza kundzei, arī Dzhambazki kungam. Es pazīstu jūs, Dzhambazki kungs, kā — neskatoties uz to, ka jūs piederat pie ļoti konservatīvām politikām,— ļoti godīgu vīru un ļoti nopietnu, kad jūs lemjat par projektiem, jūs esat par vai pret, īsāk sakot, plus vai mīnus, balts vai melns.

  Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), blue-card answer. – Yes, I am in favour. We need more sources, we need more pipes than one from Russia. That is true.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, mulțumesc pentru că ne-ați dat câteva informații care eu cred că sunt relevante. Sigur, nu există sistem ideal, sigur că trebuie să facem compromisuri, nu va fi niciodată o posibilitate să avem 100 % mediul curat.

Eu știu, colega, e foarte frumos să spunem, și populist chiar, noi pledăm aici să nu avem poluare zero, să nu mai avem nimic. Dar securitatea energetică despre care dumneavoastră ați vorbit, faptul că depindem 70 % de importuri și chiar cu tendința de a crește la 80 %, consider că sunt argumente extraordinar de importante pentru a susține acest proiect TAP și eu îl susțin.

Evident că este importantă consultarea, dar să știți că eu am trăit într-o zonă cu inundații și autoritățile locale le spuneau cetățenilor să nu construiască, că le ia apa casa și, totuși, ei au construit. De foarte multe ori trebuie să-i facem să înțeleagă pe cetățeni. Cei care iau decizii trebuie să știe cum să explice, încât să înțeleagă cetățeanul că mai târziu se întoarce împotriva lui dacă trebuie să ne opunem la un proiect atât de important cum este proiectul TAP. Eu susțin întru totul acest proiect, cu consultarea, bineînțeles, a autorităților.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Der Präsident. – Bevor ich Herrn Kommissar das Wort erteile, will ich gern die Gelegenheit nutzen, dass mit Herrn Bullmann ein amtierendes Mitglied der Konferenz der Präsidenten da ist. Ich würde gerne was sagen, was ich meinem Fraktionsvorsitzenden auch schon gesagt habe: Wir haben seit einem Jahr dieses neue Instrument der Großen Anfragen. Das ist nun leider am Donnerstagnachmittag, mit relativ wenig Resonanz gelandet. Irgendwas muss am Donnerstagnachmittag stattfinden.

Das ist erkennbar ein wichtiges Thema. Ich halte es nicht für ganz angemessen, dass die Konferenz der Präsidenten entschieden hat, dass man praktisch nirgendwo nachlesen kann, um was es geht. Es steht da nur O-000086/2017, und nur an einer Stelle erfährt man, dass es sich um die Transadriatische Pipeline handelt. Ich glaube, wir könnten das etwas mehr darstellen, um was es an diesem Donnerstagnachmittag geht.

Spontan, Herr Bullmann?

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Das ist eine Premiere, dass man spontan in diesem Haus das Wort bekommt. Auch das könnte möglicherweise Schule machen und uns zu ein bisschen mehr Lebendigkeit verhelfen. Ich danke Ihnen sehr für diese direkte Ansprache. Ich bin dazugestoßen, um zuzuhören, und ich werde Ihre Anregung mitnehmen. Ich möchte den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die jetzt im Plenum sind, aber natürlich auch den Angehörigen, dem Kommissar und den Kommissionsmitarbeitern ausdrücklich Dank sagen, weil ich glaube, die Beratungen sind aller Ehren wert.

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission has followed with the utmost attention all the concerns expressed by the honourable Members during this very interesting debate. As I said in my introductory remarks, the Commission sees the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as an important project not only for Italy but also for south-east Europe and the European Union as a whole, because it will bring significant energy security and diversification of gas supply sources. It also has the potential to stimulate investment, to create jobs and improve their quality and ultimately to reduce energy prices to the consumer.

I would like to comment in reply to some of the reflections, particularly from Ms D’Amato, who raised many topics and I will try to address some of them. My first comment is related to respect for human rights in countries which supply energy to the European Union. The Southern Gas Corridor, beyond its energy dimension, also serves as a unique platform for engagement with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Mutual interdependence in relation to the Southern Gas Corridor project thus contributes to security and to a dialogue that aims to secure positive developments, in line with the core values of the European Union, including human dignity, freedom of democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. And pursuing our economic interests will not compromise the defence of our values. In our experience, the most reliable and effective way to promote them in a sovereign partner country is through dialogue and constructive engagement. In this spirit, on 7 February 2017, the European Union launched negotiations on a new agreement with Azerbaijan that will replace the 1996 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

There was a comment about the possible effect on climate change and the impact vis-à-vis the Paris Agreement. I would say that the TAP and the Southern Gas Corridor will not, per se, increase gas-related greenhouse gas emissions because this is an alternative source of gas and it is not intended to serve demand growth. The objective is to diversify sources in order to increase energy security. In fact, it is very likely to reduce the carbon footprint of the units of gas arriving in the European Union because the entire corridor will consist of brand new, state-of-the-art pipeline infrastructures, which are inevitably less leakage-prone than those built in the 1970s.

Many of you referred to the environmental impact the project may have. The environmental impact assessment for the TAP started in 2012. It was improved through the Environmental Impact Assessment Decree issued by the Italian Minister for the Environment in September 2014, with 65 conditions to be fulfilled during the pre-construction, construction and operational phases of the project. Subsequently, in May 2015, the Italian Minister of the Economy issued development consent for the TAP.

It is clear that there were legislation changes in the area of environmental impact assessment in Italy, and the powers to approve some verification-of-compliance conditions were given back to central government. Ms D’Amato asked the Commission some questions, which have been answered in a letter from Commissioner Vella, raising the issue of whether the decision to give to central government the power to approve this verification of compliance would violate three environmental directives. The answer from the Commission was that the arrangements for the transposition of European Union law at regional level, and the delegation of institutional responsibility for fulfilling requirements designated through acts of national or regional transposition, are the responsibility of Member States; and it was concluded that, in the specific case raised by the honourable Member, no infringement of European law could be identified.

In the Commission’s view, there has been a commitment from the TAP project promoters to avoid any environmental or negative social impact. Some 20 landfall points along the Apulian coastline were studied, from Brindisi to Tronto, in order to identify the one, at San Foca, with the least environmental impact. A state of the art micro-tunnel was used for the landing point, passing more than 10 metres below the beach. So there will be no impact on the shoreline, and this technology will avoid interference with protected sea and land habitats and, at the same time, will render the pipeline invisible.

Also, the width of the pipeline has been reduced. Care has been taken in respect of sustainable water management: the pipeline has been buried 1.5 metres below agriculture land to ensure that farmers can continue using their land, and olive trees will be relocated. They will be stored temporarily until they can be replanted.

We also understand that the TAP project promoters are implementing social and environmental investment projects in communities along the route. These projects are being implemented to promote sustainable development, and in full consultation and cooperation with communities along the pipeline route. In Italy, the focus has been on livelihoods, tourism, agriculture and fisheries, and community services and infrastructure. Project funding has been raised from small-scale grants, local community initiatives and regional development partnerships.

There were some comments on whether the pipelines had to be assessed according to the Seveso Directives. The so-called Seveso III Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances does not apply to the transport of dangerous substances in pipelines, as this would typically be regulated by other relevant legislation.

There was another question on whether there would be Russian gas in this pipeline. I can tell you, honourable Members, that there will not be Russian gas in the TAP when it comes into operation in 2020 and opens up the Southern Gas Corridor. With an initial capacity of 10 billion cubic metres, it will be transporting gas only from the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, and no other gas can be transported as part of this initial capacity as that would be in violation of the exemption decision that TAP received from the national energy regulatory authorities. If the capacity is doubled, there will be provision for additional use of capacity in a non-discriminatory manner.

Finally, the Commission was asked whether it envisaged carrying out an impact assessment of the project’s economic and social consequences. The Commission does not envisage carrying out such an assessment for a specific projects. Such assessments are the responsibility of project promoters, and the promoters of the TAP carried out very extensive assessments of environmental social impacts for all the countries it crosses – Greece, Albania and Italy. The complete dossiers on these environmental and social impact assessment are publicly available on the TAP website.

The Commission understands that very high-quality environmental and social impact assessments were also requested by the international financial institutions approached by the TAP project promoters for the project financing. These assessments were recently positively approved by the European Investment Bank due-diligence team when the loan application from the promoters of the TAP project was proposed to the EIB Board of Directors, and agreed on 6 February.

But the usefulness of the TAP has been scrutinised by the Commission. The Commission, together with other members of the regional groups established under the TEN-E Regulation in the context of the projects of common interest (PCI) process, assessed the TAP contribution to energy policy objectives, such as security of supply, market integration, promotion of competition and sustainability. The assessment was done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis carried out on TAP’s behalf and the main results are available on the TAP website. In this context, the TAP was positively assessed as contributing to energy policy, and it was therefore included in the list of projects of common interest (PCI list) initially in 2013, and subsequently in 2015 and 2017.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

18. Rozhodnutia týkajúce sa určitých dokumentov: pozri zápisnicu

19. Zaslanie textov prijatých počas rokovania: pozri zápisnicu

20. Termíny nasledujúcich rokovaní: pozri zápisnicu

21. Skončenie rokovania

  Der Präsident. – Bevor ich schließe, wünsche ich Ihnen eine gute Heimreise. Und allen die auf der deutschen Seite nach Hause unterwegs sind, sei gesagt, dass wir einen besonderen Tag im Fasching haben; das nennen wir „Altweiberfasching“ und es ist dort üblich, dass Männern die Krawatten abgeschnitten werden. Die Herren sollten also schauen, dass sie die Krawatten abnehmen, und den Damen sei gesagt: Wenn Sie eine Krawatte abschneiden wollen, tun Sie es heute, aber tun Sie es bitte auf der deutschen Seite! Einen guten Heimweg, ein schönes Wochenende.

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.49 Uhr geschlossen.)

22. Prerušenie zasadania

  Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.