European Parliament decision of 2 December 2015 on setting up a special committee on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE 2), its powers, numerical strength and term of office (2015/3005(RSO))

P8_TA(2015)0420 B8-1335/2015

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents,

–  having regard to the decision of the Commission to investigate tax ruling practice under EU state aid rules in all Member States,

–  having regard to the obligation of all Member States under EU taxation rules to communicate to other Member States, by spontaneous exchange, information on tax rulings, in particular if there may be a loss of tax in another Member State or a saving of tax may result from artificial transfers of profits within groups of enterprises,

–  having regard to its decision of 12 February 2015(1) on setting up a special committee on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (the "TAXE 1 special committee"), its powers, numerical strength and term of office,

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect(2),

–  having regard to Rule 197 of its Rules of Procedure,

1.  Decides to set up a special committee on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect (TAXE 2) to examine practice in the application of EU state aid and taxation law in relation to tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect issued by Member States, if such practice appears to be the act of a Member State or the Commission, and on harmful corporate tax regimes and practices at European and international level, which shall:

2.  For that purpose, decides that the TAXE 2 special committee shall be vested with the following powers:

3.  Decides that the TAXE 2 special committee shall have 45 members (as the TAXE 1 special committee had);

4.  Considers it appropriate that the structure of the TAXE 1 special committee should be kept in the TAXE 2 special committee;

5.  Decides that the term of office of the TAXE 2 special committee shall be 6 months, beginning on 2 December 2015;

6.  Considers it appropriate that the TAXE 2 special committee present a resolution or a report drafted by two co-rapporteurs to sum up its work.

(1) Texts adopted of that date, P8_TA(2015)0039. (2) Texts adopted of that date, P8_TA(2015)0408. (3) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. (4) OJ L 336, 27.12.1977, p. 15. (5) OJ L 64, 11.3.2011, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 2 December 2015 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Liechtenstein providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (COM(2015)0395 – C8-0320/2015 – 2015/0175(NLE))

P8_TA(2015)0421 A8-0334/2015

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2015)0395),

–  having regard to the draft Amending Protocol to the Agreement between the European Community and the Principality of Liechtenstein providing for measures equivalent to those laid down in Council Directive 2003/48/EC on taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments (11798/2015),

–  having regard to Article 115 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), and paragraph (8), second subparagraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0320/2015),

–  having regard to Rules 59, 108(7) and 50(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0334/2015),

1.  Approves conclusion of the Amending Protocol to the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Principality of Liechtenstein.

European Parliament resolution of 2 December 2015 on the Special Report of the European Ombudsman in own-initiative inquiry OI/5/2012/BEH-MHZ concerning Frontex (2014/2215(INI))

P8_TA(2015)0422 A8-0343/2015

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Special Report of the European Ombudsman of 7 November 2013 in own-initiative inquiry OI/5/2012/BEH-MHZ concerning Frontex,

–  having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union,

–  having regard to Articles 67(1), 72, 228(1) (second subparagraph) and 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 (Right to good administration) and Article 47 (Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial),

–  having regard to Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties, and in particular Article 3(7) thereof,

–  having regard to Resolution 1932 (2013) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on ‘Frontex: human rights responsibilities’,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (the Frontex regulation),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union,

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled ‘EU Action Plan on return’ (COM(2015)0453),

–  having regard to the Frontex code of conduct for joint return operations coordinated by Frontex,

–  having regard to the European Council conclusions of 15 October 2015, in particular Point 2(n) thereof,

–  having regard to the UN Convention of 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention) and to the New York Protocol of 1967 relating to the Status of Refugees,

–  having regard to Rule 220(2), first sentence, of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions under Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A8-0343/2015),

A.  whereas Regulation (EU) No 1168/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing a European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (hereinafter the Frontex regulation) requires that the Agency ensures full respect for fundamental rights and for the rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers;

B.  whereas Frontex, like any other EU institution, body, office or agency, has to comply in its activities with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and whereas this obligation finds its translation in Article 263 TFEU, according to which ‘acts setting up bodies, offices and agencies of the Union may lay down specific conditions and arrangements concerning actions brought by natural or legal persons against acts of these bodies, offices or agencies intended to produce legal effects in relation to them’;

C.  whereas even today Frontex coordination activity cannot in practice be dissociated from the Member State activity carried out under its coordination, so that Frontex (and thereby the EU through it) could also have a direct or indirect impact on individuals’ rights and trigger, at the very least, the EU’s extra-contractual responsibility (see Court of Justice Judgment T-341/07, Sison III); whereas such responsibility cannot be avoided simply because of the existence of administrative arrangements with the Member States involved in a Frontex-coordinated operation when such arrangements have an impact on fundamental rights;

D.  whereas the Union is to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe;

E.  whereas Article 26a of the Frontex regulation provides for a Fundamental Rights Strategy and requires the Agency to draw up and further develop and implement such a strategy, establish a Consultative Forum and designate a Fundamental Rights Officer;

F.  whereas Article 5(a) of the Code of Conduct for All Persons Participating in Frontex Activities stresses that participants in Frontex activities shall, inter alia, promote the provision of information on rights and procedures to persons who are seeking international protection;

G.  whereas Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 provides that team members responsible for carrying out monitoring and surveillance activities at the external borders must comply with Community law and the national law of the host Member State;

H.  whereas in 2012 the European Ombudsman opened an own-initiative inquiry into the implementation by Frontex of its fundamental rights obligations;

I.  whereas the draft recommendations of the European Ombudsman include implementing an individual complaints mechanism;

J.  whereas the European Ombudsman further issued a Special Report, in which the implementation of an individual complaints mechanism was insisted upon;

K.  whereas under Rule 220(2) of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, the European Ombudsman is obliged to inform Parliament of cases of maladministration, and whereas the committee responsible may draw up a report on such cases;

L.  whereas Frontex is tasked to ensure the efficient implementation of the common rules on standards and procedures for the control and surveillance of the external borders with respect to fundamental rights, by means of closer coordination of operational cooperation between Member States, and whereas these activities clearly have human rights implications which have not been adequately tackled by Frontex and the EU;

M.  whereas Frontex also builds operational cooperation with countries outside the EU as an integral part of its mission, in key areas such as information exchange, risk analysis, training, research and development, joint operations (including joint return operations) and pilot projects;

N.  whereas according to Article 14(1) of the Frontex regulation, the Agency and the Member States shall comply with norms and standards at least equivalent to those set by Union legislation, also when cooperation with third countries takes place on the territory of those countries;

O.  whereas Frontex's operational cooperation with the competent authorities of partner countries is conducted through working arrangements which are not legally binding and fall outside the scope of international law, and whose practical implementation is not to be regarded as fulfilment of international obligations by Frontex and the EU; whereas this situation constitutes an element of legal uncertainty which may be seen as in contradiction with Frontex's human rights obligations;

P.  whereas Frontex and the Member States have shared but distinct responsibilities regarding the actions of the officers deployed in Frontex operations and pilot projects;

Q.  whereas in light of the increase of competences of Frontex since its establishment, the Agency should be held accountable as a primary stakeholder in the border management process, including when allegations of fundamental rights are involved;

R.  whereas most participants in Frontex operations are guest officers sent by Member States other than that hosting the Frontex operation, in support of that operation;

S.  whereas according to Article 2a of the Frontex regulation the code of conduct is applicable to all persons participating in the activities of the Agency;

T.  whereas under Article 10(3) of the Frontex regulation guest officers participating in Frontex missions may only perform tasks and exercise powers under instructions from and, as a general rule, in the presence of border guards of the host Member State;

U.  whereas the use of different uniforms alongside the Frontex emblem during Frontex operations makes it difficult for individuals to identify under whose authority an officer falls and, ultimately, where to file a complaint – whether with Frontex or directly with the Member State concerned;

V.  whereas under Article 3(1a) of the Frontex regulation the Agency does not possess executive powers in the Member States and has no authority to sanction Member States or their officials;

W.  whereas the operational plans of Frontex joint operations are legally binding, and under Article 3a(1) of the Frontex regulation have to be agreed by the Frontex Executive Director and the host Member State, in consultation with the participating Member States;

X.  whereas Frontex has already established an incident reporting system which involves the Frontex operations division, the Frontex legal unit and the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer, with the ultimate decision being taken by the Frontex Executive Director; whereas this system involves internal complaints received from Frontex staff and guest officers, and consequently does not cater for direct complaints by individuals claiming a breach of their fundamental rights;

Y.  whereas individual complaints mechanisms already exist at European level within the structures of the European Investment Bank, the European Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Network of Ombudsmen; whereas it should be noted that Frontex is an operational agency differing in nature from the above-mentioned organisations;

Z.  whereas the Commission has committed to a review of Frontex in the near future;

Why Frontex should set up an individual complaints mechanism

1.  Welcomes the Special Report of the European Ombudsman in the framework of the own-initiative inquiry concerning Frontex; supports Frontex’s efforts in taking on board 12 of the Ombudsman’s 13 recommendations; acknowledges Frontex’s current efforts to enhance respect for fundamental rights in the form of, but not limited to, the setting-up of an incident reporting system as well as devising codes of conduct, creating a Consultative Forum on fundamental rights and establishing a Fundamental Rights Office;

2.  Supports the recommendation by the European Ombudsman that Frontex should deal with individual complaints regarding infringements of fundamental rights in the course of its operations and should provide adequate administrative support for that purpose; calls on Frontex to set up an appropriate complaints mechanism, including within the framework of its working arrangements concluded with the competent authorities of third countries;

3.  Expresses its deep concern at the legal vacuum that surrounds the deployment of third‑country officers during joint return operations, as pointed out in the European Ombudsman's report, as well as at the lack of accountability which would thus prevail in the case of human rights violations involving third-country officers;

4.  Believes that in view of the ever-growing humanitarian and legal challenges at the EU’s external borders and the strengthening of Frontex operations there is a need for a mechanism that is capable of processing individual complaints about alleged breaches of fundamental rights occurring in the course of Frontex operations or cooperation with third countries, thus becoming a first-instance body for complaints;

5.  Considers that the setting-up of a mechanism for individual complaints would provide individuals with an opportunity to exercise their right to an effective remedy in case of violation of their fundamental rights; recognises that the introduction of such a complaints mechanism would increase transparency and respect for fundamental rights also in the context of Frontex’s working arrangements, since Frontex and the EU institutions would be more aware of possible violations of fundamental rights that could otherwise remain undetected, unreported and unresolved; stresses that this lack of transparency applies in particular in the case of Frontex's working arrangements, over which Parliament cannot exercise democratic scrutiny, since there is no obligation to consult it prior to the determination of those arrangements and Parliament is not even informed on how they are implemented in practice;

6.  Notes that under the Frontex regulation there appear to be no legal obstacles to the introduction of an individual complaints mechanism and that such a mechanism would even fall within the scope of Article 26a(3) of the Frontex regulation, according to which the Fundamental Rights Officer is to contribute to the mechanism for monitoring fundamental rights; notes that such a mechanism would be compliant with EU law and the principle of good administration and would reinforce the effective implementation of the Agency’s fundamental rights strategy; believes that the capacity of Frontex to deal with possible violations of fundamental rights should be strengthened in the context of expanding its role under EU law, in particular its participation in Migration Management Support Teams working in ‘hotspot’ areas and its operational cooperation with the competent authorities of partner countries through working arrangements;

7.  Believes that the coordinating role of Frontex should not limit its responsibility under international and EU law, in particular in relation to ensuring that migrants' and asylum seekers' fundamental rights are respected and protected; recalls that all Union agencies and Member States, when implementing EU law, are bound by the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

Structure of the individual complaints mechanism

8.  Takes the view that it is a legitimate expectation to believe that the actions of those involved in Frontex operations are attributable to Frontex and more generally to the EU; stresses that the legal relations and the distinct yet shared responsibilities existing between Frontex and the Member States should not undermine the safeguarding of fundamental rights and respect for those rights in joint operations; recalls that Frontex has no authority to sanction Member States or their officials; believes that due consideration should therefore be given to the question of the competences of Frontex and those of the Member States;

9.  Stresses the need for an official central structure within Frontex for the processing of individual complaints; recommends that the office of the Frontex Fundamental Rights Officer should play a crucial role in handling complaints; considers that, in particular, the office should objectively check the admissibility of complaints, filter them, pass them on to the authorities responsible, and follow up on them thoroughly;

10.  Welcomes the fact that Frontex has already set up a thorough procedure for handling internal reports by Frontex staff and guest officers regarding serious fundamental rights violations; points out that this procedure is already used for handling complaints by third parties not directly involved in a Frontex operation, and recommends building further on this procedure with a view to establishing a full and accessible individual complaints mechanism; emphasises that Frontex should ensure that the mechanism respects the criteria of accessibility, independence, effectiveness and transparency;

Lodging and admissibility of complaints

11.  Takes the view that persons who consider they have been harmed by border guards wearing the Frontex emblem should have the right to submit a complaint; urges Frontex to guarantee full confidentiality and not to disclose the identity of the complainant to third parties without his or her agreement unless compelled legally to do so on the basis of a judicial decision; further believes that Frontex should ensure that all care is taken to avoid any conflict of interest during the treatment of complaints;

12.  Acknowledges that safeguards are needed to prevent misuse of the complaints mechanism; recommends, therefore, that anonymous complaints should not be accepted; emphasises, however, that this does not exclude complaints submitted by third parties acting in good faith in the interest of a complainant who may wish to keep his or her identity undisclosed; suggests further that only complaints based on violations of fundamental rights as protected by EU law should be admitted; considers that this should not prevent Frontex from taking account of other information sources concerning alleged fundamental rights violations, including general reports by NGOs, international organisations and other relevant stakeholders, beyond the complaints procedure; emphasises the need for clear criteria for the admissibility of complaints and recommends the creation of a standardised complaint form, requiring detailed information such as date and place of the incident, since this would facilitate decisions on admissibility; recommends that the criteria and the standardised form should be determined in cooperation with the Consultative Forum;

13.  Emphasises that the above form should be accessible in languages that migrants and asylum seekers understand or may be reasonably supposed to understand, and that it should include all necessary information on how to submit a complaint, including practical guidelines drawn up in a comprehensible manner; recalls that Regulation (EU) No 656/2014 already provides for the availability of shore-based interpreters, legal advisers and other relevant experts; recommends the possibility of being able to initiate a complaint orally with a person wearing the Frontex emblem, which complaint would be duly transcribed by the officer involved; urges Frontex to make the complaint form available both in smartphone-compatible electronic format on its website and in hard-copy format, in the Member States’ screening centres as well as from Frontex staff and guest officers participating in any Frontex operation;

14.  Recommends that Frontex should set a reasonable time limit for the submission of a complaint and ensure the possibility of filing a complaint after the termination of a Frontex operation; considers this to be of particular relevance for return operations; recommends that Member States handle the complaints within a reasonable time in compliance with national procedural rules;

Complaints against guest officers

15.  Acknowledges that potential complaints may refer to the conduct of guest officers who fall under the particular authority of a Member State but wear the Frontex emblem; notes that these officers wear their own national uniform while performing tasks which does not necessarily include a name or identification number visible on it; notes that while guest officers are obliged to carry an accreditation document, requesting identification might be an obstacle to lodging a complaint against an officer; recommends that all persons acting under the Frontex emblem should have a visible name or identification number on their uniforms;

16.  Recalls that Frontex has no competence to initiate disciplinary measures against persons other than its own staff members, and that under Article 3(1a) of the Frontex regulation taking disciplinary measures falls under the exclusive competence of the home Member State;

17.  Takes note that Member States handle complaints against guest officers in very different ways; is concerned that alleged fundamental rights violations might not be followed up effectively by some Member States; calls on Frontex and the Member States to cooperate closely and to exchange best practice in order to ensure the proper follow-up of complaints against guest officers;

18.  Recommends that the office of the Fundamental Rights Officer should transfer a complaint against a guest officer via a well-defined referral system to the competent national authority; recommends that this system include an appeal mechanism for cases where a claim is ruled inadmissible or rejected; considers it crucial to involve national ombudsmen or any other relevant bodies competent for fundamental rights that are empowered to investigate national authorities and officials, given that the Fundamental Rights Officer does not have the right to do so; stresses the need for cooperation of Frontex with national human rights bodies as well as with national border authorities;

19.  Recommends gender-based training to be mandatory for both Frontex staff and guest officers before joining a Frontex operation, notably in order to raise awareness concerning gender-based violence and the vulnerability of migrant women;

20.  Takes the view that if appropriate, the Fundamental Rights Officer should, in close cooperation with the relevant Frontex operational division, contribute to investigations by national authorities by providing further information on the incident;

21.  Stresses that Frontex should closely follow up on complaints by formally requesting feedback from the respective Member State and, if necessary, sending a letter of warning recalling the possible action which Frontex can take if no follow-up is received to the letter; recalls that Frontex has the right to receive information on fundamental rights violations by guest officers in the context of its obligation to monitor respect for fundamental rights in all of its activities; recommends that Frontex cooperate closely not only with the national border authorities but also with the national human rights bodies;

22.  Recommends that a justification should be provided to the complainant by the Fundamental Rights Officer, including contact details of the responsible national authority, should no follow-up procedure be initiated by Frontex;

23.  Recalls that the Frontex Disciplinary Procedure may also apply to seconded guest officers and seconded national experts if the relevant Member State agrees; recalls that Frontex may request the Member State to immediately remove the guest officer or seconded national expert concerned from the Frontex activity if the Member State does not allow the disciplinary procedure to take place, and, if necessary, to remove the person from the pool of guest officers;

24.  Calls on the Frontex Executive Director to consider the exclusion of any officer who has been found to be in breach of fundamental rights from participating in any Frontex operation or pilot project; stresses that this should also apply to national officers from partner countries participating in Frontex's operations as part of a working arrangement;

25.  Considers that the possibility of withdrawing financial support from Member States or the suspension of a Member State from joint operations in case of serious fundamental rights violations should be explored; believes furthermore that the suspension and, ultimately, the termination of an operation in case of serious or persistent fundamental rights violations should be decided, without prejudice to the saving of lives;

26.  Considers that clear criteria on when Frontex operations should be terminated should be established following recommendations from the Consultative Forum, the Fundamental Rights Officer and other relevant actors and NGOs such as FRA, UNHCR or IOM;

27.  Stresses that an individual complaints mechanism should not be deemed to confer any additional rights of access to criminal justice on those lodging a complaint; recalls that criminal investigations must be conducted by the Member State in which operations take place;

General considerations

28.  Takes the view that an individual complaints mechanism can only be effective if potential complainants, as well as the officers taking part in Frontex operations, are made aware of individuals’ right of complaint by means of an effective and gender- sensitive information campaign, in the official EU languages as well as in languages asylum seekers and migrants understand or may reasonably be supposed to understand; believes it should be possible for the number of potential inadmissible complaints to be substantially limited through such an information campaign and a well-structured admissibility check on complaints; notes that returnees should be informed prior to the return operation of their rights, including the right to complain;

29.  Considers that the individual complaints mechanism should be both efficient and transparent; emphasises that the Fundamental Rights Office must be adequately equipped and staffed to handle the complaints received, and calls for the necessary additional resources for this purpose;

30.  Considers the description of the tasks assigned to the Fundamental Rights Officer to be too limited and imprecise in its wording; notes that the tasks of the Officer are at the moment only described in the vacancy notice; suggests including provisions on the tasks of the Fundamental Rights Officer in the forthcoming review of the Frontex regulation;

31.  Considers that in order to improve Frontex's transparency, accountability and effectiveness and allow the thorough investigation of individual complaints, the use of funds by Frontex should be regularly reported on to Parliament and made public on the Frontex website;

32.  Welcomes the readiness of the European Ombudsman, the members of the European Network of Ombudsmen with competence on fundamental rights and the Frontex Consultative Forum to support Frontex in setting up and implementing an individual complaints mechanism; calls on Frontex to follow the good practice of other European bodies, such as the European Investment Bank, in close cooperation with the European Ombudsman;

33.  Recommends that Frontex and the European Ombudsman establish close cooperation in order to improve the protection of individuals from possible acts of maladministration regarding the activities of Frontex, including when the Agency operates beyond the external borders of the EU through working arrangements;

34.  Calls on the Member States and the partner countries which have concluded working arrangements with Frontex to cooperate efficiently with the Agency in order to ensure the smooth running of the complaints mechanism; encourages Frontex to provide technical assistance to the Member States and the relevant third countries in order to ensure the mechanism’s effectiveness;

35.  Underlines the need for special protection of unaccompanied minors, women who are victims of gender-based persecution, LGBTI persons and other vulnerable groups; recommends that, where appropriate, Frontex consult with the relevant EU agencies for this purpose;

36.  Calls on Frontex to provide publicly accessible information on the complaints mechanism in the context of its annual general report; recommends indicating the number of complaints received, the types of fundamental rights violations, the Frontex operation concerned and the follow-up measures taken by Frontex; notes that this information would help Frontex to identify possible shortcomings and improve its working methods;

37.  Recommends the inclusion of provisions on the individual complaints mechanism in the forthcoming review of the Frontex regulation;

o
o   o

38.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the national parliaments and Frontex.

European Parliament resolution of 2 December 2015 on sustainable urban mobility (2014/2242(INI))

P8_TA(2015)0423 A8-0319/2015

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 17 December 2013 entitled ‘Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility’ (COM(2013)0913),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on ‘the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on ‘European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy’(2),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 30 September 2009 entitled ‘Action Plan on Urban Mobility’ (COM(2009)0490),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 July 2014 entitled ‘The urban dimension of EU policies – Key features of an EU urban agenda’ (COM(2014)0490),

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 25 September 2007 entitled ‘Towards a new culture for urban mobility’ (COM(2007)0551),

—  having regard to the Commission's Special Eurobarometer 406 of December 2013 on ‘Attitudes of Europeans towards urban mobility’,

–  having regard to the Commission’s launch of the European Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans,

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 29 November 1995 entitled ‘The Citizens’ Network: fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe’ (COM(1995)0601),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 31 March 1998 entitled ‘Transport and CO2 – Developing a Community Approach’ (COM(1998)0204),

—  having regard to the Commission communication of 25 February 2015 entitled ‘The Paris Protocol – A blueprint for tackling global climate change beyond 2020’ (COM(2015)0081),

–  having regard to Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe(3),

—  having regard to Regulations (EC) No 715/2007(4) and (EC) No 595/2009(5) regarding the reduction of pollutant emissions from road vehicles,

–  having regard to its resolution of 27 October 2015 on emission measurements in the automotive sector(6),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 December 2013 entitled ‘A clean air programme for Europe’ (COM(2013)0918),

—  having regard to the World Health Organisation air quality guidelines and the Health Economic Assessment Tool,

–  having regard to the World Health Organisation report entitled ‘Burden of disease from environmental noise – Quantification of healthy life years lost in Europe’,

–  having regard to the European Environment Agency’s TERM report of December 2013 entitled ‘A closer look at urban transport’,

–  having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2013 on ‘Road safety 2011-2020 – First milestones towards an injury strategy’(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 October 1988 on the protection of pedestrians and the European charter of pedestrians’ rights(8),

–  having regard to the Vienna Convention on Road Traffic,

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘CARS 2020: Action Plan for a competitive and sustainable automotive industry in Europe’ (COM(2012)0636),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 December 2013 on ‘CARS 2020: towards a strong, competitive and sustainable European car industry’(9),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2014 entitled ‘Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe’ (COM(2014)0398),

–  having regard to Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors(10),

—  having regard to Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure(11),

—  having regard to European Court of Auditors Special Report No 1/2014 on the ‘Effectiveness of EU-supported public urban transport projects’,

–  having regard to the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities,

–  having regard to the Covenant of Mayors,

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0319/2015),

A.  whereas estimates suggest that by 2050 up to 82 % of EU citizens will live in urban areas;

B.  whereas the expected significant increase in urban population confronts urban centres with societal, quality of life and sustainable development challenges, which will require holistic planning measures;

C.  whereas urban mobility still relies overwhelmingly on the use of conventionally powered cars, and whereas transport in the EU is consequently dependent on oil and oil products for more than 96 % of its energy needs, or about one third of total energy consumption;

D.  whereas urban transport is responsible for up to 25 % of all CO2 emissions and for some 70 % of all emissions in urban areas that are responsible for climate change, and is the only sector in the EU whose greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to increase;

E.  whereas according to Special Eurobarometer 406, published in 2013, some 50 % of European citizens use their private cars every day, whilst only 16 % use public transport and only 12 % bicycles;

F.  whereas according to the same report, European citizens regard lower public transport fares (59 %), better public transport services (56 %) and better facilities for cyclists (33 %) as effective ways to improve urban mobility;

G.  whereas about 50 % of journeys in urban areas are shorter than 5 km and in many cities could therefore be made on foot, by bicycle, or by public/collective or any other available means of transport, such as ride-sharing;

H.  whereas the widespread use of diesel in transport, especially in older vehicles and those without particle filters, is one of the main causes of high particulate concentration in EU cities and whereas, therefore, in urban transport modes the use of alternative fuel and changes in the customary ways of using these modes should be promoted, without jeopardising urban mobility;

I.  whereas, according to the European Environment Agency, in 2011 more than 125 million European citizens were exposed to noise pollution above the safety limit of 55 dB, with road traffic being the main cause;

J.  whereas high-quality transport services are of fundamental importance for people living in urban areas to meet their mobility needs in their working lives and their training, tourism and leisure activities; whereas sustainable urban transport can help to reduce energy consumption, atmospheric and noise pollution, the number of accidents, traffic congestion, land use and soil sealing;

K.  whereas targeted measures towards sustainable urban mobility are possible and necessary in order to achieve EU targets and enforce legislation related to transport and environment;

L.  whereas, with due regard for subsidiarity, the EU should help to develop, in support of local actions, an integrated, long-term approach to urban mobility, which will reduce traffic pollution, congestion, noise and road accidents, provide due support to cities and ensure better information, coordination and cooperation among EU Member States;

M.  whereas it is important to underline the significance of public transport for urban economies, including deprived areas, and to recognise its social benefits, such as helping to fight poverty and social exclusion and ensuring access to jobs for all citizens;

N.  whereas good, easy public collective transport is the best deterrent against private transport and one of the best ways to alleviate traffic jams;

O.  whereas 73 % of European citizens consider road safety to be a serious problem in cities, and whereas more than 30 % of road fatalities and serious injuries happen in urban areas and often involve vulnerable road users (VRUs) and pedestrians;

P.  whereas 38 % of all fatalities occur in urban areas and 55 % on inter-urban roads, whereas the victims are most often cyclists and other vulnerable road users, and whereas accidents are linked to high vehicle concentrations and speed;

Q.  whereas sustainable urban transport is one aspect of broader territorial planning policies, and whereas green urban areas can partially offset the impact of road traffic pollution;

R.  whereas the use of alternative propellants and means of transport involves the development of the necessary infrastructure, together with efforts to change people’s mobility‑related behaviour;

S.  whereas, as important centres of economic activity and innovation, cities and other larger urban areas have rightly been recognised as crucial nodes in the new TEN-T strategy and are the main link in the transport chain for passengers and freight;

T.  whereas multimodal networks and the integration of different transport modes and services in and around urban areas are potentially beneficial in improving passenger and freight transport efficiency, thus helping to reduce carbon and other harmful emissions;

U.  whereas the Heads of State and Government, meeting at the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), made a commitment to supporting the development of sustainable transport networks(12);

V.  whereas a 'one size fits all urban areas' solution does not exist and cities across the European Union face specific situations and needs, related in particular to geographical and climate conditions, demographic structure, cultural traditions, and other factors;

W.  whereas urban mobility and urban transport management are the responsibility of local and regional authorities, which design and implement these public policies within their areas, in conjunction with the national framework in force and the EU urban agenda;

X.  whereas it is concerned that the Commission is talking in terms of transport concepts to be devised at European level, which would then have to be adapted according to the circumstances in Member States; whereas, rather than adopting a top-down approach along those lines and without disregarding the need for common rules and standards, it would be preferable to follow a bottom-up approach involving parallel experimentation on the ground, thereby encouraging innovation; whereas, accordingly, it strongly supports the setting-up of platforms for exchanges of experience among local stakeholders with a view to enabling success stories to be publicised more widely;

1.  Underlines that the work done so far at European level and in many cities has been positive and should be continued, and therefore welcomes the aforementioned Commission communication on urban mobility;

Giving space and infrastructure back to all citizens and improving accessibility

2.  Points out that land planning is the most important phase for creating smooth and safe transportation networks that are long-lasting and have a real impact on traffic volumes and distribution; stresses that safety must always be viewed as a key element of sustainable urban planning;

3.  Is convinced that the provision of information to, and the consultation of, EU citizens, retailers, freight transport operators and other stakeholders involved in urban mobility are crucial in order to make planning, development, and decision-making more transparent; stresses that this information should be publicly and easily accessible; points out that it is desirable to foster cooperation among the relevant actors and between cities at EU level with a view to sharing sustainable mobility solutions;

4.  Is convinced that long-term Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) supported by ICT technologies are important tools for providing adequate and safe mobility solutions for all citizens; invites the competent authorities to take account in SUMPs of special needs as regards communications for persons with reduced mobility (PRMs); emphasises that barrier free infrastructure is crucial for PRMs mobility; stresses that it is necessary that SUMPs encompass specific strategies on road safety and provide safe infrastructure with adequate space for the most vulnerable road users;

5.  Emphasises the importance of SUMPs in achieving EU targets regarding CO2 emissions, noise, air pollution and accident reduction; considers that the development of SUMPs should be an important element to be considered in financing EU projects in the area of urban transport and that EU financing and informational support could provide incentives for the development and implementation of such plans; calls on the Commission to provide the competent authorities with the necessary advisory and technical support in the development of SUMPs, taking full account of the principle of subsidiarity;

6.  Encourages the authorities in the Member States to draw up sustainable urban mobility plans which give priority to low-emission transport modes, including electric traction and vehicles powered by alternative fuels, and which include intelligent transport systems; supports the establishment of traffic zones and intermodal platforms where priority is given to use by public transport;

7.  Encourages the Member States and European cities to develop a parking policy (parking space supply, use of intelligent parking systems and appropriate pricing) which can be part of an integrated urban policy and at the same time to put greater efforts into the development of functional intermodal hubs, providing varied transport services and enabling a smooth combination of transport solutions, such as collective transport, shared transport, cycling and rental services; calls for better connectivity of suburban parking spaces with rail and public transport services through, for example, ‘park and ride’ options; recalls the need to eliminate deficiencies in provision for citizens with disabilities;

8.  Underlines that, taking into account the need to reduce the negative impact on the environment of oil dependency in the EU transport system (run overwhelmingly on oil and its by-products), the ESI funds should be systematically used for the development and implementation of comprehensive, integrated SUMPs which will complementarily and mutually reinforce urban mobility measures in the wider spatial planning context, without generating additional transport needs for excessive use of cars, by putting emphasis on an integrated transport system based on cooperation among individual types of transport;

9.  Strongly believes that the Commission’s Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans should provide strong support for cities and regions in the design and implementation of SUMPs; stresses the importance of considering all cities, regardless of size, for investment in urban mobility and of the key role that European cities and regions have to play in boosting and promoting sustainable urban mobility; calls for the involvement of representatives of local and regional authorities of different sizes and representatives of diverse stakeholders (e.g. cyclists’ associations) in the European Platform and the Member States’ Expert Group on Urban Mobility and Transport;

10.  Emphasises that SUMPs should be consistent with the current EU agenda and objectives, in particular those on the modal shift from road to rail set out in the 2011 White Paper;

11.  Urges the Commission, the Member States and regional and local authorities to assess and audit the Urban Mobility Plans in line with the objectives and goals of the Transport 2050 strategy;

Improving the environment, quality of life and health

12.  Points in particular to the many harmful effects of the current transport model on fundamental elements of the natural environment, including air, water and soil, and on the various ecosystems;

13.  Is convinced that air pollution has a local, regional, national and cross-border dimension and requires action at all levels of governance; asks, therefore, for a strengthening of the multi-level governance approach where all actors take the responsibility for measures that can and should be taken at that very level;

14.  Invites cities to carefully assess the needs of citizens and businesses and the specificities of transport modes, in order to ensure sustainable mobility in cities, and to take the necessary measures to improve the quality of life in cities, inter alia by fostering a modal shift towards sustainable modes of transport, including walking and cycling, and by promoting an integrated intermodal and/or co-modal policy;

15.  Invites local authorities to take the wellbeing of their citizens into account when designing sustainable mobility plans: in particular, invites the competent authorities to take measures to reduce traffic-related noise in cities;

16.  Encourages the competent authorities to take preventive measures, in accordance with the precautionary and proportionality principles, to improve air quality in towns and cities and to guarantee that pollutant concentrations do not exceed the levels set in the World Health Organization guidelines; to that end, supports local setting-up of low‑emission zones; stresses that it is the responsibility of the competent authorities to offer safe and healthy mobility solutions to their citizens; is of the opinion that these solutions could be based on affordable, smart, reliable, accessible public transport systems; encourages the Member States, as well as local authorities, to consider, when there is a risk of the abovementioned WHO guidelines being exceeded, to take measures to improve access to public transport, for example by alternating traffic;

17.  Points out that there is a need for a holistic approach to air pollution in European cities; calls on the Commission, therefore, to put forward effective measures that enable the Member States to comply with the Ambient Air Quality Directive (2008/50/EC), notably by setting effective and ambitious emission ceilings for 2025 and 2030 under the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NEC), and by ensuring better coordination of measures under the NEC Directive and the Ambient Air Quality Directive, by setting ambitious car emission performance standards for 2025 and 2030 in a timely review of the CO2 and cars Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, and by setting a clear timeframe for the implementation of Real-World Driving Emission Testing for private vehicles;

18.  Calls on the Commission to make assessments, within the Member States’ individual plans, regarding the siting of stations used to measure and monitor atmospheric pollution in the main urban agglomerations with air quality problems, bearing in mind that poor siting of such stations very often renders the data inaccurate and could thus create a public health risk;

19.  Notes the behavioural changes in the area of vehicle ownership and use (car-sharing, car-pooling); encourages the Commission to develop and support transport systems involving collective and public forms of mobility;

20.  Believes that the Commission should assess how society is likely to be affected by new forms of mobility based on the sharing-economy model, including ride-sharing; takes the view that, at national level, Member States should pursue the concept of a ‘shareable city’, where mobility and transport are concerned, since this could benefit citizens, especially in small and medium-sized towns and cities, where the public transport network is smaller, and might make it possible to develop peer-to-peer mobility solutions;

21.  Emphasises that highly developed, efficient, affordable, safe and accessible public transport is an integral part of sustainable urban development; is convinced that reliable public transport services may play an important role in reducing congestion, air pollution and noise in cities; calls on the Member States, therefore, to promote public transport with the view to increasing its use by 2030; also encourages national and local authorities to promote the availability of digital services on public transport and stations, to support the development of innovative forms of mobility and to implement intelligent transport solutions and other state-of-the-art technologies; stresses that car-sharing, ride-sharing and car-pooling services make better use of existing resources and help to reduce the number of cars in cities; recognises the importance of the European satellite navigation programmes Galileo and EGNOS and mobile high-speed networks; supports the formation of a regulatory framework that enables the use of new forms of mobility and new sharing models that make better use of existing resources;

22.  Stresses the importance of public information on urban public transport offers, also taking into account tourists’ language needs and the benefits of sustainable tourism policy; encourages local authorities to provide real-time information on the internet and on sufficiently numerous displays in cities; invites authorities and transport operators to improve the availability of free digital services on public transport and stations;

23.  Highlights the social benefits of rail-bound public transport in terms of accessibility of urban areas, urban regeneration, social inclusion and improvement of the image of cities;

24.  Acknowledges the quality and diversity of the jobs offered by public transport operators and the related benefits for the economy; calls on the Commission to monitor and assess the contribution of public transport to green jobs and green growth strategies at national and European level;

25.  Calls on the Member States to take effective action to ensure security on public transport, whilst respecting local-level powers;

26.  Recalls that non-motorised individual mobility, such as walking and cycling, offers the best potential for CO2 neutrality;

27.  Encourages the Member States to review their strategies in order to improve non-motorised transport with a view to meeting the convergent interests of improving mobility and the urban environment; encourages the Member States to promote, where appropriate, the use of bicycles, including by setting ambitious targets for cycling rates by 2030 and to improve conditions for walking and cycling;

28.  Encourages the Commission and the Member States to raise awareness of cycling and alternative transport modes, to contribute to a modal shift towards sustainable transport modes and to continue supporting the European Mobility Week Campaign; invites cities to organise bicycle-sharing systems in connection with public transport; welcomes initiatives at national, regional and local level to promote and organise 'EU Car-Free Sunday' and 'EU Bicycle Day' events with a view to improving air quality in cities;

29.  Encourages private companies, administrations and the EU institutions to further improve mobility management services for their members, staff and visitors; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote policies aimed at encouraging companies to reduce journeys from and to workplaces, inter alia by permitting and promoting teleworking and encouraging the use of ICT technologies and teleconferencing; considers that mobility measures, such as those coordinated by the European Platform on Mobility Management (EPOMM), have a great potential for solving urban congestion and providing accessibility for all;

30.  Encourages the Member States and local authorities to define environmental performance requirements in public procurement procedures, particularly when purchasing vehicles for public transport or vehicles used by public authorities;

Saving energy and protecting the climate

31.  Considers that energy efficiency and the use of low-carbon and renewable energy sources are key to achieving sustainable urban mobility, while at the same time improving environmental conditions, and that technology neutrality should be respected when adopting measures to meet EU targets for CO2 emissions and energy saving;

32.  Encourages the Member States to support the goals of the Transport White Paper of halving the number of 'conventionally fuelled' cars in urban transport by 2030 and of phasing them out in cities by 2050; invites cities to promote and support shifts towards alternative means of transport and less-polluting vehicles, taking into account their real carbon footprint with the view to achieving the EU targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 60 % by 2050; welcomes incentives for travellers to combine different modes of transport;

33.  Draws attention to the importance of the use of electric vehicles and vehicles powered by alternative fuels (second- and third-generation biofuels, hydrogen based on renewables, compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG)) for the reduction of emissions in cities; recalls the provisions laid down in Directive 2014/94/EU on the deployment of alternative fuels and encourages the Member States, in close cooperation with regional and local authorities and the industry concerned, to swiftly develop such infrastructure, particularly along the trans-European transport network (TEN-T); invites the public and the private sector to promote the installation of recharging facilities in collective parking areas;

34.  Asks the Commission and national and local authorities to promote, where possible, inland navigation as an integrated mobility solution for soft mobility in cities;

35.  Underlines the importance of a bottom-up approach; therefore supports strongly, for example, the Covenant of Mayors, with over 6 000 signatories, on reducing GHG emissions, and welcomes the appeal made by Commissioner Canete on 13 October 2015 in Brussels to get a more ambitious Convention under way; supports the Commission in playing a positive role as active catalyst for such initiatives;

36.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to put ambitious measures on 'Sustainable Urban Mobility' high on the agenda of the COP 21 to be held in Paris in December 2015; encourages the Commission to give active support to the Action Agenda initiatives on integrated sustainable urban mobility;

Making innovation the core of research policy aimed at smart mobility approaches

37.  Recalls that Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) make mobility safer, more efficient, environmentally friendly and fluid, and therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States to intensify efforts on ITS, including innovation and implementation in the fields of provision of real-time travel information, highly automated vehicles, smart infrastructure and intelligent traffic signal systems; recalls the importance of ITS in providing accurate, real-time traffic and travel data, and therefore invites the Commission to bring urban mobility into the focus of the Digital Agenda; encourages stakeholders to cooperate closely in the development of interoperable and integrated mobility services such as multimodal public transport, shared mobility and intermodal integrated ticketing facilities; asks the Commission to prioritise the development of innovative applications and new technologies enabling road users to take a more proactive role as developers and data producers in the transport system, in order to contribute to platforms for mobility services, in accordance with EU rules and data protection;

38.  Encourages all parties to fully utilise the possibilities of data and digitalisation and to use deregulation to promote new business models;

39.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support research programmes on new technologies, new business models, and new integrated sustainable urban mobility practices and urban logistics; supports the Horizon 2020 priorities regarding societal challenges for smart, green and integrated transport and urban mobility, as well as the development of 'Mobility-as-a-Service' (Maas) initiatives across Europe; believes that Horizon 2020 must boost research and innovation in the areas of quality of life, sustainable jobs, demographics, active mobility changes, environment and climate action; is of the opinion that the Commission should take account of these priorities, secure sufficient EU funds for future R&D activities in urban rail systems and improve the performance of sustainable transport solutions;

Making urban mobility more sustainable, safe and secure

40.  Notes that thorough safety preconditions as well as advanced traffic and speed management lead to a drastic reduction in road fatalities and serious injuries in cities; points out that a security force with the task of managing and controlling traffic and performing consistent checks on traffic safety offences, such as speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs and medicines and using mobile phones and other communication and information devices contribute to reducing road accidents in cities;

41.  Invites the Member States and local authorities to rethink speed management by 2020, taking into account local conditions, in order to ensure safety, inter alia in housing areas and around schools and educational and social facilities, and to consider the development and design of safer road infrastructure; calls on the Member States and local authorities to use all modern solutions, including advanced intelligent traffic management, to provide safety for all road users, including pedestrians; encourages European cities to exchange best practices regarding safety management;

Innovating in the area of sustainable freight transport

42.  Believes that the development of innovative, sustainable, environmentally friendly urban logistics strategies, involving private and public actors, is of the utmost importance for solving congestion and environmental problems in cities; is of the opinion that logistics should be based on sustainable modes of transport; calls for a better optimisation of the supply chain in urban areas, based on new, cost-effective types of operation, technology and business model; points to the importance of SUMPs that encompass co-modality logistics strategies, and underlines that, where appropriate, rail, clean inland navigation and seaports need to be integrated into logistics strategies and sustainable urban mobility plans; calls on the competent authorities to reduce, where possible, heavy vehicle traffic in city centres;

43.  Points out that high-density areas and other areas such as shopping and retail centres are facing increased road traffic and congestion problems, and points to the importance of effective and comprehensive planning policies to link up these areas to efficient public transport and smart home delivery services;

44.  Invites the Commission to develop policies to encourage the freight industry to green its fleet and to encourage local authorities to provide support and/or incentives to operators to make urban freight transport more sustainable; recalls that rail and other more sustainable transport modes, together with well-planned interchange and logistics, can play an important role by bringing goods to the urban periphery;

Minimising external costs and making better-quality investments

45.  Stresses that cost-benefit assessments of investments should be directed to maximising external societal benefits and minimising external costs arising from, for example, climate change, accidents, health, noise, air pollution and spatial use;

46.  Stresses that urban mobility should contribute to, and be fully integrated into, EU resource efficiency objectives, in particular those linked to the circular economy;

47.  Recalls that urban road and parking pricing based on the non-discrimination, interoperability and polluter-pays principles can be part of an integrated urban mobility policy;

48.  Recalls the ‘use of revenues’ principle with regard to road charging, and calls, where appropriate, for a proportion of revenue from the use of road infrastructure (road charging and/or Eurovignette) to be dedicated to improving sustainable urban mobility;

49.  Believes that urban mobility should be reflected in the Connecting Europe Facility/Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) measures, wherever appropriate and in line with TEN-T legislation, including support for urban nodes and the integration of mobility plans for cities in cross-border areas, as this both stimulates economic and social development and supports better accessibility; believes that efficient interconnection between various modes of transport and between transport networks, including peri-urban and interregional networks, would improve citizens' mobility; supports the development of integrated ticketing systems, which could potentially improve accessibility to public transport;

50.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States and local authorities to make use of the new possibility of financing urban projects within the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) in urban nodes; recalls the possibility for the CEF to finance synergy projects with an extra-cofinancing rate of transport projects with energy and telecommunications, which has enormous potential for urban projects; invites the Commission to consider appropriate EU funding for sustainable mobility projects when reviewing the budgets of the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund; asks the relevant authorities to ensure there is a strong relationship between smart and sustainable urban mobility policy and urban mobility projects financed by EU funds, and to set clear utilisation targets and indicators in order to avoid under-utilisation of the projects and undermining of their economic and social benefits; recognises the need for new forms of sustainable funding for public transport which enable environmental sustainability, digitalisation and accessibility, stimulate the economy of urban areas and create new jobs;

51.  Points to the recently adopted European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and the particular attention and focus given in this instrument to horizontal priorities and to smart and sustainable urban projects; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support sustainable urban mobility projects, to ensure the necessary synergies between the various funding sources and programmes, and to develop links between urban mobility, the new Digital Agenda and the Energy Union;

52.  Stresses the importance of capacity-building within local authorities and in periurban areas for drawing up and implementing integrated development strategies to facilitate cooperation between different territories, and consequently to foster interdependence and complementarity;

53.  Considers that investment in sustainable public transport is not only a response to urban mobility problems, but also includes ‘elements of urban renewal’ that impact the general economic system of the city and facilitate the creation of a green urban environment, as well as access to centres of mixed activities (commercial, residential, leisure, culture, education); stresses that the proper coordination of mobility and urban planning is crucial in order to maximise the impact of investments;

54.  Calls for the initiatives promoting youth employment and other ESI funds to be used to promote employment in areas that stimulate the development of sustainable urban mobility; stresses that the implementation of urban mobility projects has a positive impact on all regions and their populations, by promoting the filling of existing and innovative job openings in relevant fields, including professions where there is a workforce shortage;

55.  Urges the Commission to set up easily accessible overviews of EU co-funded urban mobility programmes; demands, furthermore, that user-friendly information be provided on the EU co-funding opportunities for urban transport projects; asks the Commission to ensure, when managing EU-funded urban mobility projects, that: (a) management tools are put in place to monitor the quality of the service and the level of user satisfaction once projects are operational, (b) urban mobility projects are included in a sound mobility policy, and (c) the abovementioned points are also addressed by the Member States’ authorities; asks the Commission to supply a qualitative and quantitative analysis of cohesion policy support for sustainable urban mobility when undertaking its mid-term review of the implementation of ESIF;

Integrating networks of efficient mobility systems and fostering cooperation

56.  Calls on the Member States to promote multi-level governance to foster cooperation between regional, national and European authorities in the development of policies, including in the design, implementation and monitoring of urban policies that have a clear impact on urban areas;

57.  Refers to the Commission’s Citizens’ Network initiative as a good basis for promoting and supporting intermodal sustainable mobility chains based on walking/cycling/public-collective backbone transport alongside car-sharing/car-pooling/taxis;

58.  Calls on the Commission to promote and encourage best practice exchanges and guidance in order to tackle urban mobility challenges and facilitate the transfer of skills and technologies in the field of sustainable mobility, in particular for the benefit of public and private stakeholders who develop sustainable mobility solutions and of the cooperative, mutual and non-profit sector; invites the Commission to establish a Sustainable Mobility Network of best-practice examples of spatial planning and space use; calls further on the Member States to encourage cities to participate in the Smart Cities and Communities European Innovation Partnership; invites the Commission and the Member States to launch public-awareness campaigns to promote mobility that is efficient, sustainable and less dependent on the use private, conventionally fuelled cars;

59.  Supports the work of the Urban Mobility Observatory (Eltis) and believes that communication around this initiative, including its portal, should be enhanced;

60.  Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to coordinate and consolidate EU initiatives in the field of urban mobility, such as CIVITAS 2020 for research and innovation, the Urban Mobility Observatory for the exchange of best practice and experience, and the Platform on Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans; calls on the Commission to reinforce its efforts to reduce fragmentation and the lack of coordination between the relevant EU initiatives and programmes and to take into account the success of programmes such as URBAN and URBACT; calls on the Commission to encourage the authorities in the Member States to create networks of excellence in the field of urban mobility, to continue the efforts of the CIVITAS 2020 initiative and to encourage more EU citizens to sign up to this project;

61.  Is convinced that additional efforts should be made to network and coordinate EU pilot projects, e.g. by Civitas, Polis and Eltis, and to integrate cities with their practical experience and know-how when discussing the implementation of future mobility policies; to that end, urges the Commission to set up easily accessible overviews of EU co-funded urban mobility programmes; demands furthermore that it be made clear – in a user-friendly manner – how to obtain EU co-funding for urban mobility projects; stresses the need to finance not only infrastructure, but also IT services, monitoring processes and inter-regional projects, and to establish strategic partnerships between industry and European cities with a view to developing the urban systems of tomorrow;

62.  Advocates a strong link between mobility plans and urban sustainability and other initiatives such as Smart Cities and the Covenant of Mayors, which are oriented towards a more sustainable and self-sufficient city; considers that the voluntary commitment established in the Covenant of Mayors can serve as a springboard for addressing all parties concerned in the creation of mobility and sustainability plans that can be advertised in a cost-efficient manner; welcomes the initiative entitled ‘CiTIEs: Cities of Tomorrow: Investing in Europe’, and calls on the Commission to use the existing platforms to develop communication tools aimed at bringing together stakeholders in the field of sustainable urban development;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ C 168 E, 14.6.2013, p. 72. (2) OJ C 390 E, 18.12.2012, p. 10. (3) OJ L 152, 11.6.2008, p. 1. (4) OJ L 171, 29.6.2007, p. 1. (5) OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 1. (6) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0375. (7) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0314. (8) OJ C 290, 14.11.1988, p. 51. (9) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0547. (10) OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (11) OJ L 307, 28.10.2014, p. 1. (12) United Nations Resolution 66/288 ‘The future we want’, paragraph 135.