Index 
Texts adopted
Tuesday, 4 October 2016 - StrasbourgFinal edition
Conclusion on behalf of the EU of the Paris Agreement adopted under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ***
 Request for the waiver of the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis
 Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Greece following the earthquake that affected the Ionian Islands in November 2015
 Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft
 Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2016/002 SE/Ericsson
 Legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings ***I
 Trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other treatment or punishment ***I
 Europol-China Agreement on Strategic Cooperation *
 The future of ACP-EU relations beyond 2020

Conclusion on behalf of the EU of the Paris Agreement adopted under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ***
PDF 239kWORD 41k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (12256/2016 – C8-0401/2016 – 2016/0184(NLE))
P8_TA(2016)0363A8-0280/2016

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (12256/2016),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 192(1) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0401/2016),

–  having regard to the Paris Agreement adopted at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Paris, France in December 2015,

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled The Road from Paris: assessing the implications of the Paris Agreement and accompanying the proposal for a Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COM(2016)0110),

–  having regard to the European Council conclusions of 23 and 24 October 2014,

–  having regard to the submission on 6 March 2015 by Latvia and the European Commission to the UNFCCC of the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) of the EU and its Member States,

–  having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0280/2016),

1.  Gives its consent to conclusion of the Paris Agreement;

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


Request for the waiver of the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis
PDF 160kWORD 45k
European Parliament decision of 4 October 2016 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis (2016/2084(IMM))
P8_TA(2016)0364A8-0279/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis, forwarded on 1 April 2016 by the Deputy Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic in connection with proceedings proposed by the Rethymno Public Prosecutor for breach of trust in the performance of his duties, committed in conjunction with others, at Rethymno, Crete, over the period 2000-2002 (file ref: ABM:AB05/1956), and announced in plenary on 27 April 2016,

–  having regard to the fact that Giorgos Grammatikakis waived his right to a hearing in accordance with Rule 9(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

–  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013(1),

–  having regard to Article 62 of the Constitution of Greece, Article 54 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure and Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure of the Hellenic Parliament,

–  having regard to Order No 5181/18.11.2015 of the Appeals Court Prosecutor of Crete,

–  having regard to the report of 7 April 2015 on the appearance of Giorgos Grammatikakis, MEP, together with his defence plea and supporting documents,

–  having regard to Ruling No 104/2015 of the Appeals Council of Crete,

–  having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0279/2016),

A.  whereas the deputy public prosecutor at the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic has requested the waiver of the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis, MEP, in connection with proceedings relating to an alleged offence;

B.  whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own state, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of that state;

C.  whereas, pursuant to Article 62 of the Constitution of Greece, during the parliamentary term, Members of Parliament may not be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or otherwise confined without prior leave granted by the parliament;

D.  whereas the Greek authorities are proposing to prosecute Giorgos Grammatikakis, in conjunction with others, for failing to comply with certain legal obligations;

E.  whereas the proposed proceedings concern a discussion held on 8 March 1996 on the possibility of concluding a new private collective insurance policy – in addition to the compulsory insurance policy – for all employees of the University of Crete and allegedly unlawful payments being made in successive instalments over the period 2000-2002;

F.  whereas a previous proceeding on the same case covered the period from 2000 onwards and resulted in the acquittal of all the accused;

G.  whereas the proposed proceedings are clearly unrelated to Giorgos Grammatikakis’s status as a Member of the European Parliament, given that they relate to his former position as Rector of the Senate of the University of Crete;

H.  whereas the proposed proceedings do not concern opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of the duties of the Member of the European Parliament in question within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

I.  whereas the proposed proceedings have been extended to cover the period from 1996 to 2000 and include the last meeting of the Senate of the University of Crete with Giorgos Grammatikakis as the Rector, where the issue was discussed but no decision was made; whereas there is no indication that the intention underlying the proposed proceedings is to cause political damage to the MEP concerned;

J.  whereas the proposed proceedings have been permanently dismissed for many co‑accused members of the Senate of the University of Crete and of the ELKE Committee due to the passage of the prescription period of 15 years for the alleged crimes, while others were definitively acquitted of all charges by the court in May 2016;

K.  surprised that the waiver of immunity is being requested some 20 years after the events have occurred, and that the Greek justice system was not able to bring proceedings against Giorgos Grammatikakis during this period and intends to do so now while he is a Member of the European Parliament;

L.  whereas a justice system that moves slowly will never be truly just because the people involved are no longer the same as they were 20 years ago; whereas if justice is to be worthy of the name, it has to be done in due time;

1.  Decides to waive the immunity of Giorgos Grammatikakis, as requested by Giorgos Grammatikakis himself in order to put an end to this long judicial process;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Greek authorities and to Giorgos Grammatikakis.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C 200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C 163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.


Mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Greece following the earthquake that affected the Ionian Islands in November 2015
PDF 243kWORD 42k
Resolution
Annex
European Parliament resolution of 4 October 2016 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (COM(2016)0462 – C8-0283/2016 – 2016/2165(BUD))
P8_TA(2016)0365A8-0270/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0462 – C8‑0283/2016),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(1),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(3), and in particular point 11 thereof,

–  having regard to the letter from the Committee on Regional Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0270/2016),

1.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Greece

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2016/1856.)

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
(3) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.


Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft
PDF 258kWORD 47k
Resolution
Annex
European Parliament resolution of 4 October 2016 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (application from Finland – EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft) (COM(2016)0490 – C8-0348/2016 – 2016/2211(BUD))
P8_TA(2016)0366A8-0273/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0490 – C8‑0348/2016),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(1) (EGF Regulation),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(3) (IIA of 2 December 2013), and in particular point 13 thereof,

–  having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 13 of the IIA of 2 December 2013,

–  having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

–  having regard to the letter of the Committee on Regional Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0273/2016),

A.  whereas, while globalisation generally creates economic growth, such growth should also be used to alleviate the situation of people facing negative effects of globalisation;

B.  whereas the Union has set up legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns or of the global financial and economic crisis and to assist their reintegration into the labour market;

C.  whereas the Union’s financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible;

D.  whereas Finland submitted application EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft for a financial contribution from the EGF under the intervention criteria set out in Article 4(1)(a) of the EGF Regulation, following 2161 redundancies in Microsoft Mobile Oy and 8 of its suppliers and downstream producers in Finland, operating in the NACE Revision 2 division 62 (Computer programming, consultancy and related activities);

E.  whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria established by the EGF Regulation;

F.  whereas the financial control of the actions supported by the EGF is the responsibility of the Member State concerned, as laid down in Article 21(1) of the EGF Regulation;

1.  Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in Article 4(1)(a) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Finland is entitled to a financial contribution of EUR 5 364 000 under that Regulation, which represents 60 % of the total cost of EUR 8 940 000;

2.  Notes that Finland submitted the application for a financial contribution from the EGF on 11 March 2016, and that following additional information provided by Finland, its assessment was finalised by the Commission on 29 July 2016, thereby respecting the deadline of 12 weeks from receipt of the completed application, who concluded that the conditions for awarding a financial contribution from the EGF had been met;

3.  Notes that the main reason behind the redundancies at Microsoft is the declining market share of its phones using the Microsoft Windows operating system from over 50 % in 2009 to 0,6 % in the second quarter of 2016;

4.  Recalls that the Union share in global ICT sector employment has decreased in recent years, and that ICT plays a key role in the Finnish economy, with 6,7 % of employees working in the ICT sector in 2014, the highest percentage amongst all Member States; considers that the redundancies in Microsoft are linked with the trend that has affected the entire Finnish electronics industry since the decline of Nokia in its country of origin and for which four previous applications have been presented; concludes that those events are directly linked to structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation;

5.  Recalls that the software industry is highly international and that competition within the sector is global, meaning all market players can compete for the same customers and the location and cultural background of personnel has limited significance;

6.  Recognises that this application continues a series of cases revolving around the decline of Nokia in Finland and that two further related applications for workers being made redundant in the ICT sector are expected to follow;

7.  Notes that redundancies are concentrated in NUTS 2 regions Helsinki-Uusimaa (FI1B), Etelä-Suomi (FI1C) and Länsi-Suomi, (FI197) and concern workers with highly varying competencies, 89 % of them between 30 and 54 years of age; is concerned about the already difficult unemployment situation of highly skilled and educated people whose employment prospects would otherwise be traditionally good, especially women, who face a greater challenge in finding employment, taking into consideration that they represent almost half of the targeted beneficiaries;

8.  Notes that, to date, the Computer programming, consultancy and related activities sector has been the subject to two previous EGF applications, both based on the globalisation criterion (EGF/2013/001 FI/Nokia and EGF/2015/005 FI/Computer programming);

9.  Emphasises the importance of the ICT sector to employment in the regions of Helsinki-Uusimaa, Etelä-Suomi and Länsi-Suomi and the potential for the redundant workers to contribute to the industry if they receive sufficient support through further education, training and plans to take up entrepreneurship;

10.  Welcomes the fact that the Finnish authorities started providing the personalised services to the affected workers on 11 September 2015, well ahead of the application for the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package, since such actions are eligible for co-funding from the EGF;

11.  Welcomes the high percentage (close to 80 %) of the overall package being used for personalised services;

12.  Notes that Finland is planning six types of measures for the redundant workers covered by this application: (i) coaching measures and other preparatory measures; (ii) employment and business services; (iii) vocational labour training; (iv) pay subsidised; (v) start-up grants; and (vi) allowances for travel, overnight and removal costs; notes that sufficient funds have been allocated to control and reporting;

13.  Notes that the pay subsidies mentioned in paragraph 12 will be between 30 and 50 % of the worker’s payroll costs and will be given for a period of 6 to 24 months; calls on Member States to pay strict attention when using pay subsidies to ensure that redundant workers hired with a subsidy are not replacing, in whole or in part, a position held previously by another employee at the company concerned; is pleased that the Finnish authorities have given assurances that this is the case;

14.  Notes that the income support measures amount to 16,64 % of the overall package of personalised measures, well below the 35 % limit set by the EGF Regulation and that those actions are conditional on the active participation of the targeted beneficiaries in job-search or training activities;

15.  Invites the Commission to evaluate and provide information about the impact of the income support measures over a period of several years, to ensure that they are supporting high-quality employment and not being used to subsidise short-term, low-cost contracts;

16.  Notes that the coordinated package of personalised services has been drawn up in consultation with the representatives of the targeted beneficiaries, social, national and regional partners;

17.  Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers; expects the training on offer to be adapted to the needs, skills and competences of the dismissed workers, and to the actual business environment;

18.  Notes that the Microsoft case will cooperate with Labour Mobility in Europe 2014–2020, which is a national EURES service development project; notes that international recruitment events will be organised regionally in cooperation with EGF and EURES services; welcomes such measures and the fact that the Finnish authorities are encouraging the redundant workers to fully benefit from their right to free movement;

19.  Notes that a national package of measures entitled "Models between the recruiting company and the retrenching company" has been launched within the European Social Fund; notes that this package of measures will produce results that may be useful for the implementation of projects under this EGF application; welcomes the efforts of the Finnish authorities to search for synergies with other actions funded by national or Union funds;

20.  Recalls that, in line with Article 7 of the EGF Regulation, the design of the coordinated package of personalised services should anticipate future labour market perspectives and required skills and should be compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy;

21.  Notes that in previous EGF cases providing face-to-face services for redundant workers has proven to be extremely useful;

22.  Notes that the Finnish authorities have confirmed that the proposed actions will not receive financial support from other Union funds or financial instruments, that any double financing will be prevented and that such actions are complementary to actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to the Commission to present an annual comparative evaluation of those data to ensure full respect of the existing regulations and that no duplication of Union-funded services can occur;

23.  Welcomes Finland’s assurance that a financial contribution from the EGF will not replace actions the enterprise concerned is required to take by virtue of national law or pursuant to collective agreements;

24.  Appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the Parliament's request for the accelerated release of grants; notes the time pressure that the new timetable implies and the potential impact on the effectiveness of case instruction;

25.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

26.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

27.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its Annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (following an application from Finland – EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2016/1857.)

(1)OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.
(2)OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
(3)OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.


Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2016/002 SE/Ericsson
PDF 260kWORD 48k
Resolution
Annex
European Parliament resolution of 4 October 2016 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (application from Sweden – EGF/2016/002 SE/Ericsson) (COM(2016)0554 – C8-0355/2016 – 2016/2214(BUD))
P8_TA(2016)0367A8-0272/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0554 – C8‑0355/2016),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(1) (EGF Regulation),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(2), and in particular Article 12 thereof,

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(3) (IIA of 2 December 2013), and in particular point 13 thereof,

–  having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 13 of the IIA of 2 December 2013,

–  having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

–  having regard to the letter of the Committee on Regional Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0272/2016),

A.  whereas the Union has set up legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns or of the global financial and economic crisis and to assist their reintegration into the labour market;

B.  whereas the Union’s financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard to the IIA of 2 December 2013 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF);

C.  whereas the adoption of the EGF Regulation reflects the agreement reached between the Parliament and the Council to reintroduce the crisis mobilisation criterion, to set the Union financial contribution to 60 % of the total estimated cost of proposed measures, to increase efficiency for the treatment of EGF applications in the Commission and by the Parliament and the Council by shortening the time for assessment and approval, to widen eligible actions and beneficiaries by introducing self-employed persons and young people and to finance incentives for setting up own businesses;

D.  whereas Sweden submitted application EGF/2016/002 SE/Ericsson for a financial contribution from the EGF, following redundancies in the economic sector classified under the NACE Revision 2 Division 26 (Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products) mainly in the NUTS level 2 regions of Stockholm (SE11), Östra Mellansverige (SE12), Sydsverige (SE22) and Västsverige (SE23); and whereas 918 out of 1556 redundant workers eligible for the EGF contribution are expected to participate in in the measures;

E.  whereas the application was submitted under the intervention criteria of point (a) of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation, which requires at least 500 workers being made redundant over a reference period of four months in an enterprise in a Member State, including workers made redundant by suppliers and downstream producers and / or self-employed persons whose activity has ceased;

F.  whereas facing stagnating growth and simultaneously harder competition with Asian producers, Ericsson has been scaling down telecom hardware production, a process that started two decades ago;

1.  Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in point (a) of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation are met and that, therefore, Sweden is entitled to a financial contribution of EUR 3 957 918 under that Regulation, which represents 60 % of the total cost of EUR 6 596 531, that will help 918 targeted beneficiaries return to the labour market;

2.  Notes that Sweden submitted the application for a financial contribution from the EGF on 31 March 2016, and that following additional information provided by Sweden, its assessment was finalised by the Commission on 5 September 2016 and notified to Parliament the same day, thereby respecting the deadline of 12 weeks from receipt of the completed application;

3.  Notes that the IT and telecommunication industries are dominated by Asian manufacturers which have become an outsourcing destination; points out that Ericsson has gradually been cutting staff in Sweden (from 21 178 in 2005 to 17 858 in 2014), but in the meantime been growing tremendously worldwide (from 56 055 in 2005 to 118 055 in 2014);

4.  Emphasises that the regions affected are faced with a relatively large group of older workers with similar backgrounds who have been made redundant at the same time and that most of them, particularly those located in Kista, the town with the highest number of redundancies, do not possess the skills sought by the local labour market;

5.  Welcomes Sweden’s decision to concentrate potential EGF assistance on the Kista, Katrineholm and Kumla sites, which face the greatest challenges, while also offering individualised help to workers made redundant at the other sites;

6.  Recalls the diversity of employees, both blue- and white-collar, affected by the redundancies; and is concerned that some workers face a labour market with rather low demand in traditional manufacturing industries; acknowledges the opportunities for these workers in the public or private sector service industries, which would require major retraining efforts;

7.   Acknowledges Arbetsförmedlingen’s (the Swedish Public Employment Service) assessment that blue-collar workers have potential opportunities in public or private sector service industries, provided major retraining is offered to them;

8.  Recognises that most of the affected white-collar workers are engineers, some of whom are specialised in niches that are unique to Ericsson, but welcomes the confidence of the Swedish Public Employment Service that a personalised package of training programmes and coaching will enable most of those redundant employees to find new jobs of high quality;

9.  Notes that the EGF co-funded personalised services for the redundant workers include: counselling and career guidance; sheltered and supported employment and rehabilitation measures; education and training; and job search allowances; welcomes the special emphasis that will be placed on participants aged 50 and above when providing motivational coaching and career planning;

10.  Notes that the income support measures amount to 33,92 % of the overall package of personalised measures, close to the maximum 35 % set out in the EGF Regulation and that these actions are conditional on the active participation of the targeted beneficiaries in job-search or training activities; considers this relatively high percentage to be justified in view of the significant proportion of older workers concerned and the provision of individual support to participants with learning disabilities;

11.  Notes that the coordinated package of personalised services has been drawn up in consultation with the targeted beneficiaries and their representatives as well as with local public actors, taking into consideration that 22 % of workers are female and 78 % male;

12.  Recalls that, in line with Article 7 of the EGF Regulation, the design of the coordinated package of personalised services supported by the EGF should anticipate future labour market perspectives and required skills and should be compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy;

13.  Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout a worker's professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the needs of the dismissed workers but also to the actual business environment;

14.  Welcomes the Swedish authorities’ assurance that special efforts will be undertaken to break traditional gender barriers, including encouraging male beneficiaries to find jobs in the health care sector, as well as the contribution the measures will make to the 16 Swedish Environmental Quality Objectives;

15.  Asks the Commission to further set out, in future proposals, the sectors in which the workers are likely to find employment and if the training on offer is aligned to the future economic prospects and labour market needs in the regions concerned by the dismissals;

16.  Notes that the Swedish authorities have confirmed that the proposed actions will not receive financial support from other Union funds or financial instruments, that any double financing will be prevented and that those actions are complementary to actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to the Commission to present a comparative evaluation of those data in its annual reports in order to ensure full respect for existing regulations and that no duplication of Union-funded services can occur;

17.  Notes that the Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products sector has been the subject of another 14 EGF applications, 11 of which have been based on trade related globalisation and three on the global financial and economic crisis;

18.  Reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements nor of measures for restructuring companies or sectors;

19.  Appreciates the improved procedure put in place by the Commission, following the Parliament's request for the accelerated release of grants; notes the time pressure that the new timetable implies and the potential impact on the effectiveness of case instruction;

20.  Asks the Commission to ensure public access to the documents related to EGF cases;

21.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

22.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

23.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its Annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (following an application from Sweden – EGF/2016/002 SE/Ericsson)

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2016/1858.)

(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.
(2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
(3) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.


Legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings ***I
PDF 241kWORD 44k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2016 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European arrest warrant proceedings (COM(2013)0824 – C7-0429/2013 – 2013/0409(COD))
P8_TA(2016)0368A8-0165/2015

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0824),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 82(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0429/2013),

–  having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 25 March 2014(1),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 30 June 2016 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0165/2015),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 4 October 2016 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2016/... of the European Parliament and of the Council on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2016/1919.)

(1)OJ C 226, 16.7.2014, p. 63.


Trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other treatment or punishment ***I
PDF 240kWORD 45k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2016 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (COM(2014)0001 – C7-0014/2014 – 2014/0005(COD))
P8_TA(2016)0369A8-0267/2015

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0001),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0014/2014),

–  having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 30 June 2016 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0267/2015),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out(1);

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 4 October 2016 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/... of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2016/2134.)

(1) This position replaces the amendments adopted on 27 October 2015 (Texts adopted P8_TA(2015)0368).


Europol-China Agreement on Strategic Cooperation *
PDF 240kWORD 42k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 October 2016 on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by the European Police Office (Europol) of the Agreement on Strategic Cooperation between the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China and Europol (08364/2016 – C8-0217/2016 – 2016/0808(CNS))
P8_TA(2016)0370A8-0265/2016

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council draft (08364/2016),

–  having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0217/2016),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6 April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol)(1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2009/934/JHA of 30 November 2009 adopting the implementing rules governing Europol’s relations with partners, including the exchange of personal data and classified information(2), and in particular Articles 5 and 6 thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2009/935/JHA of 30 November 2009 determining the list of third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements(3),

–  having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0265/2016),

1.  Approves the Council draft;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Calls on the Commission to assess, after the date of application of the new Europol Regulation(4), the provisions contained in the cooperation agreement; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament and the Council of the outcome of this assessment and, if appropriate, to submit a recommendation for an authorisation to open the international renegotiation of the agreement;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and Europol.

(1) OJ L 121, 15.5.2009, p. 37.
(2) OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 6.
(3) OJ L 325, 11.12.2009, p. 12.
(4) Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968/JHA (OJ L 135, 24.5.2016, p. 53).


The future of ACP-EU relations beyond 2020
PDF 199kWORD 52k
European Parliament resolution of 4 October 2016 on the future of ACP-EU relations beyond 2020 (2016/2053(INI))
P8_TA(2016)0371A8-0263/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (the Cotonou Agreement), and to its revisions of 2005 and 2010(1),

–  having regard to the Georgetown Agreement of 1975 setting up the ACP Group, and to its revision of 1992(2),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 8 October 2003 entitled ‘Towards the full integration of cooperation with ACP countries in the EU budget’ (COM(2003)0590),

–  having regard to the Joint Consultation Paper of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 6 October 2015 entitled ‘Towards a new partnership between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries after 2020’ (JOIN(2015)0033) ,

–  having regard to its earlier resolutions on ACP-EU relations, in particular that of 11 February 2015 on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly(3), that of 13 June 2013(4) on the second amendment to the Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000, that of 5 February 2009 on the development impact of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)(5), and that of 1 April 2004 on the budgetisation of the European Development Fund(6),

–  having regard to the past resolutions of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, and in particular that of 9 December 2015 on ‘Forty years of partnership: evaluation of the impact on trade and development in the ACP countries and prospects for enduring relations between the ACP countries and the European Union’(7),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on policy coherence for development (PCD),

–  having regard to the joint statement of 9 December 2015 by the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly on the future of ACP-EU relations(8),

–  having regard to the EU global strategy for foreign and security policy, submitted to the European Council at its meeting of 28 and 29 June 2016,

–  having regard to the joint communication of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 21 March 2012 entitled ‘Towards a renewed EU-Pacific development partnership’ (JOIN(2012)0006),

–  having regard to the joint communication of the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 26 June 2012 entitled ‘Joint EU-Caribbean partnership strategy’ (JOIN(2012)0018),

–  having regard to the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, adopted by the African and European Heads of State and Government at the Lisbon summit on 9 December 2007(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2015 on the role of local authorities in developing countries in development cooperation(10),

–  having regard to the joint ACP-EU declaration of 20 June 2014 on the post-2015 agenda(11),

–  having regard to the Sipopo Declaration of the 7th Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government held on 13 and 14 December 2012, entitled ‘The Future of the ACP Group in a Changing World: Challenges and Opportunities’(12),

–  having regard to the Third International Conference on Financing for Development of 13-16 July 2015 and to the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, endorsed by the UN General Assembly on 27 July 2015(13),

–  having regard to the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development and the outcome document adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’(14),

–  having regard to the 41st session of the ACP-EU Joint Council, held in Dakar (Senegal) on 28 and 29 April 2016,

–  having regard to the 8th Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea on 31 May and 1 June 2016 adopting the Waigani Communiqué on the future perspectives of the ACP Group of States and the Port Moresby Declaration, accepting the final report of the Eminent Persons Group reflecting on the future of the ACP Group,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Budgets (A8-0263/2016),

A.  whereas the strength and acquis of the Cotonou Agreement are based on a number of unique characteristics: it is a legally binding document, it has an unparalleled numerical strength of 79+28 member states, it is comprehensive through its three pillars of development cooperation, political cooperation and economic and trade cooperation, it has a joint institutional framework, and it has a large budget in the form of the European Development Fund (EDF);

B.  whereas the overarching objective of the Cotonou Agreement: ‘reducing and eventually eradicating poverty consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy’ is firmly anchored in Article 1 thereof; whereas the partnership is based on a set of basic values and principles, including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy based on the rule of law and transparent and accountable governance;

C.  whereas over 80 % of the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) are from ACP regions, which gives particular relevance to the EU-ACP partnership;

D.  whereas there have been changes to the political and economic landscape in the ACP Group and the European Union since the Cotonou Agreement was signed;

E.  whereas the future of ACP-EU relations should be based on a new reflection on the potential and obstacles ahead for EU-ACP cooperation;

F.  whereas the numerical strength of the ACP and EU member states has not sufficiently translated into joint action in global fora;

G.  whereas the ACP-EU partnership has played an important role in progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

H.  whereas, on the other hand, results as regards the objectives of poverty eradication and integration of ACP countries into the world economy have been insufficient to date, given that half of the ACP member states are still among the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) and that the ACP member states together account for less than 5 % of global trade and around 2 % of global GDP;

I.  whereas trade relations form the second pillar of the Cotonou Agreement, and whereas Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are a means of furthering those relations;

J.  whereas Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are defined in Article 36 of the Cotonou Agreement as development instruments with the ‘aim to foster smooth and gradual integration of ACP States into the world economy, especially by making full use of regional integration and south-south trade’; whereas the inclusion of EPAs in the Cotonou Agreement promotes policy coherence for development;

K.  whereas the Cotonou Agreement takes account of the growing importance of regional integration in ACP countries and in ACP-EU cooperation, as well as its role in fostering peace and security, promoting growth and tackling cross-border challenges;

L.  whereas the Cotonou Agreement addresses new global challenges related to climate change, migration, peace and security (such as the fight against terrorism, extremism and international criminality), but has produced few concrete results in these areas;

M.  whereas meetings of joint ACP-EU institutions, and notably the Joint Council of Ministers, have produced few concrete results and have seen both low and low-level attendance;

N.  whereas the EU finances approximately 50 % of the costs of the ACP secretariat; whereas a number of ACP member states are not paying their full membership contributions;

O.  whereas political dialogue on essential elements, as referred to in Articles 8 and 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, is a concrete and legal means of upholding the common values of the ACP-EU partnership and promoting democracy and human rights, which are fundamental for sustainable development;

P.  whereas there is a clear need to ensure that human rights conditionality is maintained, and to strengthen political dialogue in the new agreement;

Q.  whereas, despite the recognition of their importance, the involvement of national parliaments, local authorities, civil society and the private sector in political dialogue has been rather limited; whereas the role of the ACP Group as such has been limited to cases where Article 96 is invoked; whereas political dialogue, and Article 96 in particular, have mostly been used at a late stage of political crises and not in a preventative manner;

R.  whereas despite the clear recognition of the role of national parliaments, local authorities, civil society and the private sector in the Cotonou Agreement following its 2010 revision, their participation in deliberations on ACP-EU policies and activities has been limited;

S.  whereas civil society organisations are facing increasingly restrictive legislation and other obstacles that limit their activities and space;

T.  whereas the ACP region includes a number of overseas countries and territories (OCTs) associated with the European Union whose special links with the EU argue in favour of a move away from the traditional development assistance approach, so as to take better account of their membership of the European family; whereas although OCTs enjoy a special status, they continue to receive funding under the 11th European Development Fund (EDF), in the same way as the ACP countries;

U.  whereas the EDF is financed through direct contributions from EU Member States and is not subject to normal EU budgetary rules; whereas Parliament does not have any power over the EDF budget other than by granting discharge for disbursements already made, nor does it have formal scrutiny rights over EDF programming;

V.  whereas under the 11th EDF some EUR 900 million is set aside for the African Peace Facility and some EUR 1,4 billion from the EDF reserve will be used for the EU Trust Fund for Africa;

W.  whereas the domestic resources of the ACP countries, together with remittances from diaspora communities, could play a key part in funding development;

X.  whereas budgetisation of the EDF would allow for democratic scrutiny, enhance visibility and increase transparency in the use of EU development funds; whereas, on the other hand, the multiannual nature of EDF programming allows for resource predictability, and budgetisation could lead to a decrease in development funds to ACP countries in favour of other external policy priorities and could be seen to weaken the privileged EU-ACP partnership; whereas budgetisation of the EDF could also jeopardise the financing of the African Peace Facility, and of other important initiatives such as the Africa Trust Fund, unless a dedicated instrument for financing security expenses linked to development cooperation is created;

1.  Affirms that ACP-EU cooperation is a valuable and unique achievement that has strengthened bonds between ACP and EU peoples and countries and their parliaments throughout the last 40 years; underlines – in light of the ACP countries’ demonstration of their commitment to taking joint action as a group – that in order to improve the effectiveness of cooperation and adapt it to new challenges, a new structure must be adopted that maintains those parts of the ACP-EU acquis that are universal in nature, such as a commitment to human rights and gender equality, human development, good governance and democracy, the objective of the rule of law, and exchange of best practice in a common framework, while the main work must be carried out in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, that is, it must take place in regional agreements that are tailored to specific regional needs and to the mutual interests existing between the EU and the respective region;

2.  Emphasises that both the common framework and the regional agreements should be legally binding; underlines that, in order to strengthen their effectiveness, reduce duplication and avoid overlapping policy frameworks, the regional agreements with Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific should be designed in a way that takes into account existing regional and sub-regional organisations, e.g. the African Union, Regional Economic Communities, regional strategies or regional agreements such as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), and should allow the inclusion of additional countries, such as northern African countries, or the creation of groupings in accordance with specific interests or needs (e.g. development status, as in the case of LDCs, or geographical peculiarities, as in the case of small island developing states);

Objectives, principles and terms of cooperation

3.  Calls for the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be placed at the centre of a new agreement, and for the creation of strong monitoring mechanisms to ensure that implementation of the agreement contributes to and promotes the SDGs;

4.  Calls for an ACP-EU peer monitoring, accountability and review mechanism to scrutinise SDG implementation in member states on a regular basis, with ACP and EU representatives not only from central governmental institutions but also from parliaments, regional and local authorities, civil society and scientific communities, drawing up yearly conclusions and recommendations for national, regional and global review processes and follow-up;

5.  Stresses, furthermore, that full account should be taken of knowledge-based policies during the programming, adoption and implementation of the sector-specific public policies provided for under the new agreement;

6.  Calls for the fight against, and ultimate eradication of, poverty and inequalities and the promotion of sustainable development to be the overarching objectives of ACP-EU cooperation; insists, however, that a new agreement must primarily be a political project based on the principle of ownership and clearly leave behind the donor-recipient mentality; considers that cooperation should take place in areas of common interest where mutual gains can be expected, not just in economic terms but also with regard to peace and security, human rights and the rule of law, good governance and democracy, migration, the environment, climate change and other areas related to the prosperity of both ACP and EU populations;

7.  Reiterates its view that policy coherence for development (PCD) is a key element for achieving the new sustainable development agenda; believes that the comprehensive nature of the Cotonou Agreement promotes PCD and should therefore be safeguarded in a new agreement; points out the need to maintain specific provisions on PCD and to strengthen dialogue on related issues in the framework of the new agreement; recalls its proposal of instituting standing PCD co-rapporteurs in the framework of the Joint Parliamentary Assembly;

8.  Believes that respect for internationally agreed aid effectiveness principles is key for accomplishing the 2030 Agenda, and considers that a reference to this should be included in a future agreement;

9.  Calls for the essential elements in the Cotonou Agreement regarding human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law to continue to form the value-based foundation of a new agreement; calls for good governance to be added as an essential element, in line with new SDG 16, covering peace and justice and effective institutions; reiterates the importance of fully implementing Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement;

10.  Stresses that political dialogue is a fundamental part of the Cotonou Agreement, and that Articles 8 and 96 are a concrete and legal means to uphold the essential elements of ACP-EU relations, though they have not always been used effectively in the past; calls for political dialogue to remain a central and legal pillar in the overarching framework and at the regional level of the new agreement; calls for political dialogue to be used more effectively and systematically and in a proactive way in order to prevent political crises;

11.  Points out that Article 97 of the Cotonou Agreement provides for a consultation procedure and appropriate measures to deal with serious cases of corruption, and considers it regrettable that this article has been invoked only once to date; calls for that procedure to be strengthened in the new partnership agreement between the EU and the ACP countries, so as to make it fully operational;

12.  Underlines in this regard that political dialogue is a valuable basis for improving the situation of the peoples of the partner countries; regrets the insufficient use of this instrument and its weak effectiveness so far; calls, therefore, for improved monitoring of the human rights situation and of the other essential and fundamental elements of the agreement, stresses that the monitoring must be inclusive and participatory and calls for a regular biennial or multiannual evaluation and joint reports on respect of these elements by all ACP-EU member states with the purpose of naming, shaming and praising; calls for the results of these reports to be presented at the overarching ACP-EU meetings and used as a basis for political dialogue and for them to be consulted during national, regional and global SDG implementation reviews;

13.  Calls for stronger participation of national parliaments and regional and local authorities, both in ACP and EU countries, at all stages of ACP-EU policies and activities, from future planning and programming to implementation, evaluation and monitoring, particularly from the viewpoint of the principle of subsidiarity;

14.  Urges all the parties to the new agreement to undertake to give local and regional government greater autonomy and build up its capacity, so that it is able to carry out its duties effectively and to play a significant role in the development of ACP countries;

15.  Calls for stronger involvement in political dialogue, programming and implementation and support for capacity-building by civil society, especially for local groups that are directly concerned by policies; underlines in this regard the danger of shrinking space for civil society in some countries, and the need also to include groups such as minorities, young people and women that are unable to organise their interests or that are, despite a legitimate democratic interest, not recognised by their government;

16.  Believes that the private sector can play a pivotal role in the development process and can contribute to financing development, provided investment occurs with respect for the people, for traditional ownership or use, and for the environment, in line with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights; calls, therefore, for private investment to be supported under the auspices of the European Investment Bank (EIB), provided it is in line with international human rights law and social and environmental protection rules; underlines that in the new partnership priority should be given to small-scale producers and farmers and on securing an enabling environment for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs); calls, furthermore, for local and national private sectors to be listened to during policymaking, and at the programming and implementation stages;

Future ACP-EU institutions

17.  Calls for Joint ACP-EU Council meetings to include topical and urgent political debates, including on sensitive issues, with the aim of adopting joint conclusions on them; calls on the relevant ACP and EU member state ministries to improve their participation at the level of ministers, in order to give the meetings the necessary political legitimacy and confer the needed visibility on the principle of partnership;

18.  Calls for the new cooperation agreement to include a strong parliamentary dimension, through a Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA), that will provide for an open democratic and comprehensive parliamentary dialogue, including on difficult and sensitive subjects, advance common (regional) political projects, provide a democratic underpinning for them through the participation of multi-stakeholders, scrutinise the executive’s work and development cooperation, promote democracy and human rights, and thus make an important contribution to a new cooperation partnership on an equal footing; underlines the importance of the early involvement of the JPA in all relevant discussions regarding the post-2020 ACP-EU partnership;

19.  Strongly believes that the JPA should ensure the adequate democratic and proportional representation and participation of all political forces in its debates; calls, therefore, for the national delegations to the JPA to include parliamentary representatives of their national political spectrum and to guarantee the presence of opposition;

20.  Calls for the JPA to be aligned with the new regional structure, thus focusing its work in regional fora on issues of regional importance, strongly involving the national and regional parliaments, while also maintaining regular, but less frequent, joint ACP-EU meetings; calls for thematic topical meetings with civil society, local authorities and the private sector to be included in JPA sessions with a view to further developing and broadening debates on topics linked to the JPA agenda;

21.  Calls on the JPA Bureau to develop a more strategic orientation of the Assembly’s work programme; calls for future JPA Committee reports to make a clear link to the 17 SDGs so as to allow for continuous monitoring of each of these goals; calls for an alignment of common resolutions in the overarching ACP-EU forum on urgent international topics, delays regarding SDG-relevant topics and breaches of human rights, and an alignment of resolutions in regional or other respective meetings on current topics and issues that are urgent and of particular interest for a region or a specific group; in this context, reminds the VP/HR of the political importance of the presence of the Council at ministerial level in the JPA sessions; calls for the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU JPA to be invited to Joint Council meetings in order to ensure an effective and reciprocal flow of information and to improve institutional cooperation;

22.  Calls for further efforts to be made to improve JPA scrutiny of development programming, bearing in mind the development effectiveness principles and follow-up to such scrutiny; calls on the Commission and governments to promote the involvement of national parliaments, local and regional authorities, civil society actors, the private sector and diaspora communities in all the different scrutiny phases of development programming, and to supply all available information in a timely and transparent manner to national parliaments in order to assist them in their exercise of democratic scrutiny;

23.  Considers that the EU-ACP partnership should try to engage further with other partners at the global level (such as the African Union or the United Nations) and other international powers wherever possible, and work on enhanced coordination and cooperation, without duplicating work or missions, in order to tackle the challenges of wars, internal conflicts, insecurity, fragility and transition;

Future funding

24.  Is convinced that the simultaneous expiry of the Cotonou Agreement and of the Union’s multiannual financial framework (MFF) provides an opportunity to finally decide on the budgetisation of the European Development Fund in order to enhance efficiency and effectiveness, transparency, democratic scrutiny, accountability and the visibility and coherence of EU development financing; stresses, however, that this budgetisation should be conditioned by (i) a guaranteed ring-fencing of developing funds to maintain the level of financing for developing countries, and (ii) a permanent and separate solution for EU financing of security expenses that are linked to and in coherence with development cooperation; stresses that, even if budgetised, the EDF should include benchmarks that are aligned with EU development cooperation; urges the two parties to modernise funding instruments and to promote general and sectoral budget support when possible;

25.  Points out that the Union budget already provides instruments targeted at specific partners and that EDF budgetisation can be designed so as to reflect and promote the privileged ACP-EU relationship with a view to promoting sustainable development; calls on the Commission to present a roadmap which addresses the abovementioned issues, prior to presenting the necessary proposals for the next MFF;

26.  Recalls that future ACP-EU relations must be of a political nature, e.g. working towards common political projects in different international fora, and not mainly of a donor-recipient nature; stresses, therefore, that EU development aid principles must be applied on an equal basis to all developing countries, and that advanced ACP countries must therefore graduate out of receiving EU development aid on the same terms as non-ACP countries; considers that a higher degree of self-financing by the ACP countries would be in line with the ACP ambitions to be an autonomous player, and stresses in this context the importance of including in the new agreement enhanced tools for building ACP countries’ capacity to fund vital economic sectors; calls on the parties to redouble their efforts to build capacity in the ACP countries and to harness and make good use of domestic resources by, in particular, strengthening tax systems, ensuring sound management of natural resources and fostering industrialisation and the processing of raw materials for local, regional and world markets;

27.  Underscores that the 11th EDF is the main source of funding for the African Peace Facility (APF), despite the fact that this was meant to be a provisional solution when the APF was established in 2003; calls for the creation of a dedicated instrument for financing security expenses linked to development cooperation;

28.  Notes the Commission communication of 7 June 2016 on establishing a new partnership framework with third countries under the European Agenda on Migration; notes that the EU budget and the EDF contribution to the package of EUR 8 billion is exclusively composed of aid which was already planned; calls for development assistance to beneficiaries not to be jeopardised and for migration-related initiatives to be financed with fresh appropriations;

29.  Calls for the introduction of a dedicated instrument for all OCTs which is in keeping with their special status and their membership of the European family; calls for closer cooperation between ACP countries and OCTs, with a view to fostering inclusive and sustainable development in their respective regions and integrating OCTs more fully into their regional environments;

Trade dimension: Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs)

30.  Reiterates that EPAs constitute a basis for regional cooperation and that they must be instruments for development and regional integration; highlights, therefore, the relevance of legally binding sustainability provisions (on human rights, social and environmental standards) in all EPAs, and underlines the importance of creating effective monitoring systems that include a wide range of civil society in order to identify and prevent any potential negative effects due to trade liberalisation;

31.  Calls for a post-Cotonou Agreement as a political umbrella agreement under which binding minimum requirements for EPAs are set, in order to ensure continuity for EPA linkages in the existing Cotonou Agreement to sustainability provisions on good governance, respect for human rights, including among the most vulnerable people, and respect for social and environmental standards, and because it would provide an adequate framework for sustainable development and policy coherence; calls for a joint parliamentary scrutiny and monitoring process on the impact of the EPA as well as structured civil society monitoring mechanisms;

o
o   o

32.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the ACP Council, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the Bureau of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

(1) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/03_01/pdf/mn3012634_en.pdf
(2) http://www.epg.acp.int/fileadmin/user_upload/Georgetown_1992.pdf
(3) OJ C 310, 25.8.2016, p. 19.
(4) OJ C 65, 19.2.2016, p. 257.
(5) OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 120.
(6) OJ C 103 E, 29.4.2004, p. 833.
(7) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/2015_acp2/pdf/101905en.pdf
(8) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/2015_acp2/pdf/1081264en.pdf
(9) http://www.africa-eu-partnership.org/sites/default/files/documents/eas2007_joint_strategy_en.pdf
(10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0336.
(11) http://www.acp.int/content/acp-eu-stand-together-post-2015-development-agenda
(12) http://www.epg.acp.int/fileadmin/user_upload/Sipopo_Declaration.pdf
(13) UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/69/313.
(14) UN General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/1.

Legal notice