PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente

(Se abre la sesión a las 9.05 horas)

  El Presidente. − Nuestro primer punto es el informe de Iliana Malinova Iotova, en nombre de la Comisión de Peticiones, sobre el Informe anual relativo a las actividades del Defensor del Pueblo en 2010 [2011/2106(INI)] (A7-0285/2011).

  Илияна Малинова Йотова, докладчик. − Службата на Европейския омбудсман е създадена с Договора от Маастрихт като една от характеристиките на гражданството на Европейския съюз. Член 24 от Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз урежда правото на подаване на жалба до Европейския омбудсман.

На 27 септември 2010 г. се навършиха 15 години от създаването на институцията на Омбудсмана и тя беше отбелязана с представяне на стратегия за развитието й до 2014 г. Защитата на европейските граждани се промени през последните 15 години благодарение на независимостта на Омбудсмана и на демократичния контрол върху прозрачността на неговата дейност от страна на Европейския парламент. Опитът от тези 15 години позволява на Омбудсмана да види основните проблеми в лошото администриране, структурните слабости в отношенията между институциите, както и между институциите и гражданите.

С активността си пред 2010 г. г-н Диамандурос демонстрира ангажираност в подобряване информираността на гражданите на Европейския съюз за техните права и как те могат да бъдат защитени. Става дума най-вече за правото на добра администрация, правото на достъп до документи на Европейския съюз, който понякога се отказва дори на нас, евродепутатите, правото да се участва в диалог с институциите на Европейския съюз и правото да се обърнат към Омбудсмана.

Категорично доказателство за това е създаването на интерактивния портал и на уебсайта на Омбудсмана, чрез който гражданите се информират към кого и за какво могат да подават жалби. Деветнайсет хиляди души са се възползвали от тази услуга през миналата година. Благодарение на този портал, жалбите към Омбудсмана през 2010 г. са намалели с 400 броя в сравнение с предишната година.

Въпреки всичко, обаче, и тази година най-много жалби са подадени във връзка с прозрачността и достъпа до информация. Над 30% от жалбите са в тази посока.

В трудните икономически условия, в които се намира Европа в момента, евроскептицизмът нараства в повечето държави-членки. В условията на криза все повече държави търсят начини и граждани имат желание да изкажат гражданските си позиции и да изразят недоволство, когато правата са им нарушени. Те изпращат жалбите си до парламентарната комисия по петиции, която понякога забавя тези жалби и петиции с 3-4 години и ги прави неефективни.

Смятам, че г-н Диамандурос със своята работа подобрява качеството на прозрачност и информираност на европейците, но както той самият веднъж заяви: „Аз съм един, а вие сте повече от 700“. Затова за тази кауза са необходими усилията на всички. В тази връзка бих искала да отбележа и да благодаря на Омбудсмана за доброто сътрудничество с парламентарната комисия по петиции.

Европейският омбудсман работи в тясно сътрудничество и със своите колеги от държавите-членки в така наречената Мрежа на омбудсманите. През 2010 г. по 977 случая жалбите са били пренасочени към членове на Европейската мрежа на омбудсманите. През 2010 г. Омбудсманът продължава да упражнява своите правомощия по активен и балансиран начин, за което свидетелства броят на предприетите проверки въз основа на подадените жалби през миналата година - 323, като по-голямата част от проверките засягат Европейската комисия. И затова настояваме комисарят, който отговаря за междуинституционалните отношения, да вземе мерки в това отношение.

Пример за ефикасността на Омбудсмана е и това, че принуди Агенцията по лекарства за по-добър достъп до нейните архиви, до нейните документи. С влизането в сила на Лисабонския договор през 2009 г. в правомощията на Европейския омбудсман се включи и възможността за проверка на лошо администриране в рамките на общата външна политика и политиката за сигурност, както и възможността да представя пред парламентарната комисия по петиции специални доклади, когато институциите не дават задоволителни отговори на отправените им оплаквания.

В заключение бих искала да изразя още веднъж подкрепата си и съм сигурна, че няма да бъда единствена в тази зала за информационната кампания, която г-н Диамандурос има намерение да инициира във връзка с популяризирането на Хартата на човешките права, като се надявам, че тя ще бъде неразделна част от едно бъдещо законодателство.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this opportunity to address you. I wish to thank the Committee on Petitions and especially the Chair, Ms Mazzoni, and the rapporteur, Ms Iotova. They have offered me valuable support and advice in the report before you today, and I am deeply grateful for that.

Parliament and the Ombudsman both work to ensure that citizens and residents of the EU can enjoy their rights to the full, but do so in different ways. The Ombudsman’s mandate is more limited. I can only conduct inquiries into complaints against EU institutions, whilst you can examine what Member States are doing as well. Furthermore, Parliament, as a sovereign political body, can deal with petitions that request changes in the law or new laws. In contrast, my role is more specific: it is to help uncover maladministration and attempt to put it right.

Maladministration encompasses all kinds of poor or improper administrative behaviour, from discrimination or other violations of fundamental rights to late payments, and from publishing misleading information to failure to reply to correspondence. Unlike court rulings, my decisions are not legally binding. However, I use the power of persuasion to achieve friendly solutions with which both sides – that is, the complainant and the European bodies concerned – can be satisfied. The outcome can thus be more flexible and often faster than the courts.

After my intervention, institutions and bodies have very often settled bills, paid interest, released documents, remedied injustices and put an end to discrimination. I make efforts to help every complainant who turns to the Ombudsman, even in cases when the complaint is not within my mandate.

In January 2009, as just mentioned by Ms Iotova, I launched an interactive guide on my website, which is accessible in all 23 official languages. This guide aims to direct complainants to the body best placed to help them. The number of inadmissible complaints submitted to me has since shown a significant decline. I attribute this decline, at least in part, to the fact that, by using the interactive guide, more citizens are finding the right address to turn to the first time around. I note that since its launch more than 60 000 people have received advice through the guide.

Reducing the number of inadmissible complaints has been a long-standing demand of Parliament, and I wish to register my response to that. We should not underestimate how important it is for citizens to be guided to the most appropriate complaint-handling body from the outset and to be spared the frustrations and delays associated with having to identify the right institution on their own. In contrast to the reduction of the complaints outside my mandate, the numbers of inquiries opened and closed in 2010 – that is, 335 and 326 respectively – remained roughly stable compared to 2009. This trend confirms that more of the people turning to the European Ombudsman are doing so for the right reasons.

I am pleased to note also that, in 2010, 55% of all investigations were either settled by the institution or resulted in a friendly solution. In the other cases I issued a recommendation that was accepted by the institution, thereby satisfying the complainant, or I did not find an instance of maladministration. Only in 33 cases did I issue a critical remark or, in one case, a special report submitted to this august body. The number of critical remarks issued by my office has shown a sustained reduction in recent years. This suggests that the EU institutions are taking a more proactive role in resolving complaints and enabling win-win situations. This is obviously always preferable for the complainant and the institution concerned.

In 2010 the most common allegation examined by the Ombudsman was lack of transparency in the EU administration. This allegation arose in 33% of all closed inquiries and included refusal of information and access to documents. I note with concern that the number of transparency cases has remained depressingly and consistently high over the past few years. Although Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 has been in force for ten years now, it is still puzzling to observe some institutions struggling with the principle enshrined in the regulation: that openness is the basic rule in the EU legal order and secrecy the exception.

For my part, I will continue to insist on the fundamental right of access to documents and I will continue to endeavour to raise awareness of the right to address the Ombudsman and to petition Parliament so that citizens can best seek redress. Furthermore, I believe that the EU institutions should not only react properly and in the spirit of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 when receiving requests for access to documents, but that institutions should act proactively – I repeat, proactively – in putting documents into the public domain.

I have also taken additional measures to enhance transparency with respect to the Ombudsman’s own operations. From the beginning of this year I have started publishing information on my website about all new enquiries into complaints that I open, as opposed to those that I close. There are many other ways in which the institutions and bodies of the EU can become more citizen-friendly. In order consistently to deliver good administration – the key component of being citizen-friendly – institutions and bodies need to nurture a culture of service to citizens. A body that seeks to promote such a culture of service will encourage the members of its staff not only to respect good administration as a legal right but also to be polite, helpful and cooperative in dealing with citizens, willing to explain their activities and the reasoning behind the decisions taken, and ready to accept public scrutiny of their conduct.

A concise statement of these and other public service principles would, I believe, help promote citizens’ trust in the European civil service and the EU institutions. I have therefore set myself the task of drafting such a statement of public service principles which the conduct of EU officials should reflect.

In order to take account of the best practices which exist in the Member States, I asked my national colleagues for information and their views. Once that process was completed I launched a public consultation on the draft statement of public service principles earlier this year, to which I have received numerous valuable contributions. Next month I shall publish a report on the consultation and its outcome. Much more still needs to be done. A recent Eurobarometer survey commissioned by the Ombudsman and the Parliament reveals that one major challenge we face is that most European citizens are not aware of their rights. For example, more than 70% of the 27 000 respondents did not feel sufficiently informed about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. A further 13% had never even heard of the Charter. In addition, many citizens do not know where to turn if they encounter problems either with the application of EU law in general or in the exercise of their rights, whether at regional, national or European level.

To conclude, although it is clear to me that much has been achieved to date, it is equally clear to me that there is much more work ahead for all of us – Ombudsmen, Parliament, the other institutions and the European network of Ombudsmen – in order to enhance citizens’ trust in the EU and to consolidate a culture of service in the institutions. Closer cooperation between all of us, engaging in systematic dialogue, learning from best practices whenever and wherever they can be found, allocating more resources to responding to citizens’ enquiries and complaint handling are all key aspects of building trust, of serving citizens and of helping them enjoy their rights more fully.

I am certain that in the years to come we will achieve much more in that direction and, in so doing, we shall make our modest contribution to the deepening of the rule of law and to the enhancement of the quality of democracy. Honourable Members, I look forward to your remarks, and I welcome the presence of Commissioner Kroes.

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, what a great start to the day: firstly to replace my dear colleague Maroš Šefčovič; secondly, to sit next to the Ombudsman, and thirdly, to be involved in a discussion about a very important issue. I would like to congratulate the honourable Member, Ms Iotova, on her report, which is one of those base elements where we can start the discussion.

I welcome this report. As the Ombudsman’s report it represents a good start, one which is closer to the European citizen. Especially with regard to Ms Iotova’s report, it offers a clear and exhaustive overview of the activities of the Ombudsman – not only for the past year – and is also a very useful tool for the other institutions.

Let me also take the opportunity to thank the Ombudsman personally for his report, which reflects the constructive relations our institutions have built together and which show the outside world that we are working in close cooperation. This does not mean that we always agree 100% on everything but, if that were the case, it would be less challenging.

Relations between the Commission and the Ombudsman are very fruitful and very positive. There are some outstanding issues on which both parties are committed to making every effort to reach mutual understanding. Since the Commission is the main Union institution that takes decisions which have a direct impact on citizens, I believe there is nothing unusual in it being the principal object of inquiries. So there is nothing new here and we should not be surprised.

As regards cases with critical and further remarks, these are specially registered and closely followed by the Ombudsman, who publishes a study every year on each institution’s follow-up to his critical and further remarks. Of course we need to be aware that your attention is not confined to the one moment when you make a remark and that the follow-up is also closely monitored.

Last year the Commission was able to follow up 31% of the critical remarks issued by the Ombudsman., which represents a considerable proportion. It is worth noting that the number of critical remarks addressed to the Commission continues to decrease, representing 12% of the inquiries closed in 2010. If you compare this with 14% in 2009 and 16% in 2008, 12% is not a bad score. It reflects the fruitful efforts by the Commission to improve its administration and to develop further the principles of a genuine culture of service.

I am aware that one of the Ombudsman’s most frequent concerns relates to the alleged lack of transparency of the Commission, including the refusal to provide information. I am committed to further tackling such cases. However, I would like to note that in this field the Commission thoroughly examines all the inquiries addressed to it by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman often closes his inquiries with critical and further remarks because the Commission has not respected deadlines during the procedures. That is clear and follows the complaints request for access to a file. The Ombudsman points out that a third of the complaints deal with requests for information or for public access to documents.

In 2010 he closed 23 inquiries and opened 22 new ones. However, the number of complaints must be seen in perspective. In 2010 the Commission handled more than 6 000 requests for access to documents and 5 000 requests were granted. Everything is relative, but please take into account that 5 000 requests were granted. The Commission took 122 decisions on confirmatory applications, of which 22 led to a complaint to the Ombudsman. These figures show that the Commission duly respects citizens’ fundamental right of access to documents.

Regarding the recast of the regulation, the Commission submitted a proposal in 2008 which is still at first reading in Parliament. No comment, only a note: with a view to complying with the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission submitted a second proposal in March this year, and, as I can tell by his body language, the Ombudsman welcomes this move to achieve rapid compliance with the Treaty by extending the right of access to all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the EU.

As regards the Ombudsman’s special report sent to the Parliament in 2010 and regarding a complaint on access to Commission documents – the ‘Porsche’ affair – I regret that this special report was sent shortly after the Commission had taken a final decision on the case. We are collegial and we are open to each other, so I imagine that from our side we are allowed to make that kind of remark. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the time taken to reach that decision was excessive, even if it was due to the failure of the third party to respond to the Commission’s proposal. The picture tends to be clearer when we have all the facts than when we do not.

I would like to stress that the Commission is fully committed to sincerely cooperating with the Ombudsman and that it does not have any intention of obstructing the Ombudsman’s work in any way. I would not dare to say anything different. This is Maroš’s text and I am also completely committed to it.

Finally, the Commission – like the Iotova report – also encourages the Ombudsman to continue to promote the European Network of Ombudsmen, with a view to developing a comprehensive database and better informing EU citizens about the apportioning of responsibilities between the European Ombudsman, the national ombudsmen and Parliament’s Committee on Petitions. The Commission looks forward to the Ombudsman’s statement of public service principles, which was recently the subject of a public consultation open to national ombudsmen, colleagues and other interested parties. The Commission contributed to this public consultation by stressing that public service principles are well settled in staff regulations and in different Commission codes, such as the Commission’s Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.

The Commission will always be willing to further reinforce its culture of service and ensure the coherence of its actions in those fields which are most widely covered by the Ombudsman’s inquiries.

  Мария Неделчева, от името на групата PPE. – Най-напред бих искала да поздравя докладчика Йотова за добрия и изчерпателен доклад.

Г-н Диамандурос, Вашата функция е от първостепенна важност за засилването на доверието на гражданите в нашите институции, защото всички ние никога не трябва да губим от поглед принципа на добрата администрация и никога не трябва да приемаме успехите за даденост и да спираме да се борим, да работим все по-добре за нашите граждани.

Именно затова докладите относно годишната дейност на Европейския омбудсман са от толкова голямо значение за подобряването на работата на нашите институции в полза на европейските граждани. Бих искала да Ви обърна внимание на няколко точки.

Най-напред 2010 г. е белязана с преизбирането на г-н Диамандурос за Европейски омбудсман, с 15-годишнината на институцията, с новата визия на годишния доклад, с нова стратегия. Всичко това свидетелства за много натрупан опит и за желания да се върви напред. Бих искала да отчета намаляването на броя на жалбите в сравнение с този от 2009 г., но и запазването на тенденцията голяма част от жалбите да се отнасят до прозрачността и достъпа на информация.

Нека не забравяме значението на прозрачността. Правилото е прозрачност, а изключението - конфиденциалност. Лисабонският договор даде и друг важен инструмент в ръцете на Европейския омбудсман - Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз стана правно обвързваща в повечето страни членки и правото на добра администрация придоби юридическа стойност. Нека Европейският омбудсман се възползва максимално от тази нова солидна юридическа база, за да върши успешно своята работа.

Доброто сътрудничество с новата Европейска служба за външна дейност и с Европейския съвет е също толкова важно. Важно е Европейският омбудсман да продължи да подкрепя дейността на Европейската мрежа на омбудсманите, да продължим със създаването на всеобхватна база данни, за да бъдат европейските граждани по-добре осведомени за разпределението на отговорностите между Европейския омбудсман, националните омбудсмани и нашата комисия по петиции, защото всички ние защитаваме интересите на европейските граждани и носим отговорност за засилване на доверието в европейските институции.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Panie Przewodniczący! 27 września 2010 roku obchodziliśmy 15. rocznicę istnienia instytucji Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich. Przez półtorej dekady Ombudsman przeprowadził ponad 3 800 dochodzeń dotyczących niewłaściwego administrowania oraz udzielił odpowiedzi na ponad 36 000 skarg indywidualnych obywateli oraz firm Unii Europejskiej czujących się ofiarami błędów lub zaniedbań ze strony instytucji lub agencji europejskich. Pragnąc podkreślić, jak ważną rolę sprawuje urząd rzecznika warto wspomnieć, że jedynie w ubiegłym roku zarejestrowanych zostało 2667 skarg. Na szczególną pochwałę zasługuje inicjatywa Ombudsmana polegająca na cyklicznym publikowaniu analiz badających działania podjęte przez instytucje unijne w następstwie zgłoszonych przez niego skarg.

Urząd rzecznika corocznie zdobywa coraz większe zaufanie obywateli, w swoim działaniu jest też im coraz bardziej przyjazny. Promocja i ulepszenia procedury składania wniosków sprawiły, iż prawie 58% skarg otrzymanych w ubiegłym roku wpłynęło za pośrednictwem internetu, co przyczyniło się do szybszego ich rozpatrzenia, zaś średni czas trwania postępowań skrócił się do niespełna 9 miesięcy, co niestety jest dalej zbyt długo dla obywatela.

Wielu skarg można byłoby uniknąć, gdyby obywatele mieli łatwiejszy dostęp do dokumentów instytucji unijnych. Przejrzystość w dziedzinie procesu podejmowania decyzji oraz odpowiedzialność instytucji Unii powinny być podstawą w kontaktach z obywatelami. Niestety ze sprawozdania wynika wyraźnie, że kwestie te dotyczyły aż 33% wszystkich postępowań w 2010 r. Z niecierpliwością czekam zatem na konkretne działania zmierzające do poprawy także tej sytuacji. Przy okazji pragnę podkreślić stałą i bardzo dobrą współpracę pomiędzy Europejskim Rzecznikiem Praw Obywatelskich i parlamentarną Komisją Petycji, w której pracuję już drugą kadencję.

Mając nadzieję, że instytucja Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich nie ustanie w usprawnianiu swych działań na rzecz gwarancji pewnego wykorzystania przez obywateli Unii Europejskiej przysługujących im praw, życzę kolejnych sukcesów Ombudsmanowi, którego funkcje od 2003 r. z powodzeniem piastuje profesor Nikiforos Diamandouros, którego pracę osobiście bardzo doceniam. Kończąc, pragnę pogratulować także sprawozdawczyni, pani Iotovej, świetnie wykonanej pracy.

  Edward McMillan-Scott, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to join other colleagues in thanking Ms Iotova for an excellent report into what appears to be an admirable year for the Ombudsman. It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee on Petitions once again. I first served on it 27 years ago for a period. At that time there was no Ombudsman and no effective procedure for complaints into maladministration by the EU institutions, but today we can reflect not only on the fact that the Ombudsman’s office is there, is fully staffed, has a budget and has a mandate, but that its mandate has been increased by the Lisbon Treaty to include foreign and defence policy and the new External Action Service. This new scope will be a challenge for the Ombudsman, but I am sure he will meet it, as he always does, with the full cooperation of the European Parliament, and especially its Committee on Petitions.

It is important that when maladministration is alleged there is a framework within which this can be decided. I am pleased to see that the Ombudsman is promulgating a statement of public service principles which our civil servants in Parliament, the Commission and elsewhere within the EU can read and understand and follow. It is good to see, too, that the Ombudsman is using very frequently a process of conciliation before a formal procedure is begun. This is all extremely encouraging and, from my group’s point of view, we would like Mr Diamandouros to continue his excellent work and to endorse fully the report by Ms Iotova, which we adopted in committee on 13 June. We would like to thank you all for your work.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Rzeczniku! Pani Komisarz! Rzeczywiście pani sprawozdawczyni Iotova powiedziała, że najwięcej skarg kierowanych do rzecznika dotyczy prac Komisji Europejskiej. Jest to klasyczny przykład, kiedy jedna komisja czy organ unijny rozwiązuje problemy innego organu unijnego. Jest to niestety klasyczny przykład rozrostu biurokracji, który – według pewnych praw socjologicznych – jest nieuchronny. Pan McMillan-Scott powiedział słusznie, że pan rzecznik ma odpowiednich urzędników. Jest ich już niestety 64. Budżet Pana instytucji to jest prawie 10 mln euro. Pytanie brzmi: czy słuszna praca, którą Pan wykonuje, musi być rzeczywiście wykonywana przy takim budżecie i przy udziale tylu osób. Z powodu tych wątpliwości moja grupa wstrzyma się od głosu nad sprawozdaniem pani Iotovej.

  Margrete Auken, for Verts/ALE-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! EU-borgernes billede af EU er et stort og utilgængeligt bureaukrati, og det er svært at få det billede væk. Når vi taler om, at vi i 2013 skal have "The Year of the Citizens", er der en fair chance for, at vi bliver til grin! Vi har ellers gjort store fremskridt for at muliggøre borgernes deltagelse først og fremmest med vores ombudsmand, hvis årsberetning vi takker for, og vi behandler i dag fru Iotovas glimrende betænkning. Tak til hende og kollegerne for, at vi faktisk kan være meget stolte af denne betænkning.

Tankegangen i lovændringerne til administrationen er jo klar: EU's forvaltning skal være til for borgernes skyld. Det er dem, der skal have tillid til systemet, og de skal opleve, at det virker. Vi har sat kravene om god forvaltningsskik ind i charteret, hvor det er forpligtende for EU-institutionerne, og vi har forbedret retsgrundlaget for aktindsigt, så den i forvejen glimrende forordning 1047 kan blive endnu bedre. Problemet er bare, at vigtige dele af Kommissionen og af Rådet ikke ønsker at lege med. For dem er det stadigvæk forvaltningens opgave at beskytte magten mod borgerne. Vi har i 2008 set en ulyksalig modstand mod forbedringerne af 1041, og det bliver sandsynligvis en krig at få Kommissionen til at foreslå den lovgivning, vi har brug for, om god forvaltningsskik. Hvis den skal være sikker, skal vi have lovgivning herom. Det fremgår også af punkt 29 i betænkningen.

Det er ikke betryggende, at de fleste klager hos ombudsmanden drejer sig om Kommissionen. Og det er ikke betryggende - det bliver jeg nødt til at sige til fru kommissæren - at antallet er stigende. Kommissionen er jo centrum i EU. Det er den, der skal sørge for, at EU udvikler sig i overensstemmelse med de europæiske værdier, og det er Kommissionen, der har eneretten til at fremsætte lovforslag. På den baggrund er det alarmerende, at fremtrædende embedsmænd faktisk mener, at Kommissionen stadigvæk skal beskytte sig mod borgerne. Jeg har hørt en fremtrædende embedsmand fra DG-Miljø, som ikke engang ville give adgang til overtrædelsesprocedurerne, når sagen var lukket, fordi han mente, det kunne skade tilliden inden for systemet. Nej! Det er borgerne, der skal have tillid til os, ikke omvendt! Det er den måde, systemet skal virke på. Det her er ikke et spørgsmål om kulturer. Der er ikke en nordisk kultur for åbenhed og en sydlig kultur for korruption. Må jeg være her? Kultur for åbenhed skal vi have overalt! Vores ombudsmand er græker, og vi kan ikke sige, at de syd på ikke går ind for åbenhed.

Lad mig til sidst bede ombudsmanden være opmærksom på én ting i budgettet, som vi taler om. Hvad koster det, at ombudsmanden bor i Strasbourg - langt væk fra sit arbejde - i stedet for at bo der, hvor han arbejder? Jeg vil gerne bede ombudsmanden om at levere os klare tal, så vi kan se, hvad vi kan spare, hvis vi flyttede ombudsmanden hen i nærheden af sit arbejde.

  Νικόλαος Χουντής, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συμφωνώ και στηρίζω την έκθεση της συναδέλφου, κυρίας Iotova, για τον απολογισμό του έργου του Ευρωπαίου Διαμεσολαβητή για το 2010. Έχω διαβάσει τον απολογισμό του παριστάμενου Διαμεσολαβητή, κυρίου Διαμαντούρου, έχω προσωπική γνώμη για το έργο του και νομίζω ότι έχει τελέσει έργο για το οποίο αξίζει να τον συγχαρούμε.

Πιστεύω ότι η κρίση που μαστίζει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, και ιδιαίτερα ορισμένες χώρες, καθώς και το δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα το οποίο αυξάνεται, είναι δεδομένο ότι οδηγεί σε περισσότερες παραβιάσεις των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων των ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Αυτό αποδεικνύεται, κατά την άποψή μου, από το γεγονός ότι αυξήθηκαν οι προσφυγές κατά της Επιτροπής. Δεν είναι μόνο ο ρόλος που έχει η Επιτροπή στο θεσμικό οικοδόμημα, είναι ότι τελευταία όλο και περισσότερο από το όργανο αυτό απορρέουν πολιτικές – και εδώ είναι ένα πρόβλημα – όπως φαίνεται και από τις αναφορές που απευθύνονται στον κύριο Διαμαντούρο, για τις οποίες δεν γνωρίζουμε εάν πρόκειται για φαινόμενα κακοδιοίκησης ή για φαινόμενα συνειδητής πολιτικής που πλήττουν βασικά δικαιώματα των πολιτών.

Νομίζω ότι πολλές φορές πρόκειται για το δεύτερο. Γι’ αυτό οι προσφυγές έχουν αυξηθεί απέναντι στην Επιτροπή που εκπροσωπεί αυτές τις συντηρητικές και, εν τέλει, αντιδημοκρατικές πολιτικές, και μπορώ να αναφέρω πολλαπλά παραδείγματα επ’ αυτού.

Εξ άλλου, το ότι έχουν μειωθεί οι προσφυγές συγκριτικά με το προηγούμενο έτος προς τον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή, δεν σημαίνει ότι ο κύριος Διαμαντούρος δεν κάνει καλά τη δουλειά του. Σημαίνει, κατά τη γνώμη μου, ότι και τον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή αγγίζει μια κρίση αξιοπιστίας, όπως όλους τους θεσμούς της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, δηλαδή απογοητευμένος ο ευρωπαίος πολίτης δεν θεωρεί σκόπιμο να απευθυνθεί, έστω, στον Ευρωπαίο διαμεσολαβητή όταν κατανοεί ότι υπάρχει ένα πρόβλημα.

Τέλος, νομίζω ότι πρέπει να στηρίξουμε περισσότερο το έργο του Ευρωπαίου Διαμεσολαβητή, ιδιαίτερα δε, να ξεκινήσει μια ενημέρωση για το ρόλο του και τις δυνατότητες που έχει ο ευρωπαίος πολίτης όταν προσφεύγει στον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή, γιατί από τη γεωγραφική κατανομή των αναφορών φαίνεται ότι αρκετές χώρες έχουν μικρή αναλογία προσφυγών.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας EFD. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα και εγώ με τη σειρά μου να σχολιάσω θετικά τον απολογισμό του Ευρωπαίου Διαμεσολαβητή για το εξαιρετικό έργο το οποίο έκανε για το 2010 και ταυτόχρονα την έκθεση της κυρίας Iotova η οποία περιέχει επαρκή στοιχεία.

Στην αρχαία Ρώμη υπήρχε ένας ρήτορας ο οποίος έλεγε: «Carthago delenda est». Ήθελε πάντα να τελειώνει τους λόγους του με αυτή τη φράση. Και η Καρχηδόνα έπεσε και κατεστράφη. Ποια είναι η σύγχρονη Καρχηδόνα; Η σύγχρονη Καρχηδόνα είναι η συμπεριφορά της διοίκησης χωρίς σεβασμό προς τους πολίτες και η διαφθορά. Και ως προς μεν τη διαφθορά δεν μπορείτε εσείς, κύριε Διαμαντούρο, να επέμβετε θεσμικά. Όμως, για την εμπέδωση του πνεύματος σεβασμού των πολιτών, στη διοίκηση μπορείτε να επέμβετε σε μεγάλο βαθμό.

Το 2010, όπως προκύπτει από τα στατιστικά στοιχεία της έκθεσης που κρίνεται σήμερα, λάβατε 2.667 καταγγελίες από πολίτες, εταιρίες και ενώσεις και μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, κατοίκους ή εδρεύοντες στο χώρο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Παρά τη μείωση που παρατηρήθηκε σε σύγκριση με το 2009, προσωπικά θεωρώ ότι ο θεσμός έχει εμπεδωθεί στη συνείδηση των ευρωπαίων πολιτών, οι οποίοι όμως δεν έχουν προσδιορίσει, απ’ ό,τι αντιλαμβάνομαι, το εύρος της δικαιοδοσίας του Διαμεσολαβητή και καταφεύγουν σε αυτόν για υποθέσεις εκτός ορίων της αρμοδιότητάς του.

Βεβαίως αντιλαμβάνομαι ότι υπάρχουν περιπτώσεις που οι πολίτες δεν μπορούν να οριοθετήσουν την έννοια της αρχής της επικουρικότητας η οποία διακατέχει τα νομικά στοιχεία της λειτουργίας της Ένωσης. Ακόμη όμως και στις περιπτώσεις που απευθύνονται προς το Διαμεσολαβητή εκτός των πλαισίων, θεωρώ ότι γίνεται σαφές ότι αναγνωρίζουν σ’ αυτόν ένα θεσμό, ένα καταφύγιο αναζήτησης δικαιοσύνης. Και αυτό είναι το σημαντικότερο.

Έτσι, κύριε Διαμαντούρο, από τις πιο πάνω αναφορές, από ό,τι είδα στατιστικά, μόνο το 27%, δηλαδή οι 744 περιπτώσεις ενέπιπταν στις αρμοδιότητές σας. Όμως το αυξημένο ποσοστό 63% των ατόμων που προσέφυγαν σε εσάς, αυτό είναι που σας δίνει τη μεγαλύτερη ευθύνη. Όλοι αποβλέπουν στο θεσμό. Και θεωρώ ότι, όπως λειτουργείτε το θεσμό θα φέρετε σε πέρας την αποκατάσταση της εμπιστοσύνης των πολιτών της Ευρώπης, σε ένα μοντέλο και σε μια Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, της οποίας η αξιοπιστία σήμερα, λόγω της οικονομικής κρίσης, δημιουργεί τεράστια ανασφάλεια.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrter Herr Diamandouros, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Jahresbericht 2010 wurde uns vorgelegt und zeigt sehr klar, dass die Beschwerden über Verwaltungsmissstände und -schwächen in den EU-Institutionen gegenüber dem Jahr 2009 weniger wurden – sie gingen von 3 098 auf 2 667 zurück. Festzuhalten ist, dass Sie, Herr Diamandouros, Untersuchungen abschließen konnten, aber auch initiierten.

Das häufigste Problem war im vergangen Jahr der Zugang der Öffentlichkeit zu Dokumenten – der Informationszugang ist an sich schon im AEUV in Artikel 15 Absatz 3 und in Artikel 42 der Grundrechtecharta geregelt. Die Anzahl der Beschwerden zeigt unmissverständlich auf, dass der entsprechende Rechtsrahmen kontinuierlich geprüft und überarbeitet werden muss. Gleichzeitig möchte ich aber auch von den Institutionen Eigenverantwortung im Sinne der Transparenzinitiative, der sie sich verpflichtet haben, einfordern.

Abschließend möchte ich mich bei Ihnen, Herr Diamandouros, für ein weiteres Jahr, in dem Sie erneut beachtliche Arbeit geleistet haben, bedanken. Für die kommenden Jahre hoffe ich auf eine weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit mit Ihnen.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'ufficio del Mediatore svolge un'importantissima funzione sociopolitica, anche se mi rendo conto che questo non lo esonera dal rispondere alle legittime domande dei colleghi sull'imponenza del bilancio ma, anzi, sottolinea ancor di più la produttività del suo impegno.

L'ufficio del Mediatore, insieme a SOLVIT e alla commissione per le petizioni, costituisce la rete europea di tutela del diritto di cittadinanza. In realtà, attraverso le diverse procedure, spiegate in maniera molto positiva all'interno della risoluzione, il Mediatore cerca di dare pienezza a quel principio fondamentale di democrazia che è la rappresentanza, colmando le lacune nella comunicazione, sbiadendo le opacità e rendendo più trasparente il sistema. In questa relazione relativa all'anno 2010 osserviamo, come hanno sottolineato i colleghi, una diminuzione complessiva del numero delle domande – il che non avvilisce il senso di partecipazione civica dei cittadini – ma nel contempo un aumento delle denunce fatte contro la Commissione esecutiva.

Sono contenta dell'approccio positivo del Commissario Kroes e dei contenuti del suo intervento, perché ritengo che la Commissione debba trarre, da questo dibattito di oggi e dal lavoro che la rete di tutela dei cittadini svolge, delle indicazioni di percorso. Sono convinta della buona fede, dell'impegno e della buona volontà dimostrati dal Commissario Kroes e vorrei quindi che da questo si traesse un messaggio chiaro: la Commissione eccede in strumenti di burocrazia ed eccede in sovrastrutture: forse qualcuno confonde l'autorevolezza della funzione con l'autoritarismo ciò compromette il sano rapporto con i cittadini. Ringrazio quindi il Mediatore per il lavoro svolto, il Commissario e la relatrice Iotova per l'eccezionale lavoro svolto.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Vážený pán Diamandouros, vy ste boli Európskym parlamentom na plenárnej schôdzi 20. januára 2010 znovuzvolený, čo je samotným faktom, ktorý svedčí o tom, že dôvera vo vašu prácu, aj vo váš úrad v Európskom parlamente je a že si svoju prácu zastávate dobre. S radosťou môžeme skonštatovať, že vaša kvalitná práca pokračovala aj po rozšírení vášho mandátu ombudsmana Lisabonskou zmluvou a svojich nových úloh ste sa zhostili výborným spôsobom. Chcela by som na tomto mieste spomenúť vašu definíciu nesprávneho úradného postupu, ktorú schválil Európsky parlament a neskôr aj Európska komisia. Znie takto: „K nesprávnemu úradnému postupu dochádza vtedy, keď verejnoprávna inštitúcia nekoná v súlade s pravidlom alebo zásadou, ktorá je pre ňu záväzná“. Pre naše inštitúcie to znamená dodržiavať zásady právneho štátu, dobrej správy vecí verejných a základné práva. Takisto charta základných práv v článku 41 zahŕňa právo na dobrú správu ako základné právo občanov Európskej únie a je záväzná pre každú administratívnu inštitúciu Európskej únie.

V roku 2010 bol nesprávny úradný postup odhalený v 12 % uzavretých prípadov. Sťažovateľovi alebo sťažovateľom zabezpečili pozitívny výsledok v siedmich prípadoch tým, že navrhol odporúčania, ktoré boli akceptované. V roku 2010 ste tiež vydali šestnásť nových návrhov odporúčaní. Vo výročnej správe sa osobitná pozornosť venuje stratégii na aktuálne funkčné obdobie. Jedná sa v nej predovšetkým o rozšírenie a prehĺbenie kontaktov s inštitúciami Európskej únie a občianskou spoločnosťou. Toto je z hľadiska budúcnosti Európskej únie jedna z kľúčových úloh, a preto vám budeme, pán ombudsman, držať palce. Pre mnohých občanov je práve váš úrad (a vy osobne) akási posledná nádej v tom, že ich prípady budú vyriešené. Mohli by sme vám to závidieť, ale my vám to úprimne prajeme a dúfame, že občanom členských štátov Európskej únie budete aj v budúcnosti svojou kvalitnou prácou pomáhať.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Na wstępie chciałbym serdecznie pogratulować panu Nikiforosowi oraz całemu zespołowi tworzącemu Biuro Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich udanego roku 2010. Statystyki mówią same za siebie: coraz więcej rozpoznanych spraw, coraz mniej uwag krytycznych i krótszy czas wydawania decyzji – 9 miesięcy zamiast 13, czyli skrócenie o prawie ⅓. Sukces ten winien być drogowskazem dla unijnej administracji. Czas wydawania decyzji oraz odpowiedzi na realne wyzwania jest zbyt długi, co powoduje zwiększenie kosztów oraz osłabia konkurencyjność. W czasach kryzysu nie możemy sobie pozwolić na takie działania, dlatego musimy przejść do pewnej informatyzacji unijnej administracji. Potrzeby jej wprowadzenia postulował jeszcze Jacob Söderman, pełniący funkcję rzecznika do 2003 roku.

Postuluję również rozszerzenie kompetencji Rzecznika m.in. o wolność prasy i mediów w Europie lub stworzenie w ramach jego biura osobnej, specjalnej komórki, która zajmowałaby się wyłącznie tą kwestią. Wiem, że podobny projekt został kiedyś przedstawiony przez kolegów z ALDE. Dziś po doświadczeniach w Polsce, gdzie aktualny rząd próbuje ograniczać wolność prawicowych mediów, w pełni go popieram.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I have some remarks to make, in my one minute, to the Ombudsman and the Commissioner.

First, in 2010 most of the complaints to the Ombudsman referred to the lack of transparency in the EU administration. I want to urge the Council, which is absent today, and the Commission to use secrecy as an exception and not as a rule. Very often, after reading documents in the so-called ‘secret room’ of the European Parliament, as a Member of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, I pose myself the rhetorical question of what the need is for confidentiality for one document or another.

Second, we also know that the biggest proportion of enquiries in 2010 related to the European Commission and share completely the Ombudsman’s concerns about the high number of unsatisfactory replies by the Commission to his critical remarks. Our own experience in the Committee on Petitions, when dealing with certain unsatisfactory replies from the Commission, shows that his enquiries are not poorly reasoned.

We hope that the further work by the Ombudsman will impact positively on the Union’s administrative culture. Finally, I too would like to thank Ms Iotova for her report.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). - Voorzitter, graag wil ik de heer Diamandouros complimenteren met zijn voortreffelijke werk. Transparantie is helaas nog steeds een belangrijke grond voor klachten. Als Europees Parlement kunnen we daarover meepraten. Samen met gelijkgezinde Europarlementariërs uit alle grote fracties heb ik een intensieve dialoog met de Commissie gevoerd over de ondoorzichtigheid van de samenstelling en werkwijze van haar deskundigengroepen. Noch tijdens een plenair debat, noch per brief kregen we antwoord op onze vragen. Uiteindelijk hebben we gisteren de betreffende begrotingspost moeten blokkeren totdat de Commissie tegemoetkomt aan onze wensen.

Toegang tot documenten is een vergelijkbaar geval. We stuiten op een muur van verzet. De Commissie houdt vast aan haar voorstellen om in feite minder toegang tot documenten te geven dan wat de bestaande regels vastleggen. Het is dan ook geen verrassing dat de ombudsman vorig jaar een speciaal verslag over juist dit onderwerp aan het Parlement stuurde. Aanleiding was een klacht over de weigering van de Commissie om inzage te geven in brieven van Porsche aan voormalig commissaris Verheugen over CO2-emissies van auto's. Een terechte vraag, omdat die brieven konden laten zien in hoeverre er sprake was van belangenverstrengeling tussen de commissaris en de auto-industrie.

Het is buitengewoon kwalijk dat de Commissie in dit geval op geen enkele manier tegemoetkwam aan de legitieme eisen van de ombudsman. Door koudwatervrees als het gaat om openbaarheid, creëert de Commissie ruimte voor argwaan bij dit Parlement en de burger. Ik wens de ombudsman veel moed en doorzettingsvermogen toe bij zijn verdere werkzaamheden.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, there is much to praise in the clear and easily comprehensible report of the Ombudsman. The different categories of alleged maladministration were defined precisely and the criteria for admissibility were explained clearly. However, Greek ombudsmen should beware eurosceptics bearing compliments.

The word ‘ombudsman’, I am reliably told, means ‘grievance man’. I am afraid it is the only Swedish word I know. There are many grievances about the European Union among British nationals, but they have little to do with time limits, incorrect applications of procedural rules, requests for information or even that most heinous of all offences, discrimination. They concern loss of sovereignty, net contributions to the budget, embrace of globalism, prescriptive social liberalism and the absence of referendums. I am sure that these would all fail the admissibility criteria, but they are real grievances nevertheless.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, le Médiateur européen procède avec brio à des enquêtes sur des plaintes dirigées contre les institutions et organes de l'Union européenne. Cet instrument est à la fois nécessaire, pour faciliter la libre circulation, celle de nos entreprises et de nos citoyens, mais il est également une garantie formidable, notamment face aux détracteurs de l'Union, qui disent trop souvent qu'elle n'est qu'une machine bureaucratique sans contrôle. C'est clairement un non-sens. L'Europe fait un vrai travail sur elle-même grâce au Médiateur européen, notamment.

Je voudrais néanmoins relayer un constat, que je regrette fortement, dans lequel la Commission est sous le feu des critiques. Il y a d'abord les chiffres: la proportion des enquêtes ouvertes par le Médiateur concernant la Commission européenne est de 65 % et non de 12 %.

Il y a aussi les acteurs: de nombreuses entreprises viennent nous voir pour expliquer leur incompréhension face à une Commission européenne qui reste sourde à leurs demandes, notamment pour l'accès aux documents ou pour la transparence dans la prise de décision. Peu de monde s'y retrouve.

Je ferai part enfin de mon expérience personnelle: je vous avoue que j'ai parfois été choqué par les réactions de certains services de la Commission européenne présents en commission des pétitions. Vous le savez, la Commission nous donne sa position sur les pétitions, position que nous prenons toujours en compte et qui est nécessaire. Mais il arrive occasionnellement de voir des représentants de la Commission qui refusent de répondre aux questions d'un député ou qui se réfugient derrière une langue de bois, presque aussi bien que des politiciens, et ce devant des citoyens plaidant leur cause.

Je voulais donc vous rappeler que l'Europe doit avoir un visage humain, que derrière les problèmes administratifs que relève et résout le Médiateur se trouvent des Européens soulagés d'être écoutés mais déçus par ces comportements, des citoyens marqués négativement par leur affrontement avec les institutions, ce qui risque de créer un sentiment de révolte, d'incompréhension et à terme, peut-être, d'euroscepticisme.

Je souhaite de tout cœur que ces critiques et celles du Médiateur contre les institutions en général soient entendues.

  Метин Казак (ALDE). - Бих искал и аз да поздравя г-жа Йотова за задълбочената работа по този доклад. Той проследява дейността на г-н Диамандурос след преизбирането му през 2010 г. и особено след влизането в сила на Договора от Лисабон, който разшири мандата на Европейския омбудсман.

От доклада става ясно, че европейските граждани все повече осъзнават тяхното основно право на добра администрация, гарантирано в Хартата на основните права. Аз също препоръчах на Европейския омбудсман по повод 15-годишнината от създаването на институцията да започне нова стратегия до 2014 г., която да се фокусира върху насърчаване на културата на обслужване в администрацията.

Радвам се да отбележа, че новите страни членки са измежду първите 10 подали жалби през 2010 г., България е на седмо място, което ясно говори, че българските граждани търсят защита на човешките си права. Смятам, че Европейският омбудсман трябва да подкрепя националните омбудсмани от новоприетите страни членки за засилване на техния капацитет. Разбира се и проблемът за достъп до информация е основен и ключов и европейските институции, и най-вече Комисията, следва да прилагат принципите на добро управление.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - Vážený pane předsedo, pane ombudsmane, když jsem si četl svůj loňský projev na toto téma, říkal jsem si, že má slova jsou stále aktuální. Účelem vašeho orgánu je levněji a pro občany přístupnější formou řešit případy bezpráví činěné evropskou byrokracií. Případy, které by bylo možno řešit i řádnými opravnými prostředky nebo soudním přezkumem. Vaše řešení problému stěžovatele by proto mělo být zásadně levnější, rychlejší a pružnější než řešení soudní.

Ve vaší zprávě za rok 2010 jsem se dočetl, že jste loni měl rozpočet ve výši 9,3 milionu EUR s tím, že jste registroval 2 667 případů. To činí v průměru 3 500 EUR na případ. Pro srovnání, Evropský soud pro lidská práva loni registroval 61 300 případů, přičemž měl rozpočet 58,4 milionu EUR. To v přepočtu činí 953 EUR na případ. Vím, že každé porovnání je zjednodušující. Nicméně bych vás chtěl požádat o zamyšlení a vysvětlení, proč jste o tolik dražší, než soudní instituce.

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE). - Válságokkal küzdő világunkban aligha lehet eléggé hangsúlyozni – ahogy ezt itt már sokan megtettük ma – az átláthatóság fontosságát. Nyilván nem véletlen, hogy az ombudsmani jelentésnek és Jotova asszony jelentésének is központi eleme az átláthatóság kérdése, amely örömteli és üdvözlendő az állampolgároknak. Ahhoz, hogy megbirkózzanak a válsággal, nagyon fontos, hogy értsék, hogy körülöttük mi miért történik, és hogy az intézményi döntések hátterében milyen gondolatok állnak.

Úgy hiszem, hogy az ombudsmani küldetés egyik legfontosabb eleme az, hogy soha ne legyen egyoldalú, más szóval hogy egyensúlyt teremtsen az átláthatósághoz fűződő állampolgári igény, és ugyanakkor más esetekben a titkosításhoz fűződő közösségi érdek között.

Miért mondom ezt? Azért, mert bizonyos szempontból új helyzetet teremt, hogy a Külügyi Szolgálat megalakulásával az európai biztonság- és védelempolitika kérdései is bekerültek az ombudsman látókörébe, és ez az a terület, ahol ugye nagyon sok esetben az információkhoz való hozzáférés jogos igényei mellett előfordulnak olyan akciók is, amelyeket én inkább a politikai marketing körébe sorolnék, és amelyek adott esetben veszélyezthetik biztonságunkat.

Éppen ezért rendkívül fontos, hogy a titkosításnak megalkossuk végre a világos normáit, ezt az emberek felé nyilvánvalóvá tegyük, mert azt hiszem, hogy az ombudsman is akkor tud kellő határozottsággal és erkölcsi súllyal adott esetben állást foglalni a titkosítás mellett – ahogy erre volt már példa –, hogyha a normák világosak.

Engedjék meg, hogy megemlítsem azt is, hogy az állampolgárok közé besorolhatjuk magunkat képviselőket is. Jómagam például biztonságpolitikai munkám során nemegyszer ütközöm olyan helyzetekbe, hogy nagyon fontos tanácsi dokumentumokat titkossá minősítenek, és nem tudom elolvasni. Nagyon jó volna világosan látni ennek az okait, erre szeretném buzdítani ombudsman urat.

Engedjék meg, hogy a jelentésből vett mondattal fejezzem be, amely így hangzik: „A nyitottság a cél, és a titkosítás a kivétel.”

  Nessa Childers (S&D). - Mr President, I should also like to thank the rapporteur. Scrutiny, transparency and freedom of speech are all central tenets of our democratic process. However, freedom of speech is only effective if somebody is there to listen. The European Ombudsman exists to ensure that our citizens are listened to and last year performed that job competently, receiving 2 667 complaints from across Europe.

It is vital that this process be built upon and that it continues. There is, though, much still to be done in the field of transparency in the EU. Lobbying in the European institutions and indeed in many Member States can still sometimes resemble the Wild West. Members should firstly be aware of this anomaly and secondly should work to improve the transparency of our workplace in order to provide an example to other democratic institutions across the EU.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Rzeczniku! To bardzo przyjemnie słyszeć tyle pochwał. Myślę, że są one zasłużone, Panie Rzeczniku. Chciałabym tylko przedstawić 2-3 uwagi do samej pracy. Wydaje się, że skoro liczba skarg zaczyna w tej chwili spadać, to może warto poświęcić więcej czasu na tworzenie samych procedur, samego systemu komunikacji, przepływu informacji, dostępu obywateli do dokumentów. Warto też zastanowić się, skąd bierze się ten spadek liczby skarg, czy z tego, że instytucje unijne coraz lepiej pracują, czy może ludzie ze swojej strony mają poczucie braku reaktywności instytucji.

Głosowałam na Pana, popierałam Pana. Myślę, że był to bardzo dobry wybór. Pomyślmy jednak, co w tej chwili można jeszcze zrobić, żeby stworzyć lepszy przepływ informacji, lepszy kontakt. Nie tylko rozwiązujmy skargi, ale budujmy lepszy system. Wiem, że Pan już to robi i jest to ważne. Kolega z ECR, pan Migalski, powiedział, że jego grupa wstrzyma się od głosu w głosowaniu nad Pana sprawozdaniem, bo taki ma Pan budżet, tyle osób, itd. Myślę, że trzeba Pana poprzeć, ale jednocześnie oczekiwać takich działań, które nie tylko rozwiązywałyby sprawy indywidualne, ale ustanawiały pewne bardziej systemowe.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, päätöksenteon ja hallinnon avoimuus ovat yksi kansanvallan perusedellytyksiä. Huono ja välinpitämätön hallinto heikentävät kansalaisten uskoa koko Euroopan unioniin.

Euroopan oikeusasiamiehen tehtävä on osoittautunut kuluneiden 16 vuoden aikana erittäin tarpeelliseksi. Mahdollisuus valittaa väärästä hallintopäätöksestä tai vaikkapa virkamiehen ylimielisestä tai väärästä kohtelusta on myös ennaltaehkäisevää ja sen on tärkeää. Valitettavasti Euroopan unioni ei ole vielä saanut aikaan hyvän hallinnon lakia, siinä asiassa täytyy kiirehtiä.

Haluaisin kiittää Euroopan oikeusasiamiestä siitä, että valitusten käsittelyaika on lyhentynyt, tässä ovat tehneet paljon työtä oikeusasiamies sekä koko hänen erinomainen toimistonsa. Haluan myös kiittää siitä, että oikeusasiamies on toiminut sen eteen, että Euroopan unionissa avoimuus lisääntyisi. Tässä asiassa meillä on paljon tehtävää, Euroopan unioni etenee etanan lailla.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Mr President, I welcome the continued efforts made by the Ombudsman to improve transparency and access to information within the European institutions. The reduction in critical remarks delivered in the Ombudsman’s report from 55 in 2007 to 33 in 2010 can be interpreted as an enhancement of transparency within the European institutions.

Secondly, we need to establish a web portal for the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, similar to that of the European Ombudsman’s Office. Such a web portal is of the utmost importance to the committee if we are to increase the amount of admissible applications by our citizens. This would enhance Parliament’s responsiveness to citizens’ complaints with regard to maladministration, as well as their trust in the laws that we make and in their proper implementation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Încep şi eu prin a saluta redactarea acestui raport după 15 ani de la crearea instituţiei Ombudsmanului European.

Prin contactul permanent cu petiţionarii s-a adaptat cerinţelor actuale - amintesc aici scăderea timpului necesar soluţionării unei plângeri, precum şi posibilitatea sesizării din oficiu a Ombudsmanului.

Consider că acest mecanism a îmbunătăţit gradul de transparenţă al funcţionării Uniunii Europene. Astfel, cetăţenii pot contesta acum problemele existente în administraţie la nivel european. Din păcate, birocraţia a avut un impact negativ în unele situaţii. Doresc să amintesc aici refuzul Comisiei Europene de a furniza informaţii complete în cadrul procedurilor administrative desfăşurate de Ombudsman. Chiar eu am fost raportor din umbră pe un asemenea caz. Regulamentul 1049 din 2001 privind accesul la documente nu este întotdeauna respectat de către instituţii. În acest mod se agravează deficitul democratic de care suferă.

De aceea, consider că trebuie încurajată cooperarea Ombudsmanului cu întregul sistem instituţional european, inclusiv cu agenţiile specializate. Scăderea numărului de plângeri adresate Ombudsmanului în 2010 indică necesitatea popularizării mai intense a funcţionării sale în rândul cetăţenilor. De aceea, susţin prezentarea raportului de activitate anual într-un cadru extins, cu implicarea celorlalte instituţii europene, dar şi a publicului.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Transparenţa, accesul la informaţii şi respectarea drepturilor cetăţenilor europeni sunt esenţiale pentru încrederea între cetăţeni şi instituţii. Atunci când Ombudsmanul îşi prezintă raportul anual în faţa Comisiei pentru petiţii, ar trebui invitaţi şi reprezentanţi ai Comisiei, ai administraţiei, ai Parlamentului European, ai Consiliului şi ai altor instituţii, pentru a participa la discuţii.

Reclamaţiile primite de Ombudsman în 2010 se împart în şapte categorii: transparenţa - 107 plângeri, rolul Comisiei de gardian al tratatelor - 51, elemente instituţionale - 46, regulamentele privind personalul şi administraţia - 39, proceduri de selecţie a personalului - 39, execuţia contractelor - 24, acordarea de granturi şi licitaţii - 20. Cele mai multe plângeri au venit din Spania, Germania şi Polonia. 65 % dintre anchetele deschise de Ombudsman în 2010 au vizat Comisia Europeană şi 10 % au vizat Oficiul pentru Selecţia Personalului. O atenţie deosebită trebuie acordată EPSO, deoarece la aceste competiţii participă zeci de mii de candidaţi.

Solicităm Comisiei şi celorlalte instituţii responsabile să amelioreze situaţia actuală în cel mai scurt timp.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Bürgerbeauftragter Diamandouros, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin, sehr geehrte Mitglieder des Petitionsausschusses des Europäischen Parlaments! Danke für diesen informativen Bericht der für die Bürger Europas eingerichteten Institution. Die Bilanz der Sachverhalte zu den Missständen bei der Tätigkeit der Organe der EU ist in Zahlen ein Beweis, wie wichtig die Arbeit des Bürgerbeauftragten ist.

Die im Bericht angeführten Analysen, durch die mehr Transparenz, Verbesserungen, Beschleunigungen und auch eine Änderung des oft autoritätsbewussten Verhaltens in vielen Teilen der Verwaltung der Kommission gefördert werden, sprechen für sich.

Ich will aber auf einen Aspekt des Berichts eingehen, der prinzipiellere Bedeutung hat als es auf den ersten Blick zu sehen ist. Es ist der Rückgang der Beschwerden um fast 15 % von 2009 auf 2010 – eine positive Zahl, die aber die berechtigte Frage aufwirft, ob unsere nationalen Regierungen und Institutionen alles getan haben und tun, damit unsere Bürger in ganz Europa über diese Institution und auch über den direkten Weg zum Petitionsausschuss überhaupt ausreichend Bescheid wissen. Ich melde hier Zweifel am Willen unserer Mitgliedstaaten an.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D). - Dėkoju pranešėjai I. Iotovai ir Ombudsmenui už metinį pranešimą ir atliktą darbą informuojant Europos Sąjungos piliečius apie jiems prieinamas galimybes teikti skundus dėl netinkamo Europos Sąjungos administravimo ir skatinti piliečius naudotis savo teisėmis. Europos Ombudsmeno metiniame pranešime itin daug dėmesio skiriama naujajai strategijai, kurią Ombudsmenas parengė savo 2009-2014 m. kadencijai. Ypač vertinu Ombudsmeno pastangas supaprastinti ir palengvinti procedūras, kad būtų galima kuo greičiau išnagrinėti skundus, taip pat glaudžiau bendradarbiauti ir laiku teikti suinteresuotiems subjektams ir visuomenei naudingą informaciją bei gerinti institucijų administravimo praktiką. Kaip matau iš ataskaitos, 2010 metais daugelių skundų atvejais pavyko draugiškai susitarti ir tai dar kartą parodo Ombudsmeno veiksmingumą ir tinkamą bendradarbiavimą su kitomis institucijomis. Pritariu tam, kad siekdamas informuoti visuomenę ir užtikrinti, jog institucijos pasimokytų iš savo klaidų Ombudsmenas kiekvienais metais savo interneto svetainėje skelbia tyrimą apie tolesnius veiksmus, kurių ėmėsi institucijos, reaguodamos į jo pateiktas pastabas.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! W zeszłym roku obecny Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich został wybrany na kolejną kadencję i będzie piastował swoją funkcję do 2014 roku. Niedługo po wyborze zaprezentował nową strategię działania na najbliższe lata, w której między innymi postulował wzmocnienie dialogu z organizacjami społecznymi oraz z osobami składającymi skargi, polepszenie kultury funkcjonowania unijnej administracji oraz bliższe kontakty z rzecznikami praw obywatelskich z państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej. Wszystkie trzy cele, które pan Diamandouros sobie postawił, zasługują na uznanie i pokazują, że podchodzi on poważnie do swoich obowiązków. Podobnie należy ocenić nowy system komunikacji z obywatelami, między innymi interaktywny internetowy przewodnik po mechanizmach ochrony podstawowych praw obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Jest on dostępny w 23 językach urzędowych. W 2010 roku skorzystało z niego z powodzeniem już ponad 20 tysięcy osób.

Najlepszym dowodem na skuteczność tego rozwiązania jest spadek liczby skarg, które wpłynęły do rzecznika w zeszłym roku, w porównaniu z 2009 rokiem. W potocznym mniemaniu unijna administracja kojarzy się obywatelom z zagmatwaną, skomplikowaną i biurokratyczną machiną, pełną niezrozumiałych procedur i zamkniętą na obywateli. Cieszę się, że dzięki pracy Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich część z nich może się przekonać, że wcale tak nie musi być.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane zgodnie z regułą niebieskiej kartki na mocy art. 149 ust. 8 Regulaminu)

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - Mam pytanie do pana Poręby. Skoro tak dobrze Pan ocenił pracę Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, z czym się bardzo zgadzam, to chcę się dowiedzieć, dlaczego kolega Migalski z ECR, pana partii, powiedział, że ECR wstrzyma się w głosowaniu nad sprawozdaniem, że jest za dużo pieniędzy, za dużo ludzi i w sumie, jak rozumiem, nie ocenia tak pozytywnie dzisiejszego wystąpienia?

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). - Chciałbym odpowiedzieć pani poseł, że w grupie ECR jest w tej sprawie pewna różnica poglądów. Zapewniam panią, że ta różnica poglądów znajdzie wyraz dzisiaj w głosowaniu finalnym na sesji plenarnej.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Dołączam się do gratulacji dla Europejskiego Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich i jego współpracowników. Dane z 2009 r. wskazują spadek liczby skarg, a ponadto 58% – jak już tu było mówione – zostało złożonych za pośrednictwem internetu, co jest optymistyczne. Jest to odzwierciedlenie sukcesu komunikacyjnego tej instytucji. Interaktywny przewodnik, o którym też tutaj mówiono, zamieszczony na stronie internetowej, powinien zainspirować Komisję Petycji Parlamentu Europejskiego do stworzenia podobnego narzędzia. Niepokojące są jednak dane mówiące, że aż 65% wszystkich skarg złożonych zostało na Komisję Europejską oraz że 33% wszczętych postępowań dotyczy naruszenia zasady przejrzystości, zwłaszcza dostępu do dokumentów.

Ta stosunkowo młoda instytucja Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich w sposób konstruktywny czerpie ze swojego doświadczenia i przyczynia się do promowania dobrych praktyk administracyjnych na poziomie europejskim.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, we all benefit from having somebody looking over our shoulder and making sure we perform appropriately. In this regard, the Ombudsman is doing a very good job in holding the Commission and the other institutions to account, particularly when citizens have complaints.

When you consider that there are 500 million citizens in the European Union, the number of complaints are few. Whether this is because they have nothing to complain about or are not aware of their rights is a very debatable point. However, the Ombudsman does seem to be doing a good job with those that discover his office, and his desire to create a culture of service is entirely appropriate.

I want to conclude by asking one question. He had to make a special report to Parliament regarding the failure of the Commission to respond to findings; it took them 15 months, when the time limit was three months. Is he aware of anybody within the Commission being held to account for this and of penalties being imposed as a result?

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, I welcome the Ombudsman’s presence here; we have had good exchanges in the past and, while I do not serve on the Petitions Committee now, I keep an eye on his work. Mr Diamandouros, I think it is important to say – because it is in the report – that while only 27% of complaints were appropriate to your office, you did actually deal with all of the complaints. You did not leave people without some form of redress, but redirected them where it was more appropriate.

I think that is important; it is also true to say that I suspect it is only the best informed and best motivated who actually go to the Ombudsman with their complaint. There are many others who, when they fail to get a response from the Commission, do nothing at all.

You will be dealing with a complaint from an Irish constituent of mine in your 2011 report. In that case you found that the Commission had failed to respond; you acted very swiftly, and we have had a response. I wonder, when there is alleged maladministration, is it the case that the Commission just ignores emails and hopes that people will go away? If so, it is entirely wrong.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Chcel by som vo svojom vystúpení oceniť prácu úradu európskeho ombudsmana. Skutočnosť, že sa na úrad ombudsmana obrátilo so sťažnosťou v roku 2010 viac ako 2 500 občanov, spoločností, združení, svedčí o tom, že občania a organizácie si zvykli túto európsku inštitúciu využívať. Samozrejme, že nie všetky podania, s ktorými sa občania obracajú na európskeho ombudsmana, patria do kompetencie jeho úradu. Napriek tomu predložená správa potvrdzuje opodstatnenosť tejto inštitúcie, najmä vo vzťahu ku korektnému a profesionálnemu posudzovaniu sťažností občanov na konanie príslušných európskych inštitúcií. Zrýchlenie konania pri posudzovaní sťažností oproti predchádzajúcemu roku svedčí o zlepšení a zefektívnení práce úradu, a to je, myslím si, potvrdením dobrého riadenia tohto úradu. Do budúcnosti by bolo možné byť ešte aj konštruktívnejší v tom, že by úrad ombudsmana vypracúval odporúčania pre európske inštitúcie, ktoré by im pomohli vyhnúť sa často opakovaným pochybeniam pri práci.

  Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Rzeczniku! Obserwowałam Pana działalność w poprzedniej kadencji. Już wtedy darzyłam Pana ogromnym szacunkiem, widząc Pana w akcji również w niezwykle trudnych sytuacjach. Obserwuję teraz z radością, że coraz więcej obywateli rozpoznaje i urząd, i osobę. Oznacza to, że komunikacja z obywatelami systematycznie się poprawia. Oby tak dalej było. Oby coraz więcej europejskich obywateli zdawało sobie sprawę, do kogo może się udać ze swoim problemem. Nie zgadzam się kompletnie z pomysłami obcinania w jakikolwiek sposób finansowania urzędu Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, ponieważ zatrudnia on najlepszych fachowców. Zespół ten nie jest za duży, ale za mały. Mogłoby być załatwionych jeszcze więcej spraw, gdyby na tym poziomie było jeszcze więcej fachowców u Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich. Poza tym dzięki wysokiemu poziomowi załatwiania spraw, dzięki Pana pracy poziom świadomości praw w stosunku do funkcjonowania instytucji i kultura prawna w Unii Europejskiej osiągają coraz wyższy poziom. Dziękuję i gratuluję Panu!

  Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I really appreciate all the interventions. I would like to ask you a favour, Mr President. Could you pass to two Members of this Parliament my answers, as they have left the room? One is Mr Chountis, who mentioned that the Commission has an old-fashioned view on democracy. I do not buy that, and I think that the opposite is true. Certainly, talking about my colleague Maroš Šefčovič, he is very active and he is in close cooperation with the Ombudsman, so no old-fashioned views at all.

I am not saying that we cannot just do more, but that is at stake. I really agree with Ms Mazzoni, who made a statement that is closer to reality, talking about good faith and goodwill. The other issue that is quite interesting: Mr Migalski made a remark about freedom of the media, and I have good news for him. Just ten days ago I set up a high-level group for the freedom of the media and pluralism and asked them to produce a report within a year, and I am certain that we will be back in Parliament with that report. By the way, ‘high-level’ in this context really means high-level. The Chair is taken by Ms Vīķe-Freiberga, the former President of Latvia, and the group includes Ms Herta Däubler, the former Justice Minister of Germany; Professor Maduro, the former Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice; and Ben Hammersley, a very famous journalist. So I am looking forward to that result, and I am certain that the honourable Member and his colleagues will also be interested.

Just a couple of remarks about the lack of transparency of the Commission which a couple of your honourable Members have touched on. I got that message; I do not agree. The Commission thoroughly examines all the inquiries addressed to it by the Ombudsman: there can be no doubt about that. The Commission grants requests for access to documents in more than 80% of cases. In only 2% of cases the applicant makes a confirmatory application, and these applications (which is quite remarkable) are generally made by law firms. Speaking about my former life, my experience of law firms is that they are very constructive and also very active, and this is a diplomatic way of saying what is at stake. NGOs and lobbyists are also quite active in that field.

The main reason – and I would like you to pay attention to this – for refusing access to documents is to protect ongoing investigations and the commercial interests of economic operators. These are legitimate interests which may prevent disclosure of documents. So this is not a lack of transparency; it reflects the need to strike the right balance between countervailing interests.

On the subject of the deadlines laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, a significant number of requests – particularly those made by law firms (to mention them again: after all, this is their bread and butter) and NGOs – concern large volumes of documents or complete files of tens of thousands of pages, and I have experience with that. These are truckloads of documents, so to say. All those documents must be assessed before a decision on disclosure can be taken, and it is quite obvious that such an analysis cannot be completed within the timeframes of the regulation I mentioned before.

  Nikiforos Diamandouros, Ombudsman. − Mr President, let me first say three things. I wish to thank all the Members of Parliament for their very positive, warm appraisal and approval of my report. I am deeply grateful for the very broad positive response that I have received. I am deeply grateful for the response that I have received concerning my efforts to promote a culture of service and for the work that I am trying to do to promote public service principles. So I am very much in your debt for that, and I also want to thank Ms McGuinness for her specific report and reflection on my own work.

The second thing that I wish to emphasise is to try and rectify what appears to be a misunderstanding, and I take responsibility for what must be a misunderstanding. Many members of this body are under the assumption that the decline that has been registered in my complaints is an indication of some kind of deterioration. Let me just be very clear. Over the years this Parliament has been insisting that the Ombudsman should try to reduce the number of inadmissible complaints that come to him. We have now reduced that number by 25%. The decline is therefore a success, due to the interactive guide introduced in 2009 which has helped 20 000 citizens to avoid going to the wrong place in the first instance and to be helped with where to go. So may I please insist that the decline is in fact not a failure but a success, and I am perfectly happy to explain that.

Concerning the budget, let me just point out that both in 2009 and 2011 I asked for no budget increase and no increase in my staff, precisely because I am trying to be in line with austerity. If we look at figures in terms of the budget, then I ask that we also take into account the 10 000 (more or less) requests for information and the 20 000 people who have used the interactive guide, to take into account the kind of work that the Ombudsman is doing that goes way beyond the individual complaints that are being handled. This having been said, let me also thank Ms Kroes for her own remarks, and let me just try and respond to two things.

First of all, the Ombudsman needs to be – and should be – fair, and fairness means allocating responsibility where appropriate. It is indeed the case that the Commission, being the largest institution of the Union, will necessarily receive the largest number of complaints. This is not an indication of failed administration at that level by the Commission. This notwithstanding, of course there are problems, and in fact I wish to confirm that.

This having been said, Commissioner, let me just clarify the point concerning the special report last year. The special report came to you not because of the substance of the case but because of the failure of the Commission to cooperate with me in good faith and sincerely. This was the very first time in 15 years I had had to do it, and it regrettably had to do with the Commissioner, who at that time had left. Because of the substance, yes, but I did not submit it after it had been closed, because I was addressing the procedural problem of 15 months’ delay. I want to be clear about that.

Finally I want to thank you for your references to the principles of public service. I can tell this body that I will be issuing a leaflet in the next month that will be addressed to every single member of the staff of the European institutions. This is a guide to help them with how to deal with complaints and, therefore, how to help citizens. I am moving forward with this, it is ready and is in fact being distributed.

Ms Auken, thank you for your question, I will look into the matter and I will provide you with figures. I have to look into that.

The question about public media was addressed by the Commissioner. Let me say to her that, if her expert group is in need of further information, I remain at her disposal.

A final point: complicated but succinct. There are 500 million citizens in the European Union: that is correct. But how many of them need to have contact with the European institutions is really the critical question. I suggest that the vast majority of citizens of the European Union do not need to have contact with the European institutions and therefore to have complaints that will come to me, primarily because the bread and butter issues that have to do with the Ombudsman are at national level, involving the welfare state. We do not have issues about health, education, prisons, police, social security or retirement, therefore the vast majority of the 500 million – mercifully – do not need to come to me. For that very reason I would like to at least inject this corrective into the deliberations of this body.

Finally, let me reiterate that I am enormously grateful for the support that this body has given me over the years and for its continuing support to me for resources and for my budget. I shall continue to do my very best to help Parliament to help me apply and promote good administration. I look forward to working with it and working with the other institutions, including the Commission.

  Илияна Малинова Йотова, докладчик. − Искам да започна с една огромна благодарност към всички колеги, които се включиха в днешната богата дискусия. Всъщност, това е може би единственият доклад в Европейския парламент, който директно е насочен към 500 милиона европейски граждани.

Това показва не само завишения интерес към дейността на Омбудсмана, но и съзнанието за важността на тази дейност и отговорностите, които той носи. Самият факт, че няколко колеги поискаха увеличение на правомощията на Омбудсмана, включително и свободата на медиите, е ясно доказателство в тази посока и аз много се надявам, че заедно с работната група, която комисар Kroes обяви преди малко, ние ще имаме възможности да постигнем нещо повече в тази посока, тъй като дефицитът на медийна свобода в Европа наистина взема застрашителни размери.

Има какво да се направи по отношение на публичната демокрация в Европа. Виждате, че дори и прекрасната инициатива, записана в Лисабонския договор, инициативата от страна на гражданите за ново европейско законодателство, буксува и вече втора година не може да бъде реализирана. Затова тази дейност на Омбудсмана е изключително важна, както и дейността на парламентарната комисия по петиции и жалби.

Съжалявам наистина, че комисар Šefčovič днес не е тук, защото той можеше да чуе много конкретни и важни предложения от страна на европейските депутати. Надявам се г-жо Комисар, че Вие ще му предадете всички наши предложения и забележки. Желая успех както на Комисията, така и в благородната дейност на г-н Омбудсмана.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar hoy, a las 12.30 horas.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), písemně. – Zpráva hodnotí činnost Evropského veřejného ochránce práv v roce 2010, přičemž jako nedůležitější část této zprávy lze podtrhnout novou strategii úřadu uveřejněnou u příležitosti výročí 15 let jeho vzniku. V roce 2010 zaznamenal veřejný ochránce práv 2 667 stížností od občanů, podniků, sdružení, nevládních organizací a regionálních kanceláří (3 098 v roce 2009) a zpracoval celkem 2 727 stížností. 65 % šetření zahájených veřejným ochráncem práv v roce 2010 se týkalo Evropské komise (219 šetření), což představuje nárůst v porovnání s 56 % v roce 2009 (191 šetření), kdy tento trend nepovažuji za správný. Souhlasím s veřejným ochráncem, že je třeba trvat na základní zásadě poskytování informací a dokumentů v EU, kdy otevřeno je pravidlem a utajení výjimkou. Osobně souhlasím s n_ázorem veřejného ochránce práv, že ještě stále zbývá vykonat mnoho práce, aby se podařilo přesvědčit úředníky o tom, že obranný postoj k veřejnému ochránci práv představuje pro jejich orgány promarněnou příležitost a hrozí, že poškodí obraz Unie jako celku. 33 % všech uzavřených šetření a zahrnovala odmítnutí poskytnout informace a odmítnutí přístupu k dokumentům EU, což osobně považuji za vysoké číslo a je třeba do budoucna požadovat větší míru transparentnosti a otevřenosti.

(Se suspende la sesión durante unos instantes.)

PRZEWODNICZY: JERZY BUZEK
Przewodniczący

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są oświadczenia Rady Europejskiej i Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące konkluzji z posiedzenia Rady Europejskiej (23 października 2011 r.).

Proszę Państwa, mamy świadomość, że jesteśmy świadkami przełomowych wydarzeń w Unii Europejskiej. Chcielibyśmy, aby podjęte decyzje były rzeczywiście decyzjami na przyszłość i aby zmieniły sytuację w strefie euro, w całej Unii Europejskiej, a także w gospodarce światowej. Dlatego z wielką uwagą wysłuchamy sprawozdania pana przewodniczącego Rady Europejskiej Hermana van Rompuya i przewodniczącego Komisji Europejskiej Jose Manuela Barroso.

Welcome to both of you, dear Presidents – President Van Rompuy and President Barroso. Thank you for coming only six hours after the last conclusions of the Euro Summit.

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. − Mr President, dear colleagues, good morning, as I said to the journalist only a few hours ago.

All the Union’s institutions and governments have been expending significant political capital on dealing with the debt crisis. From a series of national debt crises, the situation was evolving into a systemic concern, threatening the stability of the eurozone as whole, and this threat had to be contained. This is what we have done.

Last night was a crucial political step which still requires, as after any such meeting, technical and legal follow-up. Sometimes I hear complaints that markets do not give democracies the time we need to get things approved. There is some truth in this. But I am deeply convinced the markets will give us the time we need when they see a clear direction and a clear determination.

We therefore took – yesterday and on Sunday – important decisions on the five fronts where action is needed. The first front: a sustainable solution for the Greek debt. We want to put Greece on track so that, by 2020, it will have reduced its public debt to 120% of GDP. Since July, market conditions have worsened. The new programme includes an extra effort by the official sector. A new EU IMF programme of up to 100 billion will be put in place by the end of the year. It also includes a voluntary contribution by private creditors who had lent to Greece. It was agreed by them last night and amounts to a nominal discount of 50% of the Greek national debt.

The second front: a sufficient firewall against contagion, thanks to an agreement to multiply up to five-fold the firepower of the European Financial Stability Facility rescue fund. The leverage could be around one trillion euros, under certain assumptions about market conditions, the set-up and investors’ responsiveness in view of economic policies.

We have identified two approaches for the EFSF. The first one aims at giving credit enhancement to sovereign bonds issued by Member States. Under the second approach, the Fund could set up one or several special purpose vehicles to finance its operations. Each option could lead to leverage of up to four or five times. They can be used simultaneously, so as to increase the robustness of the financing strategy.

The third front: we foster confidence in the European banking sector. We approved a coordinated scheme to recapitalise banks across Europe. The ratio of highest quality capital will be increased to 9%. This will enable the banks to withstand shocks, which is important in the current exceptional circumstances. State guarantees to improve the longer-term funding will safeguard the flow of credit to the real economy. This is essential for the prospects for growth.

The fourth front: further fiscal consolidation by those Member States which need more sustainable public finances and more structural reforms. In this context, the Euro Summit welcomes the clear commitment of Italy to achieve these objectives and to abide by the timetable it set itself. This ambitious package – in particular the measures to increase competiveness and to liberalise the economy – now needs implementation. We also commend Italy’s commitment to achieve a balanced budget by 2013, and we take note of the plan to increase the retirement age to 67 years by 2026. The way to achieve this should be defined by the end of this year.

Finally, there is a raft of measures taken at Union level to stimulate growth, about which I will say more later.

I have worked hard with all the European Council members – and in particular the President of the European Commission – to achieve this result. Together, the five elements constitute a comprehensive package and are all interrelated. For instance, the banking problems and the sovereign debt tensions were feeding each other; and we should consider the fact that achieving growth is the best way to reduce public debt. Everything is in everything and vice versa.

Let me take one step back. I should like to underline that the decisions taken by the four summit meetings since Sunday are part of a process which has lasted for more than a year. All along we had a double duty: dealing with the current crisis and preventing a new one from arising; taking emergency actions, like setting up rescue funds, while also putting together, step-by-step, a new economic governance to help avoid future problems.

You too have participated in that process, for instance through the legislation on the supervision of the financial sector and, more recently, the ‘six pack’ on economic governance. Your debates and the work of your committees have also furnished many of the ideas that have shaped this process and, in some cases, decisively improved the outcome.

Why the acceleration over these past months? Before the summer, monetary union was also in a difficult situation. That is why I convened a Euro Summit on 21 July, which decided on a significant package to reduce the debt burden for Greece and to stop the risk of contagion, thanks to more flexible use of the EFSF rescue fund. The immediate political reaction to the July package was positive. However, during the summer, some doubts crept in about the package’s implementation. Although these proved unfounded in the end – all 17 parliaments duly approved it within three months – the harm was done. Market volatility began to grow, and this during the very days when brinkmanship in the US Congress about their potential default was adding to the flames. Market speculation can sometimes become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

On top of this, we have had to work since July in a different economic climate. Global economic growth is slowing dramatically, not only in Europe but also in the United States and some emerging countries. It became necessary to take further measures, both for Greece and to stop contagion, as well as to address weaknesses in the banking system.

I should also like to underline that stimulating growth is an essential part of the package. Sunday’s European Council discussed this extensively and adopted measures to stimulate growth and create jobs. Beyond the immediate crisis, we have all along kept sight of the broader picture. In the end only sustained economic growth can bring back confidence, create jobs and absorb deficits.

Let me come to some remarks of a general and institutional nature regarding all the economic measures. First of all, the European Union is putting in place a multi-faceted reform of economic governance. People who only focus on one or other aspect, and rush to denounce them as insufficient, miss the overall picture and the interactions between the various elements. It is the overall combination of institutional pressure, peer pressure and market pressure that will help us to avoid getting into such difficulties again.

All three forms of pressure have been enhanced: institutional pressure above all, thanks to the financial sector supervision and the six-pack legislation strengthening fiscal and macro-economic surveillance. I am very happy about this achievement and your improvements to it. We took a further step last night in agreeing that, for euro area Member States in an excessive deficit procedure, the Commission and the Council will be able to examine national budgets and adopt an opinion on them before their adoption by the relevant national parliament.

Peer pressure has also become more effective, not just because of the new instruments, such as the European Semester, but also as a result of events. Today, no government can afford to underestimate the possible impact of public debts or bubbles in another eurozone country on its own economy; they would be punished by the voters. If one compares this situation with that of ten years ago, the pressure which leaders put on each other has become much more intense, as we have seen in recent days.

Thirdly, market pressure has also increased. Markets will never again treat all sovereign debt in the eurozone as equal. They were asleep in the euro’s first decade and, even if they are currently overreacting, the markets will not go back to sleep again.

Let me stress that these three types of pressure to induce responsible behaviour reinforce each other. In fact, there is already a powerful interplay at work. To be even more explicit (knowing some of your fears), political pressure within the European Council or the Council does not undo the institutional or market pressure; no, it strengthens their impact. The President of the Commission and I both have this experience. We all work in the same direction: sound budgets, lower debts, sustainable growth. That is the result the citizens expect.

My second institutional remark concerns the eurozone summits. Some have expressed the fear that these will lead to divisions between Member States. My reasoning is simple. It is perfectly natural that those who share a common currency take some decisions together. In fact, one of the origins of the current crisis is that almost everybody had underestimated the extent to which the economies of the eurozone are linked, and we are now remedying that. Moreover, monetary policy is at the heart of economic policy, and the 17 have a common monetary policy. Yet we need a policy mix. Monetary policy alone is not enough to deal with the situation. We cannot have a common currency and a common monetary policy and leave everything else to the states involved. That is why the 17 will have to go further.

Let me be clear: the eurozone is not a derogation from the European Union, it is part of it. The Treaty is quite clear: it is the Member States which have not joined the euro which are referred to as ‘Member States with a derogation’. And, of course, most of them will in due course join the euro.

However, it is vitally important to safeguard the integrity of the single market among the 27. It gives the Union cohesion and is the very basis of our prosperity. So we must keep the two configurations as close as possible, in a spirit of trust.

I will personally do my utmost to avoid divisions between the 17 and the 27. Not only is it my intention to organise Euro Summits, if possible, immediately following a European Council meeting, but it is also the case that the Commission and Parliament will continue to play their roles.

A third and final institutional remark: the Euro Summit decided to reflect on a further strengthening of economic convergence within the euro area and on improving fiscal discipline and deepening economic union, including exploring the possibility, should this prove necessary, of limited treaty changes. The full European Council will revert to this issue in December on the basis of a report by myself, in close collaboration with Presidents Barroso and Juncker. Of course, any proposal for a treaty revision would also be a matter for your Parliament to consider, as indeed are other possible measures.

My intention is that we discuss first the ‘what’ before we discuss the ‘how’. First we should examine the goals and only afterwards the legal instruments required to get there. Treaty changes are difficult. Improvements are possible, and it can be useful to give the public and the markets a sense of our medium-term direction. But a treaty change is not the right way to deal with an immediate financial crisis. So we have to get the different time perspectives right.

This brings me to my concluding remark, on our use of time. The European Union is often charged with coming up with too little too late. The markets have the luxury of moving at the speed of a click of a mouse. Political processes, even if they are working at their most rapid, cannot deliver so speedily. Approval of the July package by the 17 national parliaments in two-and-a-half months is impressive by political standards, even if it is slow by market standards.

As a Parliament yourself, having been in a position to use several months to bring the six-pack negotiations to a favourable conclusion, you will appreciate the importance of sound parliamentary scrutiny and negotiation. Moreover, at some point the request to always be faster is just not credible. In politics one needs time to bring everybody on board and tie diverse interests together in a solid package. Time is the politician’s cement.

Yet it is crucial that we put in place rules and procedures that will anticipate problems in the future and prevent them from arising. And it is also crucial that we develop emergency procedures enabling a more speedy and flexible reaction. Improving Europe’s capacity to act is the best sign of mutual trust we can give to the public, the markets and ourselves.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso , President of the Commission. − Mr President, President of the European Council, honourable Members, following a long but constructive meeting that was concluded just a few hours ago, I am pleased to stand before you this morning and confirm that, today, Europe is closer to resolving its economic and financial crisis and getting back on the path to growth. The Euro Summit took solid and substantial steps that should enable Europe to turn a corner.

Ahead of this European Council, the Commission demanded a comprehensive approach. We insisted that the different aspects of the crisis should be tackled together and not in a piecemeal, purely reactive fashion. We set this out in the Roadmap to Stability and Growth which I presented to you on 12 October and also sent to Heads of State and Government at the same time. This Roadmap was very largely supported by this Parliament, for which I thank you; I am pleased to inform you that its five elements have been comprehensively addressed at this European Council.

We know that agreements are not an end point. They mean the beginning of a long path of hard work. But today we have a more ambitious platform on which to build Europe’s future growth. Let me take the five elements – briefly – one by one.

First, on Greece, the solution found this morning includes a credible and appropriate degree of private-sector involvement. This will ease market pressure on Greece and allow the country to continue its programmes of reforms. We are determined to conclude work on a second financial assistance programme by the end of this year.

Second, the agreement on the leveraging of the EFSF means that we have also maximised the potential of our backstops. The mix of providing credit enhancement and maximised funding arrangements will increase the EFSF’s leverage effect up to four or five times. The European Commission had concretely proposed, since January of this year, that the EFSF should be reinforced and provided with more firepower. Increasing the credibility of our firewalls is the single most crucial element of our crisis resolution efforts: the element that underpins the credibility of all our other actions.

Third, on banks: the decisions taken yesterday by Member States will pave the way for a restoration of confidence in the European banking sector. We are working to design an approach for medium- and long-term funding of banks, while also requiring banks to hold a significantly higher capital ratio after taking account of sovereign debt exposures.

The Commission will continue to work hand-in-hand with the European Banking Authority, the ECB and the EIB to implement these measures through a fully coordinated approach at European Union level.

I am also pleased that Italy has given strong commitments to undertake further structural reforms. This is confirmed not only in a letter that the President of the Council of Ministers of Italy sent to President van Rompuy and myself, but also in the very clear conclusions endorsed by all the Heads of State and Government of the euro area. It is now imperative that Italy implement these commitments fully, and according to a clear and coherent timetable. The Commission was specifically entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring these efforts.

This is where we stand on the most urgent issues. The Summit decisions give us a solid platform from which to continue our work. I am also particularly pleased that the Summit conclusions highlighted the role of the Community method and of the Commission in economic governance. In effect, Heads of State and Government have pledged to build on the measures of the ‘six pack’ and the European Semester by strengthening the Commission’s role in assessing, monitoring and coordinating national economic policies and budgets.

But we will now go beyond the legislation recently adopted by this Parliament. The Commission is committed to a true economic Union through increased convergence. Today I can announce to you that, next month, we will present a comprehensive package on further deepening European Union and euro area economic governance. This will include: a codecision regulation linking surveillance with EFSF and ESM assistance on the basis of Article 136 of the Treaty; a further codecision regulation on deeper fiscal surveillance, also based on Article 136 of the Treaty – which means it is up to the European Parliament to decide, with the Council, on the basis of our proposals; a communication on the external representation of the euro on the basis of Article 138 of the Treaty, and a Green Paper on euro stability bonds, as announced in my State of the Union speech. We will also anticipate, in this package, the Annual Growth Survey, to give even more coherence and focus to the preparation of next year’s economic policies.

This package will give direction to the moves towards integration and convergence. It will give energy to our joint efforts – the efforts of all the institutions – and it will do so while upholding the principle of prioritising the Community method. In this context, the independent and objective authority of the Commission is even more important – a view often expressed by this Parliament.

Today, I can announce to you that I intend to entrust Olli Rehn with a reinforced status and additional working instruments. He is to become Commission Vice-President for economic and monetary affairs and the euro. This is the best way to guarantee independence, objectivity and efficiency in the exercise of the Commission’s responsibility of coordination, surveillance and enforcement in the area of the economic governance of the Union and of the euro area in particular.

I think it is also important and relevant, not only from a substantive but also from a symbolic point of view – and symbols are important – that by having a Commissioner especially dedicated to the euro we assert that we want euro governance to take place within the Community method, and with the Community institutions.

(Applause)

At the same time I believe that it is also important to ensure the credibility –and further reinforce the independence and objectivity – of all our technical work, not only in terms of economic preparations, but also in terms of the independent collection of statistical data. I will therefore entrust responsibility for Eurostat to the Commissioner responsible for audit, Algirdas Šemeta. These decisions will be transmitted to this House before the November plenary session, and both Olli Rehn and Algirdas Šemeta are ready to appear before the relevant parliamentary committee.

Financial stability, economic governance: all this is of paramount importance, but we should never forget that our goal is to promote inclusive and sustainable growth and employment. On Sunday the European Council devoted a great part of its work to this, and I am pleased to have presented my vision – the vision of the European Commission – to all the Heads of State and Government. I am happy to say that most of these proposals are now reflected in the conclusions of the European Council.

The Commission is now working on the proposals I presented in my State of the Union address and in my announcement to this House of the Commission’s Roadmap to Stability and Growth. They include: getting agreement on the Single Market Act by the end of 2012; fully implementing the Services Directive, and rapidly adopting our proposals to temporarily increase co-financing rates in countries under adjustment programmes. I am happy that the Council has now reached this agreement, which is so important for the more vulnerable countries. I take this opportunity to urge the Council, once again, to reach agreement on the programme for food aid for the most deprived persons.

(Applause)

I think it is unacceptable that a time of social crisis, such as we have now in so many areas of Europe, is precisely the moment when, because of lack of decision on this matter, we put some of the most vulnerable people in our societies at risk.

For its part, the Commission has also pledged to fast-track a number of proposals. For instance, on 30 November we will put forward a proposal on facilitating access to venture capital as part of the Single Market Act. On 13 December we will propose the modernisation of the recognition of professional qualifications. Before the end of this year the Commission will propose a Youth Opportunities Initiative to boost youth employment, also building on the resources of the European Social Fund (ESF). So fast-tracking these measures – we are, for instance, very committed to speeding up everything regarding our digital agenda – is not just about recovering the growth we have lost over the last three years. It is about giving millions of Europeans hope in their future. It is about restoring their trust and confidence in our social market economy.

Working in close cooperation with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, and the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, I will contribute to a report that will also include some options for Treaty change. I will consult widely with this House on the issue. I will meet the Committee on Foreign Affairs and take part in other debates, as discussed earlier this morning by your Conference of Presidents. The European Parliament has to be fully involved in such major changes.

The Commission has argued for many months that, to complete our monetary union with an economic union, we need stronger governance in the euro area. We need more integration, more discipline, more convergence. I have always stated that any possible Treaty change should not be seen as the immediate solution to the current crisis. But it is true that, by working to embed stricter discipline and stronger governance into the euro area in particular, we may help to prevent a future crisis.

While deeper integration of the euro area is essential, it must be done in a way that keeps the entire European Union strong. We do not want artificial divisions between the Member States of the euro area and all the other Member States of the European Union. The euro should remain open to all Member States who may join in the future.

The reinforcement of the governance of the euro area must be done in a way that ensures the integrity of the Single Market and the whole Community acquis. This coherence and compatibility can only be achieved through the Community institutions, because they are the ones mandated to act in the interests of all our Member States and our citizens in a rule-based – indeed Treaty-based – way.

I am particularly pleased that the role of the Commission in ensuring coherence between the euro area and the 27 Member States was clearly recognised in the European Council conclusions, particularly as regards the need to maintain a level playing field in the internal market.

The bold decisions taken over the last days, and indeed over the last weeks and months, allow us to take a message to our partners at the G20 summit in Cannes of a Europe that is determined, that is responsible, that is united. Europe will push, at the G20, for an ambitious action plan that can address the challenges and imbalances that are still hindering growth at the global level. Europe strives to lead the global crisis response at the G20 but, of course, we will not have the credibility to lead if we can not show – as we have shown – that we are able to move towards a real solution for our own problems.

By the end of this year, the Commission will have presented all its proposals on overhauling the banking system, in line with our G20 commitments. That means over 30 pieces of legislation, all of which aim to make the sector more responsible and to restore its position as a service to the real economy. I know how much this Parliament is committed to this agenda, and I thank you for your constant support.

Europe is also the first constituency in the G20 to have proposed a financial transaction tax, which we shall present at the G20 summit in Cannes. I believe that the protest movements we have witnessed in recent weeks, from Madrid to Manhattan, show that this is the kind of action people expect from their leaders to ensure that the financial sector contributes to society.

(Applause)

This type of response is of course most effective on a global scale, where it can be used to address global challenges such as the fight against poverty. This is a message I will push strongly for in Cannes.

To close, I would like to say that today the European Union is showing that we can unite in the most challenging of times. We will demonstrate our unity, our solidarity and our determination for a European renewal. It is clear that growth and prosperity will not be restored in a day. As I said in this Parliament in my State of the Union address, this is a marathon, not a sprint. But today we are witnessing a level of determination that should give hope and confidence to us all.

The Commission will continue to make proposals for a Community way out of this crisis. I know I can count on your continued support and I thank you for the support you have already shown.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président du Conseil, cher Herman Van Rompuy, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, cher José Manuel, pour commencer je voudrais rappeler que, dans la vie, on peut voir le verre à moitié plein et le verre à moitié vide. Moi, je vois plutôt le verre à moitié plein. Je voudrais vous remercier pour le travail que vous avez accompli ces dernières 48 heures, parce que je sais, en tant que paysan, que ce n'est pas toujours le bon cheval qui reçoit l'avoine, et moi, je voudrais vous la donner ce matin et vous dire …

(Rires et applaudissements)

S'il n'aime pas l'avoine, il peut la distribuer aux commissaires, il n'y a pas de problème, il y en a quelques-uns qui aiment.

Les éléments que j'ai retenus tout de suite de ton discours, et que je veux répéter ici, c'est qu'on s'occupe des banques, qu'on ne s'occupe pas assez des riches, vous comprenez dans quel sens je l'entends, mais surtout, et je te remercie de l'avoir dit, il faut s'occuper des plus pauvres. Il serait scandaleux que nous n'arrivions pas à trouver la solution concernant le PEAD avant les mois d'hiver.

(Applaudissements)

Certains pensaient que lundi tout serait réglé. Je pense qu'ici, dans cette salle, personne ne l'envisageait puisque nous sommes des femmes et des hommes responsables. Mais nous avons malgré tout eu peur également et hier soir, tard dans la nuit, j'ai regardé les informations pour savoir si nous aurions effectivement ce matin une crise encore plus profonde ou si, comme je l'ai dit souvent, le début d'une sortie de crise qui commencerait à se dessiner et à se mettre en place. Je crois, et je vous en félicite tous les deux – je sais que ce n'est pas facile –, que ce Conseil a au moins accouché du début d'une sortie de crise. Cela ne va pas assez loin, c'est certain, mais j'y reviendrai.

Je veux aussi souligner les avancées qui ont été faites par les dix-sept de la zone euro. Nous avons vu, ces dernières semaines, que les dix-sept de la zone euro se font critiquer par ceux qui n'en font pas partie. Je voudrais ici, dans ce Parlement, rappeler que nous sommes tous des Européens, que nous soyons à l'intérieur ou à l'extérieur de la zone euro. Cependant, nous avons des devoirs et des droits, et ceux qui étaient malgré tout le plus sur le devant de la scène, c'était les dix-sept. Et là aussi, je crois que nous avons fait des avancées.

En ce qui concerne la solidarité avec la Grèce, après le déblocage par la troïka d'une nouvelle tranche de prêts, l'accord annoncé hier soir avec les banques consacre un abandon de 50 % de la dette. C'est une bonne avancée. L'augmentation de la force de frappe du Fonds européen de stabilité financière, c'est un progrès et, chacun le sait, l'un des aspects les plus délicats de la négociation. L'accord des dix-sept sur ce point est absolument fondamental. En faisant en sorte que ce fonds constitue une assurance crédit aux investisseurs qui achètent des titres d'emprunt à des pays jugés vulnérables, les moyens du Fonds de stabilité seront démultipliés. Troisième avancée: recapitalisation des banques. Je crois que là aussi, nous l'avons déjà dit."

Le Conseil européen et la zone euro ont donc tenu leurs promesses pour le court terme et une partie, je dis bien une petite partie, du moyen terme. Mon groupe vous encourage à avancer encore plus rapidement et je pense que vous n'êtes pas en vacances. Demain matin, il faudra continuer à aller de l'avant.

L'essentiel, c'est d'adopter un nouveau modèle de gouvernance économique sans lequel l'euro ne peut durablement fonctionner. On se répète tous les jours ici, mais on voit bien qu'à force de se répéter, certaines choses commencent à être mises en œuvre. Cette intégration et cette politique européenne sont une nécessité absolue. Je constate que les pays qui sont les premiers à demander à la zone euro de prendre des mesures fortes ont, pendant des années, des décennies même, rejeté vigoureusement toute proposition d'harmonisation fiscale. Ils ne sont tout simplement pas conséquents.

Mesdames et Messieurs, le projet européen, ce n'est pas d'imposer quoi que ce soit à qui que ce soit. Le projet européen, ce n'est pas de mettre quiconque sous tutelle ni de gouverner sans respect des pouvoirs et des contrepouvoirs démocratiques. Mais il faut que le respect des règles soit appliqué, mon cher José Manuel et il faut contrôler que les mesures qui sont acceptées, signées sur papier, soient appliquées dans les faits.

Le projet européen aussi, la stratégie pour l'Europe, c'est une ambition: celle de faire vivre dignement les 500 millions d'habitants. Le PPE ne veut pas que nous dépendions à l'avenir des investissements chinois ou brésiliens, mais que nous nous appuyions sur notre propre travail et de notre propre savoir-faire. Ce que le PPE veut, c'est tracer le chemin qui mène à ces résultats. Et ce chemin passe par une souveraineté européenne partagée entre tous ceux qui le veulent.

Cher Président Van Rompuy, hier vous avez pris de bonnes décisions, des décisions difficiles et courageuses. Ces mesures, pourtant, ne représentent pas l'aboutissement d'un plan de sortie de crise, elles n'en sont que le début. J'appelle les États membres, j'appelle les députés, nationaux et européens, et j'appelle aussi nos concitoyens à accepter d'aller plus loin dans l'intégration politique.

J'appelle ce Parlement et, cher José Manuel, la Commission européenne à continuer de défendre le modèle communautaire, qui est un modèle d'inclusion et non d'exclusion. Et j'espère que, la semaine prochaine, le G20 respectera les décisions qui ont été prises par l'Europe. Mais ils doivent pour cela pouvoir être sûrs que nous ne nous arrêterons pas au milieu du gué. Il faut plus d'intégration fiscale et sociale, même si ce n'est pas écrit dans le traité. Il faut avancer dans ce domaine. Nous n'avons pas le temps d'attendre dix ans, d'attendre que nous ayons modifié le traité. Nous devons adopter un règlement intérieur si le traité ne peut pas être mis en place rapidement.

Je crois que nous sommes en train de prouver que nous pouvons, dans des moments difficiles de gestion de crise, avancer sans respecter à la lettre le traité. Et cela nous a fait un petit peu mal au Parlement européen. On avait un peu l'impression qu'on nous avait oubliés. Mais je pense quand même, José Manuel, tu l'as rappelé ce matin, que vous êtes en train d'appliquer ce que nous avons voté ici.

  Martin Schulz, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Was sind die Realitäten? Die Realitäten sind drei Beschlüsse, die keine endgültigen Beschlüsse sind, sondern die noch der Umsetzung harren. Dieser Gipfel war ein Fortschritt, aber er hat noch nicht die Lösungen gebracht.

Beschlossen wurde die Rekapitalisierung von Banken bis Juni 2012, um sie beim Schuldenschnitt zu stabilisieren. 50 %iger Schuldenschnitt – allerdings müssen die Banken noch zustimmen. Also keine Lösung. Die Hebelwirkung des EFSF – zwei Optionen in der Diskussion, die gemäß Ziffer 19 der Schlussfolgerungen bis November durch die Euro-Gruppe in ihren Modalitäten zu erarbeiten sind. Das sind die drei wesentlichen Beschlüsse, die am Ende dieser Nacht herausgekommen sind. Das sind drei wesentliche Fortschritte.

Nun sagt uns der Herr Ratsvorsitzende hier: Ein Prozess ist zu Ende gekommen, der länger als ein Jahr gedauert hat. Ja, das stimmt. Wenn Sie, Herr Van Rompuy und 17 Regierungschefs des Euro-Währungsraums, die Maßnahmen vor einem Jahr ergriffen hätten, dann wären wir heute nicht da, wo wir sind! Das ist das Problem in diesem Europa.

(Beifall)

Das soziale Ungleichgewicht, das wir in Europa haben, wird fortgeschrieben. Ich lese hier in der Ziffer 5 der Schlussfolgerungen: Es ist von grundlegender Bedeutung, dass die Haushaltsanpassungen wie geplant unnachgiebig durchgeführt werden. Okay. Ich hätte mir gewünscht, dass da auch drinstünde, die Steuerflucht in Europa wird unnachgiebig bekämpft, und die Finanztransaktionssteuer wird unnachgiebig eingeführt.

(Beifall)

Wir werden Europa nicht auf der Grundlage eines sozialen Ungleichgewichts bauen. Weil dieser Gipfel ein Zwischenschritt ist, lautet mein Appell: Die gleichen Staats- und Regierungschefs, die jetzt ganz kurzfristig unter dem Druck der tatsächlichen Verhältnisse wieder enorme Milliardensummen beschlossen haben – hunderte Milliarden –, um Banken zu stabilisieren, kriegen die Krise, wenn wir im EU-Haushalt eine leichte Erhöhung des Sozial- oder Globalisierungsfonds verlangen. Das sind die Signale, die die Bürger in Europa tief verunsichern.

(Beifall)

Sie, Herr Barroso, haben von der Zusammenarbeit mit dem Parlament gesprochen. Sie haben von der Gemeinschaftsmethode gesprochen. Ich habe den Ratspräsidenten beobachten können, während Sie das gesagt haben: Das entlockte ihm ein mildes Lächeln. Ich glaube, dass das auch die innere Haltung ist, die im Rat herrscht. Artikel 3 des EU-Vertrags sagt: „Die Union errichtet eine Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion, deren Währung der Euro ist.“ Zwei Staaten haben dabei ein Opt-out: Dänemark und das Vereinigte Königreich. Alle anderen Staaten haben sich verpflichtet, den Euro einzuführen. Was hat es dann für einen Sinn, 17 zu schaffen, aber die anderen, die sich alle den Regeln der 17 unterwerfen müssen, können nicht an der Willensbildung teilnehmen? Das ergibt überhaupt keinen Sinn! Deshalb verstehe ich die CDU in Deutschland, die in ihrem Papier sagt: Legt die Positionen von Barroso und Van Rompuy zusammen, dann habt ihr dieses Problem gelöst!

Wir haben es mit einer institutionellen Krise zu tun. Sie haben drei institutionelle Bemerkungen gemacht, Herr Ratsvorsitzender Van Rompuy. Die erste ist: Kooperation von Kommission und Eurogruppen-Chef – also Ihnen selbst –, um bei exzessiven Defiziten, wie z. B. in Italien, in die Budgethoheit der nationalen Parlamente einzugreifen. Zweite institutionelle Bemerkung: Die 17 müssen weiter gehen als die anderen, aber ich werde das Mögliche tun, um eine Spaltung zu verhindern. Dritte institutionelle Bemerkung: Vertragsänderung. In allen drei Überlegungen, von denen wir ja zwei jetzt von Ihnen konkret gehört haben, und in der Überlegung zur Veränderung des Vertrags sind massive exekutive Rechte enthalten oder vorgesehen, die nationale Souveränitätsrechte beenden. Eine Institution kommt bei Ihren Überlegungen allerdings nicht vor: das Europäische Parlament, die Plattform der europäischen Demokratie. Und jetzt sage ich Ihnen eines, das sage ich Ihnen nicht nur im Namen meiner Fraktion, sondern ich glaube, im Namen der meisten Mitglieder dieses Hauses: Was auch immer Sie vertragsrechtlich, was auch immer Sie exekutiv in Europa tun wollen, Sie brauchen dazu das Europäische Parlament! Und weil es ein Zwischengipfel ist, nehmen Sie in Ihre Beratungen den Präsidenten des Europäischen Parlaments mit, nehmen Sie ihn ernst! Ohne dieses Parlament gibt es keine Vertragsänderungen!

(Beifall)

Meine Damen und Herren! Ich will keinen Konflikt mit den Institutionen. Wir brauchen die Komplementarität der Institutionen. Die Institutionen in Europa müssen zusammenarbeiten. Das Parlament mit dem Rat, der Rat mit der Kommission, die Kommission mit dem Parlament. Aber wenn das so ist, dann frage ich Sie: Warum kommt in den Schlussfolgerungen des Europäischen Rates der Begriff „Europäisches Parlament“ nicht einmal vor? Wir sind zur Zusammenarbeit mit Ihnen bereit. Ich hoffe, Sie sind zur Zusammenarbeit mit uns bereit. Wenn das nicht der Fall ist, werden Sie lernen müssen, dass das Europaparlament auf der Grundlage des Lissabon-Vertrags seine Rechte extensiv ausnutzen wird!

(Anhaltender Beifall)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let me, as always, be blunt. I am relieved this morning, because it might be a totally different debate here in Parliament without the decisions that were taken at 4 o’clock this morning. I am relieved for one simple reason: finally we are starting to put in place a global approach to stabilise the euro, and I am relieved because finally – and it has to be repeated – we are now abandoning our hesitant approach of the last 20 months. Let us also be very blunt about that: this crisis, and the reason for this mess, has been prolonged and worsened by the way this has been handled from the beginning, with contradictions, hesitations and half measures. We have done our job, with the pressure we have put on the Council and on the Commission to ensure that this way of handling this crisis finally comes to an end.

But we also have to be realistic about it. A few good days on the markets do not mean that we have already reached our goal and that the euro is still stable, and again stable, and again strengthened. Our goal is to strengthen and stabilise the euro in the mid term and the long term, not for one day or one week, and two things are crucial in achieving this in the coming days and weeks. The first is that the new firepower of the rescue fund has to be real firepower in the sense that the markets are convinced by it.

Let us be honest: one trillion – that is what it is in English, not one thousand million – is an impressive figure. It is big, but there are doubts about whether that firepower can be achieved in the long term if you offer, for example, a guarantee of 20% when, on the other hand, we agree on a haircut for Greece of 50%. How credible, then, is this firepower? Perhaps Mr Van Rompuy can confirm that no figure was mentioned in the Council conclusions; it is stated in the Council conclusions that there is a guarantee or a possibility that it is one of the options, but I have not seen a figure, a concrete percentage showing what this guarantee might be. It is this guarantee – the percentage of this guarantee – that makes the system credible and sustainable and ensures that the firepower is sizeable and can be used on the markets.

My second, equally important point is that we have to use the coming weeks and months to lay the foundations for a real economic and fiscal union for the eurozone. Let us be very clear: it is not over. Markets are waiting to see that we, by the end of the year, are establishing a real economic and fiscal union besides and in parallel with monetary union. That means in fact that we have to do two things. First of all I urge you, Mr Barroso, to come forward as fast as possible – before the end of the year, as you have announced – and put on the table the Green Paper on euro securities, the so-called stability bonds. Because in the end it is only a Eurobond market that can end the tensions within the market and avoid a repetition of last year’s mess.

The second and most important thing is that we now need to establish real economic government in the eurozone. Again, I have nothing against the idea, which we can also see in the conclusions of the Council, that you will share two Euro Summits every year, maybe more if required and necessary; this already happens. But that is not the economic governance we need. An economic government is more than two meetings a year. I was Prime Minister for nine years and we met twice a week and, if necessary, twice a day, but not twice a year.

So we need something else, which I think is in the conclusions. What we need is to use Article 28 of the conclusions of yesterday. I am very pleased that Olli Rehn has been appointed Vice-President of the Commission in charge of the euro. What we need now, Mr Barroso, is for him to be able to create an inner cabinet in the Commission where he chairs all the portfolios of the Commissioners related to the euro, so that you make it sustainable and markets see that there is a government, an inner cabinet, in the Commission dealing with these problems.

Secondly, I will repeat my proposal. We also have to ensure that this Commissioner Vice-President chairs the meetings of the Ministers of Finance of the euro, the Euro Group. Let us make the system consistent and not have two personalities again who chair and are responsible for that. My request is that you come forward now, Mr Barroso, with a legislative proposal, as fast as possible, in order to provide a solution to that problem.

Finally, there is huge criticism, let us be honest. I had the opportunity this morning to hear yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons in London, Britain, where Mr Cameron said ‘hah, they have problems there but it is OK, we are not there, there is no problem for us’, and he was criticising Ed Miliband yesterday in the House of Commons. But let us be honest: he is pleased to be outside but he wants to be inside to influence all these decisions, and he is criticising it. I think there is a good way for Great Britain to be involved in euro politics, and that is to enter the eurozone and be part of the system.

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there are a few good things in the package that has been adopted, but unfortunately there are many more bad things in it. One good thing is the call for a balanced budget – the so-called balanced budget rule. Everybody wants to have a balanced budget. That is true. I just wonder how it will be received by those political forces and those politicians who have been used, for a very long time, to bribing their voters with public overspending. Will they stick with that rule or not? That is another question.

The main bad thing in the whole package is that it is actually only a buying of time, a temporary solution. What has happened? The vast amount of both private and public funds will be poured into the debt bailouts. Other debts will simply be written off and a bond union will be created.

This means that we are at the very beginning of a massive fiscal transfer, and one never before seen in European history. This is an unprecedented case and I am afraid that it will create an enormous burden for the EU economy and that it will result in very high long-term costs. I am afraid that loss of economic growth and loss of international competitiveness is unfortunately what is to be expected. Even worse, this might have a side effect on other, very viable, strategies, such as completion of a single market. I was very pleased to see Sunday’s Council giving a renewed commitment to completion of a single market. We must not just drop the single market while we attempt to save the single currency.

I represent a group with the most non-eurozone members and as a eurozone outsider, as an observer, my feeling is that the eurozone at the moment does not serve all its 17 members, but just a few. I have the feeling that the only answer to the current problems will be the reduction of the eurozone, and sooner or later this will have to be done, like it or not. That is the only reasonable way out of this mess.

On non-eurozone countries, I have one more remark to make – last but not least. We should allow non-eurozone members, such as my country, to decide again if they even wish to enter. We signed up in our accession treaty to a monetary union, and not to a transfer union or a bond union. That is the main reason why, for instance, the Czech Prime Minister wishes to call a referendum on this matter, which has my full support.

To sum up, where are we now? We have found a very costly and only temporary solution. Another Treaty change is even being considered. Let me say that this is completely out of touch and completely unrealistic. This will never be passed. Have you already forgotten the lessons of the Lisbon Treaty? I do not think so. I am sorry to say this, but there is no real reason for optimism. Merely rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic is not enough.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich teile ausdrücklich das Gefühl der Erleichterung, das der Kollege Verhofstadt beschrieben hat, wobei ich sagen muss, dass man nach den Krisengipfeln, an die man sich gewöhnt hat, ja inzwischen schon fast erleichtert ist, wenn überhaupt etwas beschlossen wird. Ich vermisse nach wie vor – bevor Sie uns einen Ausblick darauf geben, dass der Eurozonen-Gipfel in Zukunft die Wirtschaftsregierung übernimmt – eine Analyse des Scheiterns von Ihrer Seite. Ich habe auch nicht gehört, dass die Staats- und Regierungschefs gegenüber Griechenland einmal erklärt hätten, dass die Programme, die sie im Laufe des letzten Jahres beschlossen haben, Griechenland im Grunde tiefer in die Krise geritten haben.

Meine skeptische Bewertung gilt nicht nur dem, was wir in den letzten Monaten beobachtet haben. Ich möchte meine skeptische Bewertung dessen, was gestern beschlossen und heute Nacht finalisiert worden ist, an dieser Stelle nochmals begründen. Wenn es doch wieder nicht so gut ausgeht, wie es jetzt beschrieben wird, soll am Ende nämlich niemand sagen, dass man sich das nicht hätte denken können. Ich glaube nämlich, dass Sie von diesem Muster, dass Sie – was Kapitalisierung angeht – zu wenig beschließen, dass der Schuldenschnitt nicht groß genug ist und dass die Prozesse zu langsam sind, noch nicht weggekommen sind.

Zu Griechenland hieß es letzte Woche, der Schuldenschnitt müsste eher bei 60 % liegen – das sagte die Troika. Warum es jetzt 50 % sind, müssten Sie eigentlich erklären. Sie müssten auch erklären, warum Sie darauf setzen, dass die Gläubiger, die nun endlich stärker an den Lasten beteiligt werden sollen – nachdem sie die 21 % Schuldenschnitt, die im Juli freiwillig vereinbart worden sind, nicht umgesetzt haben –, jetzt 50 % umsetzen. Ich habe noch nicht verstanden, woher diese Hoffnung kommt.

Mein zweiter Punkt betrifft die für die Banken notwendige Rekapitalisierung. Ich glaube, man kann sich sehr schnell darüber einig sein, dass das ein Prozess ist, in den man kein besonderes Vertrauen setzen kann. Er wird mindestens zu langsam verlaufen. Ich wage vorauszusagen, dass Dexia nicht der einzige Problemfall gewesen ist, sondern dass andere Fälle wie Dexia kommen werden.

Zum EFSF-Hebel, der vor dem Gipfel in Deutschland im Mittelpunkt der Debatte stand: Ich bin erstaunt, welches Vertrauen der Eurozonen-Rat darauf setzt, dass die Märkte konstruktiv mit den Hebeln umgehen, die sie beschlossen haben. Ich glaube, dass es eine sehr riskante Hoffnung ist, dass die Märkte plötzlich konstruktiv funktionieren sollen. Und ich verstehe auch nicht, dass wir uns jetzt mit einer Billion Kapital für die EFSF beschränken, wo wir doch eigentlich sicher waren, dass wir zwei Billionen brauchen.

Was Sie bisher völlig ignorieren, ist, dass die Wirtschaftsdaten der Europäischen Union insgesamt negativ sind. Die Konjunktur geht selbst in Deutschland nach unten. Die Aussichten auf ein Ankurbelungsprogramm für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung der europäischen Wirtschaft, insbesondere in den Defizitländern, sind bisher sehr gering. Das wird auch wieder dadurch belegt, dass Sie nach wie vor nur auf Austerität große Betonung legen und auf die Einnahmenseite überhaupt nicht eingegangen sind. Herr Schulz hat ja schon genug gesagt zu dem großen Problem der Steuerflucht. Das ist etwas, wo Sie einfach nach wie vor nicht wirklich konsequent sind.

(Beifall)

Ich habe mit heftiger Kritik an der Funktionstüchtigkeit der von Ihnen, Herr Van Rompuy, geführten Gipfel begonnen. Man muss auch feststellen, dass trotz des Blicks in den sehr tiefen Abgrund, den man dank der Troika, aber auch der Märkte, in den letzten Wochen tun konnte, Sie immer noch nicht konsequent funktionieren, dass immer weitere Krisensitzungen vonnöten sind und Sie am Ende zu wenig entscheiden. Ich teile deshalb unbedingt die Ansicht derer, die sagen, es ist völlig undenkbar, dass im Zusammenhang mit dem Eurozonen-Gipfel unter Ihrer Führung mit Sitzungsabfolgen im Sechsmonatsrhythmus eine Wirtschaftsregierung funktionieren kann. Meiner Meinung nach ist das nach dem, was wir im letzten Jahr hier erlebt haben, fast eine Drohung. Ich setze darauf, dass wir in der Auseinandersetzung um die stärkere Ermächtigung, auch von Olli Rehn, mehr Fortschritte machen, als der Rat es bisher will. Wir können mit diesem intransparenten Eurozonen-Gipfel, mit dem undemokratischen Vorgehen, mit der Strategie der halben Wahrheiten gegenüber den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern in dieser Krise nicht weiter Politik machen!

(Beifall)

  Lothar Bisky, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ein großer Wurf, eine umfassende Lösung für die Überwindung der Schuldenkrise wurde uns versprochen. Was hat der Gipfel eingelöst?

Die griechische Schuldenkrise ist mit dem vereinbarten Schuldenschnitt in Höhe von 50 % in eine neue Phase getreten. Dieser Schritt ist insofern zu begrüßen, als das Land von einem erheblichen Teil der Staatsverschuldung befreit wird. Das ist ein positives Signal nach außen und erleichtert die Situation für die griechische Regierung. Dieser Schritt bedeutet aber noch keine Umkehr der Abwärtsspirale der griechischen Wirtschaft. Der Finanzbedarf des Landes bis 2020 hat sich inzwischen nach Schätzung von Experten bereits auf mindestens 250 Milliarden Euro erhöht. Auch die katastrophalen Auswirkungen auf die Bürger werden damit nicht vermindert.

Die griechischen Banken haben in besonderem Maße die Folgen des Schnitts zu verkraften. Sie brauchen umfassende Unterstützungsmaßnahmen, um vor dem Ruin gerettet zu werden, sonst müssen nicht nur Kapitalbesitzer, sondern auch viele griechische Bürger mit ihren Spareinlagen, Renten und andern Versicherungen die Kosten tragen. So sehr ich begrüße, dass die Hauptverursacher der Schuldenkrise verstärkt zur Tilgung der Schulden herangezogen werden, so riskant kann das sein, gerade auch für den Klein- und Mittelstand und für viele einfache Sparer.

Welche Vermögen werden von den Banken belastet? Eine sozial gerechte Lösung halte ich bei nationalisierten Banken für wahrscheinlicher, wobei eine Rettung bzw. die Kapitalisierung von Banken sowieso nur unter der Bedingung einer direkten Mitsprache bis hin zur effektiveren Kontrolle durch den Staat erfolgen sollte. In dem Maße, wie auch französische, deutsche und weitere Banken kapitalisiert werden, sollte das in diesen Ländern ebenfalls gelten.

Bringt der Schuldenschnitt aber die beschworene dauerhafte Lösung für Griechenland und die anderen gefährdeten Staaten? Kann damit das fehlende Vertrauen bei den Bürgern und bei den Investoren an den internationalen Finanzmärkten wieder hergestellt werden? Das kann ich nur mit Faust und seinem berühmten Spruch beantworten: Die Botschaft – vom Gipfel – hör ich wohl, allein, mir fehlt der Glaube. Und wenn ich an den Generalstreik und an die weitere Mobilisierung der Bürger denke, so weiß ich, die griechische Bevölkerung hat ihr Vertrauen massiv verloren. Mehr noch, die Demokratie selbst ist in höchster Gefahr, denn wie lange kann eine Regierung gegen die Mehrheit der Bevölkerung agieren? Diese Frage müssen sich auch der IWF, die EZB und der Rat – also die sogenannte Troika – gefallen lassen, die Griechenland unter das Spardiktat gestellt haben.

Meine Zweifel beziehen sich genauso auf den Finanztrick zur Hebelung des Rettungsfonds. Damit werden zwar mehr Finanzmittel mobilisiert, aber zu welchem Preis? Die Staaten spielen nach den Regeln der Finanzmärkte und meinen, am längeren Hebel zu sitzen. Das ist – mit Verlaub – eine Illusion. Die Staatsschuldenkrise kann sich nicht nur sehr schnell ausweiten, sondern der Einsatz wird massiv erhöht. Und damit wird das Risiko für die Steuerzahler vervielfacht.

Die Macht der internationalen Finanzwelt kann nur entschlossen an die Kette gelegt werden, oder die Krise wird sich weiterentwickeln. Das steht auf dem Spiel!

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Voorzitter, deze crisis raakt de fundamenten van de eurozone en de stabiliteit in Europa. Daarom is een geloofwaardige en effectieve aanpak dringend. Voor zover nu bekend, zijn de hoofdlijnen van de bereikte overeenstemming gematigd positief ontvangen. Daarbij zijn echter wel belangrijke kanttekeningen te plaatsen.

Allereerst zal het vertrouwen van de markten moeten terugkeren op basis van de kwaliteit van het bestuur in de lidstaten die diep in de schulden zitten. Bovenal moeten investeerders nu bepalen of dit pakket overtuigend is. Ten tweede: de omvang van het noodfonds. Die is niet zo hoog als gewenst door economen en centrale bankiers. Het is dus de vraag of dit element toekomstbestendig is. Ten derde: het privatiseringsprogramma van Griekenland. Het is onduidelijk waarop het optimisme voor 15 miljard extra aan privatiseringen gebaseerd is. De resultaten die tot nu toe zijn behaald vormen onvoldoende reden voor dit optimisme.

Ten vierde: het uitwerkingsniveau. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld aan de waarde van de afschrijvingen door de particuliere sector op de Griekse staatsobligaties, een cruciaal element waaraan de bankensector met de autoriteiten moet werken zodat dit eind 2011 duidelijk is. Ook is er bij de herkapitalisering van banken nog grote onzekerheid. De Europese Bankautoriteit moet nog zaken uitwerken op basis van nieuwere cijfers over de kapitaalbehoeften uit september, en de schattingen hebben de afgelopen tijd op dit gebied forse verschillen vertoond.

Een vijfde cruciale kanttekening betreft het economisch bestuur. De vraag is: zijn er voldoende waarborgen om toekomstige problemen te voorkomen? In de conclusies van de Raad mis ik afspraken over sterkere afdwingbaarheid van de begrotingsnormen of een fundamentele aanpak van het gebrek aan evenwicht in handels- en betalingsbalansen. Is regelgeving om deze zaken effectiever op te lossen ook ter tafel geweest? Uiteraard verwelkom ik de snelle invoering van het wetgevend pakket ter versterking van het Stabiliteits- en groeipact, en een versterking van de bevoegdheden van de begrotingscommissaris. Maar de verwoording van dit laatste aspect in paragraaf 28 van de conclusies van de Raad stemt me allesbehalve gerust.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – Señores Presidentes, Señorías, esta crisis nos está enseñando mucho, pero hay una lección que me parece de especial importancia, y es justamente la siguiente: en el futuro será necesario modificar los Tratados para reformar a fondo el procedimiento de toma de decisiones y de adopción de acuerdos en el seno de las instituciones europeas.

El diabólico sistema hoy vigente es lento, desesperante y está, además, lleno de caprichos. Estos vicios nos llevan a la inacción y a veces a la parálisis, y desde la parálisis se llega fácilmente a la ruina económica.

Lo repetiré cuantas veces pueda desde este modesto escaño: un Estado federal puede funcionar bien o mal, una Confederación no funciona jamás.

  Werner Langen (PPE). - Meine Herren Präsidenten! Das Ergebnis ist in der Tat ein gutes Zwischenergebnis, aber die institutionelle Krise ist nicht überwunden. Das müssen wir feststellen. Deshalb habe ich in meiner kurzen Redezeit fünf Anmerkungen:

Erstens, die Demokratie braucht Zeit, Herr Präsident Van Rompuy. Da haben Sie völlig Recht. Die Demokratie braucht aber auch klare Entscheidungsstrukturen und parlamentarische Kontrolle – und daran hapert es.

Zweitens, die Märkte reagieren schnell, schneller als die Politik und die Demokratie. Solange die Märkte von Angst und Gier und nicht durch klare Regeln getrieben sind, werden wir das Problem nur aufschieben, aber nicht lösen. Deshalb brauchen wir sowohl innerhalb der Europäischen Union als auch weltweit diese klaren Regeln. Das ist die Verantwortung, in Großbritannien, in den USA und in anderen Staaten. Steuerflucht gehört dazu, die Abschaffung von Wetten auf alles und jedes und die Eindämmung des Finanzmarktes.

Drittens, die Verantwortung für die Schuldenkrise tragen die Staaten selbst. Diese übermäßige Verschuldung wurde in den letzten 10 Jahren nicht sanktioniert, weder von den Märkten, noch von der EU-Kommission, noch durch den Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt. Hier müssen institutionelle Änderungen her. Inflation – wie einige meinen, indem Geld gedruckt wird – ist keine Lösung. Das trifft die Ärmsten und Schwächsten und führt nicht nur zu Enteignung. Inflation ist eine unsoziale Lösung!

Viertens, die Kohäsionspolitik ist gescheitert. Die Struktur- und Kohäsionsfonds hatten zum Ziel, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu verbessern. Sie haben das Gegenteil bewirkt. Ein „weiter so“ reicht nicht!

Fünftens: Wir müssen stärkere inhaltliche Veränderungen an den Verträgen vornehmen. Ich will auf die einzelnen Punkte nicht eingehen. Herr Schulz hat einen zitiert. Es reicht nicht, Herrn Rehn, den ich hoch schätze, mit neuen Kompetenzen zu versehen. Wir wollen in diesem CDU-Papier, das zitiert wurde, das Initiativrecht für Parlament und Rat, weil die Kommission zu langsam war und abhängig von äußeren Einflüssen ihre Entscheidungen getroffen und ihre Vorschläge unterbreitet hat. Wenn wir dort eine breite Zustimmung haben, dann werden wir vorankommen.

(Der Präsident unterbricht den Redner.)

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu beantworten (Artikel 19 Absatz 8 GO).)

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - Arvoisa Langen, puhuitte aivan oikein rakenteiden kriisistä ja niistä on puhuttu myös täällä erittäin paljon. Puhumme usein myös arvojen kriisistä. Minusta tässä on kyse myös arvojen kriisistä, koska ahneus on saanut aivan liian paljon valtaa. On ahneita sijoittajia, häikäilemättömiä keinottelijoita ja epäoikeudenmukaisia luottoluokittajia. On siis kysymys myös arvoista. Pidättekö Te tätä myös arvojen kriisinä?

  Werner Langen (PPE). - Herr Präsident, das war keine Frage, das war eine Stellungnahme. Wir, die christlichen Demokraten, leben diese Werte. Das ist die Grundlage unserer politischen Arbeit.

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). - Mr President, in some respect these conclusions are quite surreal. They start with the Council congratulating itself for having taken unprecedented steps to combat the effects of the financial crisis. The fact is that it has been forced to take unprecedented steps, but always too little and too late – forced to do so by nervous markets because of its uncertainty and hesitation. The conclusions go on to talk about our ‘ambitious agenda for growth’, but the truth is we simply do not have an agenda for growth and we certainly do not have one for job creation. We should have, with 23 million people unemployed, but incredibly these conclusions do not even mention unemployment.

It is quite outrageous that the conclusions talk about improving the growth and employment outlook. Just a few weeks ago the Council, with the support of the Liberals and EPP here, was happy to agree an economic governance package without accepting any differentiated treatment of public investment spending. Now it is calling on Member States to focus public spending on growth areas, but there is no real public money available to spend on growth areas in the next few years, what with the collapse in growth rates and the demand that deficits be brought under 3% by 2013.

To make matters worse, the conclusions later say that building on the ‘six pack’, the European Semester and the Europe Plus Pact, euro area Member States will be required to adopt the fiscal rules translating the Stability and Growth Pact deficit and debt rules into national legislation, preferably at a constitutional level by the end of 2012. This is fundamentally anti-democratic; it is a barefaced attempt by the currently dominant Right to permanently embed their austerity agenda into national constitutions; it is an attempted rightwing coup which tries to freeze out alternative ideological approaches to dealing with the crisis.

The budget balance concept is a political concept, and if it becomes embedded in national constitutions it will permanently enshrine a major chunk of rightwing ideology, moving it away from normal democratic processes. It would shift the essence of the Stability and Growth Pact away from political debate and profoundly affect the way that progressive politics can be conceived and pursued at both national and European level.

The other striking thing about these conclusions, mentioned by Martin Schulz, is the total lack of regard for this Parliament. This directly-elected institution should be directly involved in economic governance.

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

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, foi interessante a sua intervenção, mas há uma questão que gostaria de lhe colocar: não considera que o grande ganhador desta Cimeira foi o capital financeiro que continua a poder especular à vontade, a refugiar-se nos paraísos fiscais e nos offshores, a utilizar o dinheiro que os trabalhadores e os povos vão ter de pagar com as políticas ditas de austeridade, como em Portugal, na Grécia, etc., para serem transferidos para os bancos para a sua recapitalização?

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). - Mr President, I agree. I think that, as Mr Daul said earlier – I thought he put it extremely well – President Barroso has outlined a set of proposals here today, summarising what was agreed at Council last night, that will benefit the bankers. As Mr Daul said, let us try to begin to address the problems of the poorest in society. That is what we need to do.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Présidents, Monsieur le Commissaire, je vous remercie d'être présents après ces journées difficiles et cette courte nuit.

Il y a plusieurs éléments positifs dans ce que vous avez annoncé. Nous sommes contents que les choses n'aient pas tourné au drame. J'ai envie de vous poser une question. Nous sommes tous attachés à la réussite de ce que vous proposez et je n'ai pas envie de vous demander d'associer ce Parlement pour des raisons institutionnelles. J'ai envie d'attirer votre attention sur ce que nous pourrions apporter à la réussite de vos propres ambitions. Vous avez dit tout à l'heure, Monsieur Van Rompuy, très justement, que nous découvrons que les économies sont interdépendantes. Ne pourriez-vous pas découvrir que les démocraties sont interdépendantes? La pression mutuelle que nous devons exercer les uns sur les autres sera insupportable si elle est perçue par les peuples comme un diktat qui vient de la Banque centrale, de la Commission ou même du Conseil. Regardez ce qui s'est passé entre les Français et les Italiens cette semaine. Ne pourrions-nous pas utiliser beaucoup plus ce Parlement comme un lieu de pression des uns sur les autres dans une enceinte démocratique, en donnant, pour chaque pays, la possibilité à la majorité et à l'opposition – ce qui n'est pas le cas au Conseil –, de s'exprimer?

J'ai un immense respect pour le Bundestag. J'ai un immense respect pour la démocratie allemande, mais nous ne pouvons pas interrompre les sommets seulement pour que les représentants du peuple allemand se prononcent.

Utilisons l'expérience allemande, la qualité de la démocratie allemande pour la transférer au niveau européen. Nous avons tous besoin de nous exprimer sur ces sujets.

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR). - Mr President, it is good that some progress was made during the European Council Summit last night and it seems that the financial markets are cautiously celebrating. I am pleased that President Van Rompuy and President Barroso are here this morning. Mr Verhofstadt, your gratuitous remarks about my Prime Minister are totally unacceptable.

The eurozone countries must, of course, find a solution to the problems inherent in fiscal union. The weak must be strengthened, but in the short term this is a big ask of the strong, especially Germany. We need more details of the changes to the EFSF, as decisions taken behind closed doors seem confusing in the cold light of day. Those Member States who are not in the eurozone should be committed to the success of the plans, but we must make sure that overall competitiveness and growth and employment in all 27 states are not adversely affected as a result, while cutting regulation and red tape must remain a priority.

  Pascal Canfin (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Van Rompuy, dans votre discours, vous avez parlé de la pression par les pairs et de la pression du marché, mais vous avez oublié, je crois, la pression des citoyens, parce que lorsque je regarde le plan que avez adopté hier soir, vous appliquez à l'Italie la même recette que la Grèce. Or, cette recette, elle est indigeste et elle ne fonctionne pas. Si vous voulez, demain, amplifier les problèmes que l'on connaît en Grèce en appliquant la même recette en Italie, continuez, mais je suis sûr que la pression des citoyens permettra de changer la donne.

Vous n'avez pas du tout employé le mot "impôt". Plusieurs parlementaires ici ont mentionné le fait que l'évasion fiscale était un problème majeur en Europe. Nous sommes la région du monde où nous avons la plus grande concurrence fiscale. Nous sommes un marché unique mais nous n'avons pas d'harmonisation fiscale. Nous devons absolument sortir de ce paradoxe.

Vous connaissez les chiffres. En Italie, selon le gouvernement, 120 milliards d'euros par an échappent au fisc italien, en Grèce 200 milliards, en France 100 milliards, en Allemagne 150 milliards. Ce n'est pas la peine de solliciter les salariés précaires, les chômeurs, les petits fonctionnaires et les retraités si vous ne vous attaquez pas en priorité à l'évasion fiscale. Vous n'en avez pas dit un mot. Il s'agit d'une lacune incroyable, injuste des résultats du sommet d'hier.

  Cornelis de Jong (GUE/NGL). - Voorzitter, de heer Rutte en andere regeringsleiders noemen dit een historisch akkoord. Ik zeg: onzin! Opnieuw werden ze gegijzeld door de financiële markten, opnieuw gaan ze de banken helpen en opnieuw krijgt de belastingbetaler de rekening gepresenteerd.

Hoe lang gaat deze waanzin nog door? Multinationals maken grote winsten: BP in het derde kwartaal een nettowinst van 3,5 miljard euro. Worden deze winsten nu zwaarder belast, of wordt volstaan met het mantrum van bezuinigingen op uitkeringen en overheidsvoorzieningen, op verhoging van de btw? Dat zijn allemaal zaken die juist de zwakkeren en het mkb treffen en die leiden tot een duivelse spiraal van werkloosheid, krimp en nog meer overheidstekorten. Die duivelse spiraal moet doorbroken worden. Pak de speculanten aan, trap nooit meer in de val van deregulering. Zonder deregulering zouden de reserves van de banken al lang op orde geweest zijn.

Verder is nog veel onduidelijk. Worden bonussen van bestuurders en andere bankiers nu verboden als banken steun ontvangen? Waarom worden bonussen sowieso niet verboden? Wat is er beslist over de splitsing van risicovolle en andere activiteiten van banken? Een historisch akkoord? Nee. Het is vooral meer van hetzelfde.

  John Bufton (EFD). - Mr President, it would appear the markets have been calm this morning – but for how long, Mr Van Rompuy? One of the agreed measures is for banks to raise more capital. How is this going to happen? Will they simply stop loaning? How will that affect growth in the economy? Will we possibly see control of the region’s banking system handed over to the Middle East and Asia? Europe is not giving new money to the banks, and instead they are expected to find EUR 100 billion themselves and also write down EUR 20 billion of Greek debt. This can only come from restricted lending or from outside investors taking advantage of the buyers’ market and will probably end up buying up most of the European banking system.

Rather than admit the project is a failure and seek to carefully dismantle it, instead you are willing to sell it. Perhaps you are going to take raffle tickets to the next G20 meeting, with the top prize being Greece. This whole period has raised some serious questions about you, Mr Van Rompuy. As the leaders of Europe have been bickering and squabbling and falling deeper into the mire, the newly-elected President should surely have jumped to attention and started to flex his muscles. But you have been about as visible as credit in the European governments’ treasury. The euro has done more for European disunity than anything else, turning country against country, leader against leader, taxpayer against government.

Outside the United Nations you stated that the EU was the fatherland of democracy. So who is the mother? Perhaps the Soviet Union. Mr Van Rompuy, I want to ask you if you would kindly give me an answer when you stand up in a few minutes. I want you clearly to tell me what you believe the cost for this recent rescue bailout will be to the United Kingdom.

  Barry Madlener (NI). - Voorzitter, de Nederlandse burger is jarenlang de grootste nettobetaler aan de Europese Unie geweest en nu is de Nederlandse burger de op één na grootste betaler aan de schulden van Griekenland. De pensioenen in Nederland lopen achteruit en de koopkracht van de Nederlanders daalt opnieuw. De Nederlanders zijn het spuugzat.

De euro is een mislukt project en de verantwoordelijken daarvoor zijn de mensen die in deze zaal zitten. Het zijn de oude elitaire partijen, de christen-democraten, de sociaal-democraten en de liberalen, die allemaal boter op het hoofd hebben. Verhofstadt, Schulz, Daul en uw applausmachines in deze zaal, u bent allen medeverantwoordelijk voor de domme keuzes die u gemaakt heeft voor deze onmogelijke eurozone. En dat zonder de Europese of Nederlandse burger te vragen of zij dat wel zien zitten. Er is nooit een referendum gehouden. Maar die gewone burgers moeten wel de rekening betalen. Ruim 10.000 euro per gezin hebben de Nederlanders al betaald aan deze schuldencrisis en dat bedrag zal nog enorm gaan oplopen, als het aan de heer Barroso ligt in ieder geval. De Griekse en Italiaanse schuldenberg wordt verdeeld onder "Jan Modaal", "Average Joe" en "Otto Normalverbraucher". Nogmaals, zonder enig referendum, het is een schande.

Gisteren is besloten dat de banken moeten worden geherkapitaliseerd en dat ze tegelijkertijd moeten afschrijven op de Griekse obligaties. Dat is onmogelijk, in ieder geval voor de Griekse banken. Het betekent in normale taal dat de banken die speculeerden met spaargeld en topsalarissen uitkeerden, Nederlands belastinggeld zullen moeten krijgen. Ja, Nederlandse en Duitse belastingbetalers zullen moeten bloeden om de Griekse banken overeind te houden. Dat is de enige uitkomst van deze top.

De meeste Europarlementariërs in deze zaal vinden dat allemaal nog prachtig ook. Ja, de parlementariërs, de verantwoordelijken hier in deze zaal, kunnen dat allemaal makkelijk betalen maar "Jan Modaal", "Average Joe" en "Otto Normalverbraucher" krijgen het niet kado. Zij krijgen geen 5% verhoging, zoals het Parlement zichzelf gisteren heeft toegeëigend. In deze tijd je eigen budget verhogen met 5%, zoals gisteren gebeurd is, is toch echt schaamteloos. Ik vraag al mijn collega's ook: schaamt u zich niet? Of hoopt u dat uw kiezer dat niet ziet, dat u hiermee weg kunt komen als een dief in de nacht? Het verhogen van je eigen budget en tegelijkertijd de belastingbetalende burgers opzadelen met andermans schulden, is typerend voor dit schijnparlement en de christen-democraten. Maar tegelijkertijd was ik gisteren trots op te komen voor het belang van de Nederlandse hardwerkende belastingbetaler.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in tanti abbiamo gridato in questo periodo: "l'Europa è in pericolo". Per fortuna, grazie agli sforzi compiuti ieri da governi e istituzioni comunitarie, abbiamo allontanato il rischio che l'Europa diventasse "il" pericolo per la stabilità globale. Sono d'accordo con lei, signor Presidente della Commissione, la crisi che viviamo richiede innovazioni anche sul piano dell'ingegneria istituzionale, che ci consentano di presentarci al mondo responsabili e uniti.

Permettetemi però, oggi, nello spirito del trattato di Lisbona, di usare la tribuna del Parlamento europeo per lanciare un appello alla classe dirigente del mio paese: non solo ai politici ma a tutti coloro che hanno importanti responsabilità nell'economia e nella società civile. Gli impegni assunti dall'Italia nella giornata di ieri meritano un approccio che sia capace di andare oltre ciò che ci divide e di guardare ai bisogni della nostra gente e al contributo che siamo chiamati a dare perché l'Europa sia competitiva e custode del nostro benessere.

Il ruolo che il parlamento italiano assumerà nei prossimi giorni sarà in questo senso decisivo, non solo per l'Italia, ma anche per l'Europa, a conferma dell'interdipendenza profonda che lega le economie dei nostri paesi. Spero, mi auguro, desidero, chiedo con tutto il cuore che nel mio paese questa consapevolezza faccia da eco ai risultati conseguiti ieri a Bruxelles.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 149, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, cher Mario Mauro, j'ai ici la lettre de Silvio Berlusconi au Conseil et à la Commission dans laquelle il donne du "caro Herman, caro José Manuel, bla bla bla bla bla, con un forte abbraccio". Je voudrais juste dire que cette lettre est un catalogue de promesses qui n'engagent que ceux qui y croient. Ce sont des promesses faites par un clown politique sur le déclin. Étant donné que cette lettre a été acceptée par les intervenants hier, je voudrais te demander comment tu peux expliquer cela si ce n'est par l'indulgence à l'égard d'un ami politique de la famille majoritaire en Europe? Si M. Papandreou avait eu l'outrecuidance d'écrire une telle lettre, on lui aurait ri au nez!

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, considerando che mi sono rivolto a tutti gli italiani, considero far parte del gruppo anche coloro che hanno un cognome italiano. L'appello vale anche per il collega Tarabella.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir alle wünschen uns, dass Joseph Daul Recht hat, wenn er sagt, dass es hoffentlich der Beginn des Auswegs aus der Krise war. Aber der Lackmustest für diese Frage ist nicht die Schlagzeile von heute, sondern die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der nächsten Wochen und Monate.

Hier steht in Ziffer 3 der Entschließung: „Die Europäische Union muss ihre Wachstums- und Beschäftigungsaussichten verbessern.“ Das ist in der Tat richtig! Was in dem Dokument von letzter Nacht jedoch fehlt, ist die Frage, wie sie das denn zu tun gedenkt, was sie denn machen will, um die Wachstums- und Beschäftigungsaussichten zu verbessern. Irgendwo viel später steht in Ziffer 25, man wolle die entsprechende Strategie ausarbeiten. Ich hoffe, dass man das tut. Eines ist aber klar, Herr Kommissionspräsident und Herr Präsident des Europäischen Rates: Nur mit Sparen, ohne zu investieren, werden Sie nicht über diesen Winter kommen. Wir stehen nämlich heute in der Tat in der Stagnation und morgen in der Rezession!

Das wird sehr teuer bezahlt werden, Herr Barroso, von den Menschen, über die Sie gesprochen haben, die dann ohne Arbeit und ohne Einkommen sein werden, und die am Ende der Kette dieser Fehlentscheidungen stehen.

Deswegen ist die Frage heute: Wann, Herr Van Rompuy, kommen Sie in dieses Haus, unterbreiten diese Vorschläge und lassen diese Vorschläge von diesem Haus genehmigen? Denn wie Sie das schon gesagt haben: Es ist eine Angelegenheit dieses Hauses, über Wirtschaftspolitik mit Ihnen zu diskutieren. Wir müssen die Verantwortung dafür übernehmen in der Situation, in der Sie offensichtlich bereit sind, die Verantwortung der nationalen Parlamente einzuschränken. Das ist die Tagesaufgabe. Darauf hätten wir gerne eine Antwort.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). - Mr President, as ever we await details. Concerning the EFSF, the credit enhancement option has similarity to mortgage and US department guarantees, whilst the SPV option has similarities with known structured products. However, neither has been tested on the markets on this scale and so there will be challenges to meet in deployment. The SPV funds need to be found at a reasonable cost, and then we will have a window to get the growth package working and sort out the debt overhang, or we will find ourselves facing similar problems again.

Bank recapitalisation and – still missing – crisis resolution are overdue, in part because of political weakness and previous denials of the situation. In consequence, taxpayers will now bear more of the cost.

Finally, overall, we still have to find a solution for the fact that growth was built on debt for too long. The solution is not more of the same.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). - Mr President, Charles Dickens once described credit as a system by which people who have no money borrow from other people who have no money but pretend they have. The Summit has transformed the European Union into a debt union where debt is pumped around so we can all pretend we have money but in reality we do not. We only bought time – and why?

The root of the problem is still there. Greece cannot recover in the eurozone. Its debt has been cut but its economy remains sinking because the euro is too expensive for them. Greece will default and have to leave the eurozone to devalue, but it stays in and as a consequence the rest of the package will be undermined. The rescue fund is inflated to insure bonds from weaker Member States – but who wants to buy a bond which is insured up to 20% while you risk a haircut of 50%? If I were the investor I would stay away.

In May last year we stood here; the newly created rescue fund was shock and awe. It was not to be, and now we have constructed a Ponzi scheme, a debt bubble doomed to burst. Your summits, Mr van Rompuy, have become a Shakespearian drama of which the next episode is just a matter of time. I wish you personally – and I see you are yawning a lot – a good recovery from a sleepless night in Brussels, but many may fall.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission européenne, bienvenue Monsieur le Président du Conseil européen, vous êtes un grand démocrate européen et la démocratie européenne, elle s'exprime ici. Vous êtes ici chez vous.

Je voudrais rappeler deux ou trois réflexions. Premièrement, nous ne sommes pas dans une crise de l'euro. L'euro n'est pas le problème. L'euro est la solution. Nous ne sommes pas dans une crise de l'Europe. L'Europe n'est pas le problème, c'est la solution. Le problème, il est dans les endettements des États membres. C'est la stabilité financière des États membres que vous avez protégée à l'échelle de la zone euro et de l'Union européenne, et je vous en remercie.

Nous devons nous poser cette question: que se serait-il passé si nous n'avions pas eu l'euro? Le franc, l'escudo, la peseta auraient été dévalués de 10 à 35 %, la drachme grecque de 40 %, et le deutsche mark aurait été réévalué de 20 %. Posons-nous cette question et reconnaissons que nous avons une grande chance d'avoir l'euro, qui est une monnaie solide, avec des réserves de change immenses, respectées sur le plan mondial. La vérité, c'est que nous avançons vers davantage d'Union européenne et, comme l'a dit le Conseil européen du 23 octobre, vers une stratégie de croissance avec le marché unique. Nous irons la tête haute au G20. Comme l'a écrit Jean-Pierre Jouyet, au fond, tant pis si par une grande ironie de l'histoire ce sont les marchés financiers qui imposeront l'Europe politique. C'est une grande nouvelle que nous avançons vers cette Europe politique que nous souhaitons tous.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Présidents, chers collègues, le sentiment que j'éprouve ce matin est fait de soulagement et d'inquiétude.

Le soulagement, parce que l'accord de cette nuit a le mérite d'exister car nous ne pouvions nous permettre un nouvel échec. La restructuration de la dette grecque porte l'effort européen à plus de 200 milliards d'euros, en cumulant l'effacement des créances privées, le fonds de stabilité de la zone euro et le plan d'aides publiques. L'amorce de recapitalisation des banques desserre l'étau en augmentant les fonds propres. Et, surtout, je salue le renforcement du Fonds de sauvetage de la zone euro jusqu'à 1 000 milliards d'euros – enfin, dirai-je – car les socialistes ont toujours considéré que ce fonds était insuffisamment doté.

Mais, en tant qu'Européenne, voici les raisons de mon inquiétude, et elles sont sérieuses. Je crains que nous n'ayons, cette nuit, renforcé notre capacité à colmater les brèches, en négligeant les fondations de notre édifice commun.

Deux réserves majeures s'imposent à la lecture de cet accord: d'abord, le "court-termisme". Les mesures adoptées ce matin concernent exclusivement le plan financier et ne représentent pas une solution à long terme aux besoins d'intégration économique. Ce matin, le Conseil a répondu à la crise européenne des banques, de la dette ou de l'euro: c'est crucial. Mais l'absence de perspectives de croissance et le silence sur la convergence économique et sur l'emploi permettent à certains de spéculer encore sur notre fragilité.

Alors que nous devions mener des réformes structurelles pour investir et relancer la croissance, le choix préconisé est le "pacte pour l'euro plus". Nous ne l'acceptons pas. Ne substituons pas à une trop grande dépendance au marché une dépendance à l'égard de pays concurrents ne respectant ni les normes sociales, ni les normes environnementales.

Deuxième réserve: l'autoritarisme budgétaire, qui ajoute la police à la rigueur. En réalité, nous faisons face, aujourd'hui, à un double impératif: assainir les finances publiques et relancer la croissance. Cet équilibre doit être politique. Il découle d'un choix fait par nous pour les citoyens européens que nous représentons. La Cour de justice ne doit pas se substituer à la volonté politique et à l'obligation de solidarité entre nous. Nous ne devons pas réviser le traité sous la pression des spéculateurs. Le choix d'une plus grande intégration est notre devoir politique, c'est celui de ce Parlement.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Was wir jetzt hier erleben, ist etwas, was wir in Sonntagsreden über viele Jahre angekündigt haben. Wir hinterlassen den nachfolgenden Generationen einen zu hohen Schuldenberg. Das ist unverantwortlich. Das haben alle politischen Parteien jahrelang gesagt. Wir sehen am Beispiel Griechenland, dass das gar nicht auf die nächste Generation wartet – es ist diese Generation, die damit konfrontiert ist, und wir sehen, was das bedeutet.

Den Gürtel enger zu schnallen, ist schmerzhaft, aber wir müssen uns auf den Weg machen zur Stabilitätsunion. Es ist einiges passiert, das gut funktioniert, wo es läuft. Irland ist auf einem guten Weg. Wir haben einen Haushalts-TÜV eingeführt, das europäische Semester. Wir haben einen Stabilitätspakt mit Zähnen beschlossen – auch das ist gut. Gestern Nacht – das war ein wichtiger Schritt hin auf diesem Weg zur Stabilitätsunion. Wir haben beschlossen, dass die Banken solider wirtschaften müssen. Sie werden in die Pflicht genommen, sie werden rekapitalisiert, aber sie müssen mit 9 % Eigenkapital solide sein. Griechenland bekommt den Schuldenschnitt. Es war klar, dass das kommen musste. Und es wird eine permanente Überwachung der Reformen in Griechenland geben.

Italien hat eine Rentenreform angekündigt. Hier müssen wir ganz klar sehen: Wir sind noch auf dem Weg zur Stabilitätsunion. All das muss umgesetzt, realisiert werden, dann kommen wir vorwärts.

Ich möchte mit einem herzlichen Glückwunsch an Olli Rehn als neuen Vizepräsidenten abschließen. Ich bin ganz sicher, dass das eine wichtige Aufgabe sein wird auf dem Weg hin zu dieser Stabilitätsunion.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Zarządzanie gospodarcze w strefie euro po raz kolejny było głównym tematem szczytu Unii w Brukseli. Ponownie rozważa się możliwość zmiany traktatu lizbońskiego, który w założeniu miał przecież usprawnić funkcjonowanie Unii, dotychczas jednak powoduje tylko zamieszanie w instytucjach unijnych i wśród opinii publicznej. Podział w Unii Europejskiej staje się faktem. Niekoniecznie, jak twierdzono do tej pory, mamy Europę dwóch prędkości, ale – jak wyartykułowano ostatnio w Parlamencie Europejskim – nawet trzech prędkości: dyrektoriat francusko-niemiecki, inne kraje strefy euro i kraje, które nie weszły do tej strefy.

Natomiast podczas dzisiejszego nocnego szczytu zdecydowano o anulowaniu długu Grecji w kwocie 100 miliardów euro i dokapitalizowaniu banku. Ten doraźny mechanizm może okazać się niewystarczający np. w obliczu groźby kryzysu we Włoszech, dlatego też należałoby się zastanowić nad możliwością stopniowego powrotu niektórych krajów do walut narodowych.

  José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE). - Señor Presidente, que haya habido fumata bianca esta mañana es una buena noticia, pero una buena noticia que yo quisiera matizar.

La reestructuración de la deuda griega es también una buena noticia, pero haríamos bien en reconocer que nos equivocamos, porque, con las condiciones iniciales, Grecia no hubiese podido pagar nunca. Si hubiésemos actuado antes, el sufrimiento del pueblo griego y el coste del rescate hubiesen sido menores.

Recapitalización de los bancos: tengo que estudiarlo a fondo, pero no entiendo bien que se hayan cambiado los criterios de valoración de la deuda soberana, pero no se haya alterado la valoración de los activos tóxicos, y no entiendo bien que en el límite de capital se haya fijado una regla de «café para todos», estableciendo límites de recapitalización similares para entidades financieras que no lo son.

El Gobierno español tendrá que explicar las cesiones que ha hecho, pero eso se hará en casa. La Comisión sí tiene que explicar aquí por qué nos enfrentamos a una crisis bancaria sin que haya remitido la propuesta de Directiva sobre mecanismos de resolución de crisis, como se comprometió a hacer cuando hablamos de la supervisión financiera. Una nueva tormenta, y los barcos de salvamento no están prestos.

Y por último, es buena noticia aumentar la dotación de fuego del fondo de rescate. Es una lástima que tengamos que recurrir al exterior porque somos incapaces de arreglar en el interior los problemas que tenemos, y solo lo haremos si tenemos un plan completo que atienda al mismo tiempo a la disciplina macroeconómica, a la sostenibilidad de la deuda y, sobre todo, al crecimiento.

Es hora de que la Comisión diseñe un plan global y que nos pongamos en marcha ahora. Si hay que modificar los Tratados, hagámoslo, pero hagámoslo en fases, empezando desde ya.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le parole più ricorrenti di queste conclusioni sono "invito" e "impegno", e tra di essi c'è anche l'impegno di Berlusconi ad aggredire il divario Nord-Sud in quattro mesi. È chiaro quindi che con gli inviti e gli impegni non si fa alcuna politica economica comune, come neanche la si fa con istituzioni che non esistono, come appunto l'Eurosummit.

Le proposte di regolamento a norma dell'articolo 136, annunciate da Barroso, dimostrano invece che le istituzioni che esistono, invece di inviti, possono fare leggi, e noi diciamo: "fatele, fatele subito queste leggi". E aggiungiamo che noi non consentiremo alcuna riforma del trattato se prima non saranno state sfruttate tutte le possibilità del trattato esistente e non accetteremo un mandato limitato che non sia stato formulato anche dal Parlamento e che non comprenda la codecisione sulla politica economica e una comune responsabilità per gli Eurobond, perché senza la democrazia, la crescita e la solidarietà, l'Unione della stabilità resta una chimera.

  Corien Wortmann-Kool (PPE). - Voorzitter, ik wil graag voorzitter Van Rompuy en voorzitter Barroso danken dat zij hier zijn na enkele uren slaap. U verdient beiden applaus voor het resultaat dat vannacht bereikt is. Door uw aanwezigheid hier onderstreept u het institutionele belang van dit Europees Parlement als democratisch verkozen orgaan.

Ik wil graag ook commissaris Rehn feliciteren met zijn benoeming tot "Mister euro". U moet nu de instrumenten krijgen om te kunnen optreden als het gaat om onze intensievere, maar ook dwingender budgettaire en sociaal-economische samenwerking. Daarvoor hebben we de basis gelegd in het sixpack maar we moeten verder gaan met de nieuw aangekondigde wetsvoorstellen om in de eurozone de begrotingsdiscipline, maar ook de sociaal-economische samenwerking te intensiveren. U kunt wederom op ons rekenen als uw bondgenoot.

Dinsdag heb ik in dit Huis gezegd dat we de euro moeten beschermen met een bazooka. Het is een hele ingewikkelde bazooka, maar als we er met elkaar de schouders onder zetten om het werkend te maken, dan kan het werken. Commissie, regeringsleiders, ECB, dit Parlement, laten we ons nu niet uitputten in kritiek voor het oog van de wereld, maar laten we voor het oog van de wereld eensgezindheid tonen en met elkaar de schouders eronder zetten om dit werkend te maken, want dan kunnen we uit deze crisis komen.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la conclusione del vertice di questa notte è molto preoccupante. Tra i provvedimenti che vengono ipotizzati rilevo due costanti: la prima è quella che ricerca stabilità senza crescita; la seconda è quella della marginalizzazione del Parlamento.

Stabilità senza crescita è l'obiettivo che propone anche il documento del governo italiano. Siamo davanti a un'improbabile riduzione del debito e della spesa a danno dei più deboli e senza politiche definite per lo sviluppo e la creazione di nuova ricchezza. Gli Stati e le banche vengono aiutati ma, senza azioni per proteggere i cittadini colpiti dalle crisi, anche quell'opportunità diventa oggettivamente insostenibile e non in grado di creare consenso.

Voglio che si sappia che per quanto riguarda molti di noi, ogni qualsiasi revisione del trattato è improponibile se non cambiano radicalmente questi approcci: non è possibile considerare il Parlamento come un luogo e i parlamentari come soggetti residuali.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). - Exprim aprecierea mea deosebită faţă de liderii politici care au luat decizii grele, dar necesare. De asemenea, doresc să mulţumesc preşedintelui Rompuy, preşedintelui Barroso, domnului comisar Ohli Rehn şi să nu–l uităm pe domnul preşedinte al Bancii Europene Centrale, domnul Trichet, care a avut, de asemenea, o contribuţie importantă în soluţionarea problemelor ridicate de criză.

A existat o mare nerăbdare faţă de aceste decizii pentru că nu a fost uşor să lămureşti creditorii că au o responsabilitate la fel de mare pentru ţările îndatorate. De asemenea, nu a fost uşor să lămureşti creditorii că trebuie să piardă o parte din banii împrumutaţi şi să suporte această pierdere.

Îmi exprim speranţa că detaliile tehnice şi legale pentru implementarea acestor decizii vor fi puse la punct cât mai repede.

  Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αναμφίβολα χθες φτάσαμε σε ένα καλό αποτέλεσμα, που δημιουργεί για πρώτη φορά τις προϋποθέσεις για να γυρίσουμε σελίδα, να δρομολογήσουμε την έξοδο από την κρίση. Υπό την προϋπόθεση, ασφαλώς, ότι τα όσα συμφωνήθηκαν χθες και στα τρία μεγάλα θέματα θα εφαρμοστούν με συνέπεια, συνοχή, ταχύτητα και αλληλεγγύη σε όλα τα επίπεδα και από όλους τους εμπλεκόμενους.

Υπάρχουν δύο ουσιώδεις προϋποθέσεις: η πρώτη είναι να δώσουμε στους ευρωπαίους πολίτες, και ιδιαίτερα σε εκείνους που δοκιμάζονται σκληρά και αντιμετωπίζουν ανατροπές στην καθημερινότητά τους, ελπίδα και προοπτική. Και αυτό μπορεί να γίνει μόνο εάν κάνουμε μία γενναία στροφή προς την ανάπτυξη.

Δεύτερη προϋπόθεση επιτυχίας είναι να κάνουμε στροφή στη μέθοδο που χρησιμοποιούμε. Να αφήσουμε πίσω τη διακυβερνητική λογική που επιδείνωσε και διεύρυνε την κρίση.

Θέλουμε, κύριε Πρόεδρε της Επιτροπής και κύριε Πρόεδρε του Συμβουλίου, τη δική σας συμβολή για να συνειδητοποιήσει το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο δεν είναι δεξαμενή σκέψης για να καταθέτει ιδέες, αλλά ένα ισχυρό θεσμικό όργανο με ρόλο και αρμοδιότητες σε όλες τις φάσεις της διαδικασίας.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, queria naturalmente cumprimentar em primeiro lugar os Senhores Presidentes do Conselho e da Comissão pelo esforço que fizeram durante estes dias em que, muito embora como disse o Presidente da Comissão se trate de uma maratona, a verdade é que não é comum a meio da maratona fazer-se um sprint com esta intensidade e, portanto, queria cumprimentá-los e agradecer-lhes este esforço e também naturalmente ao Comissário Olli Rehn.

Dito isto, queria dizer que, apesar dos sinais serem muito positivos, eu julgo que era importante aqui deixar mais claro qual é o roteiro, qual é o roadmap, qual é o plano para o crescimento económico, nomeadamente para aquela zona da Europa, que é a zona mais a Sul, que está neste momento em riscos de depressão económica e, por outro lado, também penso que era mais claro, que se esperava mais, saber qual é o caminho que se vai seguir em termos de alteração aos Tratados, em termos de treaty change? Quais as propostas, quais são as linhas de rumo que estão em cima da mesa?

Em todo o caso, não queria deixar de dizer aqui, neste Parlamento, que é também uma arena política, que eu tenho a certeza que, ao longo deste ano e meio ou quase dois anos em que dura a nossa crise, tanto o Presidente da Comissão como o Presidente do Conselho, que são conhecidos europeístas, fizeram tudo para que isto tivesse sido resolvido antes e talvez nós, que somos deputados em nome de Estados nacionais, devêssemos criticar mais os nossos governos nacionais por não terem estado à altura do espírito europeu que está concerteza na alma e na mente destes dois dirigentes que aqui vieram hoje.

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, άκουσα με προσοχή τις δηλώσεις του Προέδρου του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής. Συμφωνώ ότι ο αγώνας για την επίτευξη των στόχων είναι μαραθώνιος και όχι ταχύτητας. Οι αποφάσεις της συνόδου αποτελούν θεωρητικά ένα βήμα προς την κατεύθυνση της προστασίας του ευρώ. Όμως η βιωσιμότητα του χρέους της χώρας μου δεν εξαρτάται μόνο από το «κούρεμα», αλλά και από τους ρυθμούς της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης και τη δημιουργία πλεονασμάτων σε μακροχρόνια βάση, κάτι που δεν διαφαίνεται, εάν συνεχιστεί η υποχώρηση κάθε αναπτυξιακού στοιχείου από την εφαρμογή του προγράμματος λιτότητας.

Το κοινό νόμισμα στην Ευρώπη δημιούργησε προοπτικές και μείωσε καταλυτικά τις απώλειες κεφαλαίων που προέκυπταν από τις συναλλαγματικές ισοτιμίες. Είναι σύμβολο της ισχύος μας υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι θα εργαστούμε όλοι προς την κατεύθυνση της ανάπτυξης και της δημιουργίας νέων θέσεων εργασίας. Αυτό μπορεί να γίνει, βέβαια, μόνο μέσω της ανάδειξης της πολιτικής, υπεράνω των αγορών και των τραπεζών, των οποίων οι άϋλες συναλλαγές δημιούργησαν την κρίση.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). - Godājamais priekšsēdētāj! Kolēģi, iedomājamies jūru, un šajā jūrā peld kuģi – lieli, mazi, kas visi kopā sasieti viens ar otru. Dažos kuģos apakšā ir caurumi, ūdens plūst iekšā, un visapkārt ir tādi pirāti, kas uzbrūk. Nu, šī aina ir kā Eiropas Savienība šobrīd, kur daudzām dalībvalstīm budžeta deficīti neļauj attīstīties. Tagad, paceļoties šorīt rīta miglai, mēs redzam, ka van Rompeja kungs un Barrozu kungs tā kā ar kara kuģiem iznāk un aizbaida visus pirātus projām. Kolēģi, šie lēmumi, ko Eiropadome ir pieņēmusi, nav tos aizbaidījuši, varētu teikt, nav nomierinājuši finanšu tirgus uz visiem laikiem. Tas mums ir nopircis laiku. Laiku, lai mēs visi pēdīgi sakārtotu savus dalībvalstu budžetus. Finanšu tirgi neuzticas valstīm, jo valstis neapietas prātīgi ar nodokļu maksātāju līdzekļiem. Sakārtosim valdību budžetus, izmantosim laiku, ko šie lielgabali mums šobrīd ir nopirkuši. Paldies!

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, dezasseis das vinte empresas portuguesas cotadas em bolsa têm domicílio fiscal na Holanda, duas no Luxemburgo e uma nas Ilhas Caimão para não pagarem impostos em Portugal e não terem sequer de declarar o que ganham em Angola, Brasil ou na China.

Não haverá governação económica na zona euro, nem mercado comum, nem meios para financiar o crescimento e o emprego e para sairmos da crise sem harmonização fiscal e combate à evasão fiscal na União Europeia.

O cancro das offshore que afronta a capacidade política dos nossos governos está cá dentro intocado pelo directório Merkozy da direita neoliberal que desgoverna a Europa. Se a Comissão e o Conselho vão agora levar ao G20 o projecto de um imposto sobre as transacções financeiras porque não começam a desmantelar os offshore e a rivalidade fiscal dentro da própria União Europeia?

Em vez disso, o directório Merkozy acena-lhes com mudanças no Tratado e prepara-se para alavancar o fundo à conta dos chineses, colocando perigosamente o euro e a União Europeia à mercê dos desígnios de uma ditadura instrumental, de uma das formas de capitalismo mais selvagem e violadora dos direitos de quem trabalha. Como podem os cidadãos voltar a confiar na banca e nos nossos governos sob o directório Merkozy?

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Présidents, c'est un saut fédéral qu'il nous faut. Si nous voulons tirer parti des avantages de l'Union européenne pour répondre à la crise – et ils sont nombreux –, il nous faut une intégration, non seulement budgétaire et fiscale, mais aussi politique. La méthode de la coordination que vous continuez à prêcher a montré ses limites. Quelle est votre réponse? C'est de réunir un petit peu plus souvent les ministres de l'économie et des finances de la zone euro ou de l'Union européenne et de donner à la Commission des pouvoirs de contrôle accrus sur les processus budgétaires nationaux. Vous savez pourtant de quel bois "austéritaire" la Commission se chauffe. Tout cela en tenant très largement hors jeu les parlements nationaux et, de plus en plus, le Parlement européen.

Monsieur Van Rompuy, Monsieur Barroso, ce que vous proposez ressemble de plus en plus au modèle chinois, un modèle que – je pense – nous ne partageons pas. J'espère que ceci n'est pas la contrepartie du prêt que vous allez demander, via M. Sarkozy, via M. Regling, à l'empire du Milieu.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è importante che le massime istituzioni europee abbiano accolto con favore le proposte italiane per fronteggiare la crisi, considerandole un impegno forte e credibile. Oggi le dichiarazioni del Presidente Van Rompuy e del Presidente Barroso rappresentano un riconoscimento positivo allo sforzo del governo italiano di trovare soluzioni concrete per un risanamento economico e strutturale, verso il pareggio del bilancio e il rilancio dello sviluppo e dell'occupazione.

Credo che l'Europa sia consapevole dei sacrifici che chiede all'Italia e a tutti gli Stati membri. Proprio per questo è positivo e apprezzabile che la Commissione oggi abbia rinnovato il suo impegno a sostenere queste misure di rigore da parte degli Stati, proponendo un piano di governance economica comunitaria che punti al rilancio della crescita dell'eurozona, anche con proposte specifiche sul lavoro, e rilanciando su Eurobond e tassa sulle transazioni finanziarie.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, o grande ganhador destas cimeiras continua a ser o capital financeiro com os seus offshore, paraísos fiscais, produtos derivados e especulativos, protegido pelo directório comandado pela Alemanha. Os grandes ausentes das conclusões são os trabalhadores e os povos dos nossos Estados-Membros, sobretudo daqueles de economias mais frágeis.

Aparentemente, os bancos suportam a redução de 50 % da dívida grega, dívida essa que ajudaram a aumentar com juros especulativos. Mas quem vai pagar a sua recapitalização são os fundos públicos que, numa autêntica acção de pilhagem pública, são obtidos através do empobrecimento dos povos, dos cortes salariais e das prestações sociais, do aumento da jornada de trabalho e das privatizações em massa e ao desbarato para os grupos económicos e financeiros continuarem os seus ganhos.

Por isso, apoiamos a solidariedade e as lutas dos trabalhadores, como em Portugal, no próximo dia 24 de Novembro, na greve geral que ali se realizará.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - A legfőbb ideje volt, hogy az Európai Tanács végre elkötelezze magát egy átfogó, elsősorban az adósságválságtól fojtott gazdaságok megsegítése iránt.

Nem kérdéses, hogy a görög adósság bankok általi 50%-os leírása időt és teret ad, hogy a görög gazdaság fellélegezzen, és újbóli forrásokhoz jusson. A második görög mentőcsomagban már jól tükröződik az az elv, miszerint a bankoknak is ki kell venni a részüket a válságkezelésből.

Az ESFS megerősítése biztonsági hálót ad. Nagyon helyesen elsősorban a tagállamok szorult helyzetén segít majd, és csak másodsorban – bizonyos feltételek teljesülése esetén – a bankoknak, akiknek magukon is el kell végezni a szükséges kiigazításokat .

Persze maradtak még kétségek és maradtak még tisztázandó részletek is. A piac visszajelzései is ezt mutatják. Ugyanakkor mégis szeretném azt hinni, hogy túl vagyunk a nehezén, és ez a megoldás egyben stabilizáló megoldás, nemcsak az adósságválsággal küzdő országoknak, hanem Európa egészének is.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I think it is fair to say that there was broad consensus in today’s discussion that yesterday’s decisions were important. Most of the Members welcomed those decisions. However, there is still a lot of work to do. I want once again, on behalf of the Commission, to state that the Commission will stay very committed, working with this Parliament to achieve what I believe are our common goals.

It is true that there are sometimes, between the different institutions, different positions in a sometimes dialectic relationship, but nevertheless I want to underline that in the preparation of this European Council and Euro Summit, the cooperation between the President of the European Council and myself and between his team and my team was really exemplary. It is important that at the same time as having different views on different issues we also stay committed to this spirit of all institutions working together to achieve more results for Europe and its citizens.

I will very briefly address some of the concrete issues put forward by the distinguished Members of this House. First of all, many of you spoke about banks and why we are taking decisions for banks and not being tougher with them. I would like to highlight that point 5 of the Annex to the European Council conclusions clearly states – and you will remember this was also our proposal in the Commission roadmap – that banks should first use private sources of capital, including through restructuring and conversion of debt to equity instruments and then that banks should be subject to constraints regarding the distribution of dividends and bonus payments until the target has been attained. Yesterday, in the European Council, I said to the European Heads of State and Government that the Commission is ready to bring forward a regulation if they really want to be sure that the banks will respect this orientation.

Another point that was highlighted by some of you was tax evasion. I would remind you that in my State of the Union address and afterwards in the roadmap I have been urging the Council to finally give the Commission the mandate to negotiate with third countries. Unfortunately this has not yet been done. At the same time we can – internally in the European Union – try to see what we can do to avoid this kind of behaviour. As you know, Commissioner Šemeta is working on this matter, but I have to tell you very frankly that this is one of the most difficult issues, and the fact that anonymity is required renders it even more difficult.

Regarding the economic governance of the euro area, let me put things clearly. We are in the current situation in Europe not only because there was irresponsible financial behaviour but also because our Member States – or most of them – did not respect their commitments regarding the Stability and Growth Pact. I am saying this not only today here in front of you. I also said it yesterday in front of all the Heads of State and Government. I said also that some Member States did not report their national statistics accurately, with at least one Member State manipulating the statistics in a fraudulent way. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that we cannot accept in the future. This is why it is important to have convergence, but also discipline. If we want to have a true European Economic Union we need both. It is not just about convergence, we need more discipline so that we can achieve a higher degree of integration. I believe the Heads of Government and our Member States are learning that lesson.

The reality is that yesterday, if you look at the conclusions, they went beyond our proposals, which you adopted, on Stability and Growth Pact reinforcement. For instance, in point 26(e), they make a commitment – of course it is a political commitment, but it is an important one – that at national level they will stick to the recommendations of the Commission and the relevant Commissioner regarding the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact – even before any kind of formal decision by the Council.

I believe that we do have the circumstances where governments understand that, if they really want to keep financial stability and to stick to a common currency, more discipline, more integration and more convergence is needed. Of course, I really welcome this drive.

Some of you mentioned, or put questions about, investments. I fully agree with you. This is not only about austerity. We need growth, and to have growth we need more investment – public investment. Since many of our Member States do not have the fiscal space to do this, we are proposing to use the Community level so that we can promote growth through some kind of public investment. In the European Council discussion on growth I had the occasion to put forward some proposals, such as project bonds, the Connecting Europe Facility and the possibility of anticipating some of the proposals for the next Multiannual Financial Framework, so that we can also show our citizens that we are serious when we speak about the possibilities of growth and are ready to make some kind of public investment, being committed to sustainable, inclusive growth and also to employment.

I want to conclude by saying that there is a lot of work to do. Now we have a better basis to go forward, but in fact some of the decisions that we took yesterday at the Euro Area Summit, and also in the European Council, have to be followed by consistent, determined implementation. That is where I want to ask you also to make the case for Europe in our own countries, as was highlighted on several occasions. Sometimes in Europe, when people criticise the European Union, they should be more precise about what they are criticising. Is it the European Union as a project? Is it our joint resolve or is it the attitude of some specific movements or political leaders? We need, more than ever, a stronger European Union; we need more than ever a strong euro and we will work for that if there is convergence between the main institutions. I can tell you that the Commission will stay very committed to this Community approach, looking forward to the very important work ahead.

(Applause)

  Herman Van Rompuy, Voorzitter van de Europese Raad. − Voorzitter, dierbare collega's, na een slapeloze nacht gebruik ik liever mijn eigen taal want dat laat mij toe mij met meer accuratesse uit te drukken. Ik ben blij dat ik hier vandaag zoveel positieve dingen heb gehoord. Ik moet daaraan wennen. Ik koester dat moment. Ik denk dat dat te zeldzaam is, om het ongemerkt te laten voorbijgaan.

(Applaus)

In elk geval, als het gaat over too little and too late, dan moet men natuurlijk altijd zeggen wat de referentie is: ten opzichte waarvan is men too little en ten opzichte waarvan is men too late? Als men de markten als referentie neemt, dan moet men zijn argument kiezen. Men kan niet zeggen dat niet naar de markten moet worden geluisterd omdat dat speculatieve bewegingen zijn, die negatief zijn, die bevooroordeeld zijn, en ons tegelijkertijd verwijten dat we het ritme en het tempo van de markten niet kunnen volgen. Het is het een of het is het ander. In elk geval zal de politieke besluitvorming àltijd achterliggen op markten. Daarom is het des te belangrijker - en sommigen hebben dat hier gezegd - dat men een richting aanwijst, dat men een koers heeft en dat men, ofschoon men soms de indruk kan geven traag te handelen, toch altijd consequent in dezelfde richting gaat. Dat is niet altijd gelukt, dat geef ik ook graag toe.

In de analyse van de crisis moet men echter precies zijn. Er zijn problemen in de besluitvorming op het vlak van de Unie, op het collectieve vlak, maar er zijn een hele reeks problemen op het vlak van de lidstaten. De crisis is begonnen in Griekenland en ze is daarna verder uitgedijd in het najaar naar Ierland en nog verder naar Portugal. Die landen hebben lang geaarzeld om een beroep te doen op het noodfonds en daar is ontzettend veel tijd verloren gegaan. Het gevolg daarvan was dat we soms achter de feiten aanholden. Nu nog zijn er landen die al eerder maatregelen hadden moeten treffen en dat niet gedaan hebben, maar die onder druk, ook van hun collega's, sinds een aantal maanden ertoe overgehaald zijn belangrijke hervormingen door te voeren. De crisis is dus niet alleen een crisis op het vlak van de besluitvorming van de instellingen - als die er al zou zijn - maar is voornamelijk een crisis op het vlak van de individuele lidstaten. Dat wordt maar al te gemakkelijk vergeten en over het hoofd gezien.

Een tweede opmerking, er is daarstraks gezegd: "u hebt alleen principebeslissingen genomen". Maar dat is altijd zo. Beslissingen die worden genomen, zijn dikwijls beslissingen in beginsel. Daarna volgt de uitwerking. Daarstraks heeft de heer Bisky gesproken over Goethe, ik zou over Racine kunnen spreken:

"Le drame est fait, il n' y a que les vers à écrire".

Wij hebben dus effectief heel belangrijke beslissingen genomen op al die domeinen. Wat de banken betreft, heb ik een geschreven akkoord van de banken, niet zomaar iets in de lucht. We moeten het natuurlijk juridisch en financieel verder uitwerken maar de doorbraak is er gekomen, het stuk is getekend. Dus in elk geval is daar ook een veel grotere vooruitgang geboekt dan gedacht. Voor de zogenaamde leveraging, het maximaal uitbaten van de mogelijkheden van het noodfonds, heeft men verschillende modellen. Die modellen moeten natuurlijk uitgetekend worden, maar er moet geen keuze meer worden gemaakt. Men kan die modellen goed combineren en de effecten cumuleren. Het is dus niet zo dat we nog niet weten waar we naartoe gaan. We moeten het alleen op poten zetten en de contacten met de particuliere sector verder uitwerken.

Wat betreft de herkapitalisatie: natuurlijk is er tijd tot 30 juni van volgend jaar. Alsof we van de ene op de andere dag 100 miljard kunnen vinden en in de banken kunnen stoppen! Al deze dingen vergen tijd, maar niet zoveel tijd als dikwijls wordt voorgesteld, en veel van die beslissingen zijn eigenlijk in beginsel, en meer dan in beginsel, genomen.

Ik ga niet in op alle antwoorden die de voorzitter van de Commissie heeft gegeven, ik heb het enkel over het institutionele aspect. Hij heeft wél gesproken over het Europees Parlement. Kijk de teksten maar na. Ik heb ze er nog zelf ingebracht. Ik ben bereid - want ik ben er niet toe verplicht - om na elke aparte vergadering van de eurozone die ik mag voorzitten, naar het Parlement te komen en om daar, zoals voor de Europese Raad, verslag over de vergadering uit te brengen.

(Applaus)

Als men goed de teksten nakijkt, dan zal men zien dat het niet alleen gaat over drie punten die toevallig in mijn spreekbeurt stonden of die in mijn inleiding stonden. Bladzijden en bladzijden lang gaat het over institutionele vernieuwingen. En we gaan verder. Ook daar ben ik bereid persoonlijk van gedachten te wisselen met het Parlement over de verdere verdieping van de Economische Unie (dat staat letterlijk in de teksten) en een verdere versterking van de fiscale discipline (ook dat staat letterlijk in de teksten), en dit tijdig te doen, zodat dat we niemand daarmee verrassen. Ik ben daartoe niet verplicht maar als u daartoe bereid bent, dan wil ik dat met veel plezier doen.

Ik ga niet op alle andere punten in omdat de tijd al ver gevorderd is maar ik wou u toch zeggen dat wij nu niet het einde van de crisis meemaken. Misschien hebben wij een keerpunt tot stand gebracht. Wat wij op het vlak van de instellingen kunnen doen, wat wij collectief kunnen doen, dat moeten wij verder uitwerken, maar het grote werk op het vlak van de lidstaten moet nog gebeuren. In veel landen, ook in de landen die vandaag niet onder druk staan van de markt, zullen hervormingen moeten worden doorgevoerd. Wij hebben nu de instelling gecreëerd om dat op te volgen, om dat te monitoren, om dat desnoods af te dwingen. Want als er geen stabiliteit is op het vlak van de lidstaten, kan ook het geheel niet werken. Dat is de moeilijke taak waar we de volgende maanden en jaren voor staan.

  President. − I would like to thank both Presidents for their presence with us this morning. This was a very important, comprehensive, deep discussion and I would like to thank all my colleagues. It was a very important discussion for the European Union, we know that very well. Democracy is working in the European Union.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. – Salut concluziile Consiliului European, atât de necesare în contextul crizei actuale. Acordul obţinut este esenţial nu doar pentru salvarea Greciei şi a zonei euro, ci şi pentru reconfirmarea solidarităţii şi unităţii care stau la baza construcţiei europene. Liderii europeni au luat decizii importante pentru sustenabilitatea finanţelor publice, reforme structurale care să asigure creşterea economică şi susţinerea sectorului bancar. Acestea sunt destinate să permită depăşirea crizei.

Introducerea în sistemul bancar a unui capital de primă clasă va asigura acordarea de credite economiei reale. Injectarea a 100 miliarde euro în sistemul bancar european va permite evitarea prăbușirii multora dintre băncile care deţin miliarde de euro în obligaţiuni ale statului grec. Este importantă menţinerea fluxurilor de capital în statele UE, inclusiv în cele care nu fac parte din zona euro, printre care şi România. În acelaşi timp, aceste măsuri trebuie completate de adoptarea unui model viabil de guvernanţă economică europeană, pentru a asigura o depăşire veritabilă a recesiunii şi a preveni repetarea unor crize similare în viitor. Trebuie intensificat, totodată, dialogul pe plan internaţional cu scopul de a promova reguli clare şi adecvate pentru funcţionarea optimă a pieţelor globale.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), na piśmie. – Ubiegłej nocy Europa przeszła ciężką „operację na otwartym sercu”. Były bardzo trudne chwile, wątpiono nawet w powodzenie operacji. Ale dzisiaj pacjentka czuje się – jak na stan pooperacyjny – dobrze. Jeśli nie będzie powikłań, wyzdrowieje, czego jej z całego serca życzę. „Terapia szokowa” zmusiła państwa członkowskie do konkretnych decyzji. Po prawie 10 godzinach negocjacji udało się wypracować kompromisy, które mają doprowadzić do zmniejszenia długu Grecji o 100 mld EUR (z obecnych 350 mld). Uzgodniono również „zwielokrotnienie” do ok. biliona euro mocy pożyczkowych Europejskiego Funduszu Stabilizacji Finansowej oraz dokapitalizowanie kluczowych unijnych banków o ok. 106 mld EUR. Przewodniczący Rady Europejskiej Herman Van Rompuy ma ambicje wprowadzenia Grecji na „ścieżkę zdrowia”, tak by do 2020 r. odchudziła swój dług publiczny do poziomu 120% (z obecnych 162%). Przewodniczący Barroso ma rację, mówiąc, że „są tą wyjątkowe środki na wyjątkowy czas”. Rezultaty tych decyzji już przyniosły wyraźne efekty. Dziś rano światowe giełdy zanotowały największy od 2 miesięcy poziom wzrostu, a i euro ma się całkiem dobrze. Uważam, że program reform w zaistniałej sytuacji musi być radykalny, szkoda, że wcześniej pacjentce nie podano odpowiednich leków. Nie mówiąc już o profilaktyce...

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – Mr President, President of the European Council and of the Commission, I believe that yesterday’s Council meeting proved how tough the situation is at the moment. There is no quick and easy solution, taking into account the enormous number of economic variables and possible consequences that must be kept in mind. Recent years have shown that most of the measures that have been taken so far have been inadequate. If members of the eurozone cannot curtail their spending and balance their budgets, then we are likely to face an even greater crisis. We cannot go on living indefinitely beyond our means - we must return to the real economy. I am concerned that, if the increase of the EFSF and the rest of the package do not live up to our expectations and Greece defaults, it will diminish investors’ trust in investing in the rest of the eurozone. I hope that further concrete measures to tackle the growing debts in the eurozone will be presented without delay.

  Αντιγόνη Παπαδοπούλου (S&D), γραπτώς. – Χαιρετίζουμε την επίτευξη συμφωνίας στη Σύνοδο Κορυφής μετά από μακροχρόνιες διαβουλεύσεις. Ελπίζουμε να είναι η απαρχή της εξόδου από την κρίση. Ωστόσο, διατηρούμε επιφυλάξεις κατά πόσο οι νεοφιλελεύθερες συνταγές που προωθούνται θα έχουν τα αναμενόμενα αποτελέσματα, αφού οι ίδιες συνταγές οδήγησαν στην καταστροφή. Χρειάζεται πιο ριζοσπαστική θεώρηση των πραγμάτων. Σημειώνουμε επίσης πως τα μέτρα που λήφθηκαν σήμερα, έπρεπε να είχαν ληφθεί πολύ πιο έγκαιρα. Δυστυχώς η Ελλάδα και οι Έλληνες πολίτες, βιώνουν τις δραματικές συνέπειες μιας αυστηρότατης πολιτικής λιτότητας, που αναγκαστικά τους επιβλήθηκε, αφού υπήρξε ολιγωρία στη λήψη ολοκληρωμένων πανευρωπαϊκών μέτρων κατά της κρίσης και καθυστέρηση στην εκδήλωση της αναγκαίας κοινοτικής αλληλεγγύης. Παρόμοια προβλήματα αντιμετωπίζουν και οι πολίτες άλλων χωρών του Ευρωπαϊκού Νότου. Επισημαίνουμε επιπρόσθετα, πως σταθερότητα χωρίς ανάπτυξη και χωρίς ολοκληρωμένη στρατηγική επενδύσεων και πάταξη της φοροδιαφυγής, δεν δίνει λύσεις. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο πρέπει να συμμετέχει στη λήψη αποφάσεων για έξοδο από την κρίση, μαζί με το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο και την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή.

  Franck Proust (PPE), par écrit. – L'accord intervenu cette nuit est à la hauteur de la situation dans laquelle nous étions. C'est le début d'une nouvelle page dans l'histoire de l'Europe. Cet accord, nous le devons d'abord à la France et à la pugnacité fantastique du Président Sarkozy. Il n'y a que les batailles qu'on ne livre pas qu'on est sûr de perdre. Il a convaincu ses collègues des autres Etats membres et a mis les banques devant leurs responsabilités. La Grèce n'en serait pas là si les banques avaient fait correctement leur travail, c'est-à-dire s'assurer de la capacité de remboursement de la Grèce. Elles ont pris des risques, elles les assument enfin aujourd'hui en renonçant à 50 % de leurs créances grecques. Cette crise montre que nous avons besoin de plus d'Europe, au moins pour la zone euro, et je souhaite que nous nous dirigions vers un fédéralisme économique en créant un véritable gouvernement économique de la zone euro. Il est essentiel enfin d'harmoniser nos politiques budgétaires et fiscales et de faire de la règle d'or une obligation pour tous les Etats membres.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Introducerea semestrului european a modificat în mod fundamental modul de coordonare a politicilor fiscale și economice la nivel european. Consider că, la nivelul Consiliului European, toate statele membre ar trebui să își asume angajamente clare de concentrare a cheltuielilor publice în domeniile de creștere economică și de creare de noi locuri de muncă. De asemenea, toate statele membre ar trebui să își ia angajamente ferme privind revizuirea programelor privind fondurile structurale prin stabilirea de noi priorități în materie de proiecte și prin axarea pe educație şi cercetare, ocuparea forței de munca, implementarea agendei digitale și îmbunătățirii condițiilor de intensificare a creșterii economice și de diminuare a diferențelor între regiuni. În scopul creșterii încrederii în sectorul bancar, autoritățile naționale de supraveghere vor solicita băncilor, ca măsură temporară, să aducă nivelul capitalului de cea mai înaltă calitate la 9% până în 2012.

Consider necesar ca, până la depășirea crizei financiare, deci nu doar pana la îndeplinirea obiectivului de 9%, contribuția dividendelor și a plății de prime de către bănci să fie restricționată. Solicităm ca statele membre care nu fac parte din zona euro și Parlamentul European să fie informate în detaliu cu privire la pregătirea și la rezultatele reuniunilor la nivel înalt.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – Als we sommige commentaren mogen geloven, hebben de staatshoofden en regeringsleiders de Euro deze nacht definitief gered... Europa heeft vannacht weliswaar een klein stapje vooruit gezet, maar de afgesproken maatregelen zullen enkel op de korte termijn soelaas kunnen brengen. Ik deel de euforie die er bij sommigen heerst dus niet. Neem bijvoorbeeld het EFSF. De uitbreiding van het EFSF is nodeloos complex en wellicht niet efficiënt. Men legt de verantwoordelijkheid om overheidsobligaties op te kopen bij het EFSF, maar zonder dit fonds ook voldoende middelen te geven. Want € 1000 miljard zal echt niet volstaan om een dam op te werpen voor Italië en Spanje. De oplossing die de regeringsleiders in de Europese Raad hebben uitgewerkt, bestaat louter uit financiële spitstechnologie en niet uit maatregelen die betrekking hebben op de echte economie en op het sociale weefsel in Europa. De Raad staat volledig aan de kant van de financiële markten en niet aan die van de burgers. We hebben geen enkel perspectief gekregen op eerlijke inkomsten, op jobcreatie, op investeringen in de economie. Een wankele economie zal nooit herstellen door financiële trucjes toe te passen.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), schriftlich. – Die Ergebnisse des gestrigen EU-Gipfels haben wenigstens eines gebracht - endlich ein Ergebnis. Die Resultate sind zu begrüßen, denn sie sind durchaus "ordentliche Schritte". Ein "Haircut" von 50 Prozent für Griechenland ist ein Zeichen der "europäischen Solidarität". Ich möchte betonen, dass dieser Schuldenerlass für Griechenland schon im vergangenen Jahr um diese Zeit hätte erfolgen müssen und uns - Europa - viele Probleme erspart geblieben wären. Im Nachhinein ist man immer klüger. Aus Fehlern haben wir - die EU - hoffentlich gelernt und deswegen erinnere ich an und mahne ein, Verantwortung und Umsicht - in Bezug auf unsere BürgerInnen, Mut zur Vor- und Weitsicht und Rechtzeitigkeit - bezüglich der Einhaltung der Schuldenquoten und vor allem in punkto des angekündigten EFSF-Hebels.

  Przewodniczący. − Konferencja Przewodniczących podjęła dziś jednomyślnie decyzję w sprawie nagrody Sacharowa w tym roku. Jest to ważna decyzja i nasza najważniejsza nagroda. Otrzymało ją pięciu przedstawicieli „arabskiej wiosny”. Przeczytam Państwu ich nazwiska: pośmiertnie Mohamed Bouazizi z Tunezji, Asmaa Mahfouz z Egiptu, Ahmed al-Zubair Ahmed al-Sanusi z Libii, Razan Zeitouneh i Ali Farzat z Syrii.

Koleżanki i koledzy! Jest to wyraz naszego poparcia dla tego, co dzieje się w naszym najbliższym sąsiedztwie. Jest to także wyraz tego, że bronimy podstawowych wartości, na których zbudowaliśmy naszą Unię Europejską. Jest to wyraz solidarności ze światem arabskim i wyraz hołdu dla tych, którzy zmieniają sytuację w naszym południowym sąsiedztwie.

IN THE CHAIR: DIANA WALLIS
Vice-President

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). - Signor Presidente, vorrei portare all'attenzione di questo Parlamento la devastante alluvione che si è verificata in Italia tra la Liguria e la Toscana. Ad oggi sono state rinvenute sette vittime; sei persone sono ancora disperse, centinaia gli sfollati e le strade e i ponti sono stati distrutti. Vorrei che questo Parlamento si facesse voce nelle sedi opportune, per quanto di sua competenza, per fornire gli aiuti necessari per queste zone pesantemente danneggiate.

  President. − Mr Morganti, we note what you have said.

  President. − The next item is the vote.

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

– Before the vote on paragraph 5:

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, do lettura velocemente di un emendamento di natura tecnica già concordato con gli altri gruppi. Al punto 5,

"Calls on the EU Member States to strictly abide by the EU common position on arms exports; urges the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Catherine Ashton, to urge Member States to fully implement, and comply with, the requirements of the common position".

(The oral amendment was accepted)

  President. − That concludes the vote.

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Iliana Malinova Iotova (A7-0285/2011)

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, il Mediatore dell'UE abbia un compito centrale nel rendere le istituzioni europee più aperte e trasparenti e dovrebbe difendere il diritto dei cittadini ad accedere a documenti, come anche affermato nella relazione che abbiamo votato. La realtà è però che, secondo un recente sondaggio commissionato dal Parlamento europeo e dal Mediatore europeo sui diritti dei cittadini, risulta che questi sappiano ben poco in merito a quali siano i loro diritti.

Dai risultati dell'indagine di Eurobarometro, emerge che il diritto di circolare e soggiornare liberamente nell'Unione è tra i più conosciuti e il più importante secondo la maggior parte dei partecipanti al sondaggio, mentre il diritto di presentare una lamentela presso il Mediatore europeo occupa solamente la terza posizione fra i diritti conosciuti dai cittadini dell'UE. Inoltre, l'85% di chi ha partecipato dichiara di non sentirsi informato sulla Carta dei diritti fondamentali.

Quindi, nel complimentarmi per la rielezione del gennaio 2010 di Nikiforos Diamandouros alla carica di Mediatore europeo e nel congratularmi con lui per le oltre 36.000 trattate e il completamento di più di 3.800 inchieste in 15 anni di esistenza di questa istituzione, abbiamo votato favorevolmente al provvedimento, pur domandandoci se fornire più informazioni dei cittadini rispetto ai loro diritti, che poi è quello che vogliono e ci domandano, non sarebbe forse altrettanto efficace come il risolvere le loro denunce a posteriori.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Badanie przypadków niewłaściwego administrowania przez instytucje Unii Europejskiej to ważny aspekt działalności Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich, jawność i przejrzystość działania administracji jest bowiem jedną z wartości otwartych społeczeństw państw członkowskich. Dlatego to Parlament Europejski powołuje Rzecznika i poprzez Komisję Petycji nadzoruje jego pracę.

Jak wynika ze sprawozdania za rok ubiegły, przedmiotem największej liczby skarg i aż 33% zakończonych postępowań jest nadal problem publicznego dostępu do dokumentów unijnych. Aktywność biura Rzecznika, jego działania i zalecenia nie przekładają się zatem na poprawę jakości pracy skarżonych instytucji tak, jak należałoby tego oczekiwać. Niektóre zapisy sprawozdania mogą wręcz służyć uspokojeniu pracowników administracji odpowiedzialnych za nieprawidłowości, co implikuje pytanie o efektywność wydatkowania ogromnych kwot na działalność biura Rzecznika. W oparciu o powyższe argumenty wstrzymałem się od głosu.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - Vážená paní předsedající, při hlasování o zprávě o činnosti evropského veřejného ochránce práv za rok 2010 jsem se zdržel, protože nemohu mimo jiné podpořit bod, kde Evropský parlament blahopřeje veřejnému ochránci ke zkrácení průměrné doby potřebné pro dokončení šetření u jednotlivých případů. Osobně totiž považuju tuto dobu, která je stále devět měsíců, za extrémně dlouhou. Mimochodem šetření u jednoho případu je stále čtyřikrát nákladnější než například u Evropského soudu pro lidská práva.

Report: Roberta Angelilli (A7-0294/2011)

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Die heutige Abstimmung des Europäischen Parlaments zur Bekämpfung von Pornografie im Internet ist richtungsweisend für den Schutz unserer Kinder. Wir bekommen mehr Schutz für die Opfer und eine bessere Prävention. Mit den beschlossenen Maßnahmen wird jeglicher Missbrauch an Kindern, insbesondere das zunehmende Phänomen der Kinderpornografie im Internet, besser verhindert. Zur Bekämpfung der Kinderpornografie im Internet reichen nationale Gesetze nicht aus. Die Europäische Union bietet uns hier eine Chance, diese schlimmen Taten europaweit zu verhindern. Gerade als junge Mutter ist es mir ein Anliegen und sehr wichtig, dass kinderpornografisches Material umgehend aus dem Netz entfernt wird. Ich freue mich daher sehr über die Entscheidung, das Löschen als Königsweg vorzuschreiben.

Die neuen Regelungen schaffen auch ein europaweit höheres Schutzniveau für die Opfer durch schärfere und höhere Strafen für die Täter. Den umfassenden Ansatz der Richtlinie kann ich voll und ganz unterstützen. Der rechtliche Rahmen ist ebenso wichtig wie Aufklärung und Präventionsmaßnahmen. Mit diesem Gesetz sind wir auf dem richtigen Weg, den Schutz der Jüngsten unserer Gesellschaft zu gewährleisten.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, pieno favore e grande soddisfazione per l'esito del voto su questa direttiva per diversi motivi. Secondo recenti studi, tra il 10% e il 20% dei minori europei rischia di rimanere vittima di abusi sessuali durante l'infanzia e l'entità del problema, così come la sua caratteristica transfrontaliera, necessitano di un'azione tempestiva dell'Unione europea.

Mi compiaccio che l'accordo che è stato votato in Aula, e quindi subito adottato dal Consiglio, sostituirà l'attuale legislazione ormai obsoleta, visto che risale al 2004, e che ciò avverrà in tempi brevissimi, visto che già c'è un accordo in prima lettura con il Consiglio. Mi compiaccio dell'inserimento in questa direttiva di nuovi concetti e reati, introdotti per la prima volta nella legislazione comunitaria: l'adescamento online diventerà in Europa un crimine a tutti gli effetti, così come il turismo sessuale, sia che sia commesso sul territorio di uno Stato membro o che venga commesso al di fuori dell'Unione europea, ma da un cittadino europeo.

Le varie banche dati degli Stati membri che raccolgono le informazioni necessarie per il monitoraggio del fenomeno dell'abuso e dello sfruttamento sessuale dei minori sono di importanza capitale e devono essere in grado di collaborare tra loro con sempre maggiore rapidità e precisione, perché questi crimini, sempre più capillarmente organizzati, non trovino nessuna via di scampo o lentezze burocratiche che potrebbero originare recidività dell'azione. Tolleranza zero: è questa la parola d'ordine di questo provvedimento che sono orgoglioso di aver votato.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, ho espresso voto favorevole a quanto presentato dall'on. Angelilli perché affronta un problema che, come madre e come nonna, mi interessa profondamente. Proteggere i bambini dagli sfruttamenti sessuali, dagli abusi e dal disgustoso mondo della pedopornografia significa difendere i nostri figli, i nostri nipoti e, di conseguenza, difendere i più deboli.

Una maggiore prevenzione, un'azione penale più dura verso chi commette tali reati e una più attenta protezione dei bambini: sono questi i punti cardine del documento votato quest'oggi. Senza dubbio il cammino è difficile. Penso in particolare alla diffusione di materiale pedopornografico via Internet, che potrà essere combattuto solo con una stretta collaborazione tra Stati membri, autorità di polizia e provider.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0542/2011

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - Nem elég csak egy állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványt megszavazni, naponta tennünk kell azért, hogy a világon a keresztényeket ne érje üldözés. Nem csak azért, mert Európa keresztény gyökerekkel rendelkezik, mert –mondhatnám így is, hogy keresztény vallásúak vagyunk – hanem mert elsősorban ez egy emberjogi és kisebbségi kérdés.

Az, hogy Szíriában 10%-ról 8%-ra csökkent a keresztény lakosság száma, az, hogy Egyiptomban több ezer keresztényt kényszerítenek iszlámra, vagy ha arra gondolunk, hogy Irakban túlélték a keresztény kisebbségek a diktatúrákat évszázadokon keresztül, és most pusztulnak el, akkor nagyon nagy az Unió felelőssége. És azért nagy, hogy egyrészt ne szégyelljük keresztény múltunkat, másrészt pedig az Unió területén ne tűrjünk meg semmiféle diszkriminációt nemzeti és vallási kisebbségekkel szemben. Sok tennivalónk van még, főleg a példaadás és a példamutatás területén.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, uskonnollisten vähemmistöjen tila on ollut Euroopan parlamentin huolenaiheena jo useaan otteeseen. Demokraattisen vallankumouksen jälkeen ja Mubarakin hallinnon väistyttyä Egyptissä uskottiin ja toivottiin, että alkaisi uusi aikakausi. Hyökkäykset uskonnollisia vähemmistöjä vastaan ovat kuitenkin vain jatkuneet.

Vaikka Egypti on kriittisessä ja vaikeassa demokratiaan siirtymisen vaiheessa, eivät ihmisloukkaukset ole missään tapauksessa hyväksyttäviä. Kaikilla kansalaisilla tulee olla oikeus vapaasti osoittaa mieltään. 25 Egyptin kansalaista kuoli ja yli 300 loukkaantui rauhanomaisessa marssissa aivan turhaan. Koptikristitythän marssivat protestoidakseen kirkkoon kohdistunutta hyökkäystä vastaan. He marssivat uskonnollista syrjintää vastaan ja vaativat maahan lakia, jossa uskonnollinen syrjintä kriminalisoitaisiin. Nämä tavoitteet ovat täysin oikeutettuja.

Egyptin valtion tulee viipymättä jälleenrakentaa hyökkäyksen kohteeksi joutunut kirkko sekä aloittaa todellinen kansallinen vuoropuhelu, niin Egyptilläkin on tulevaisuus.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich bin froh, dass die jahrelange Blockade gewisser Kräfte in diesem Haus gegen die Befassung mit der Lage der Christen im Orient beendet worden ist, und wir dies nunmehr systematisch tun. Die christlichen Minderheiten im Nahen Osten und in Nordafrika sind gerade auch in Ländern, die sich erfreulicherweise demokratisieren, gefährdet. Und wer soll sich um diese Minderheiten kümmern, wenn nicht wir Europäer? Wir Europäer sind die natürlichen Beschützer dieser Minderheiten.

Aber diese Verpflichtung liegt natürlich auch bei den Mehrheitsgesellschaften. Es war ein Ruhmesblatt des Islam, dass diese Christen unter seiner Herrschaft jahrhundertelang nicht nur überleben, sondern eine führende Rolle spielen konnten. Ausgerechnet im 21. Jahrhundert sind diese Minderheiten vom Verschwinden bedroht. Demokratie ist Mehrheitsherrschaft, aber ihre Nagelprobe ist das Schicksal der Minderheiten.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, un dato prima di tutto che spiega la gravità della situazione: sono cristiani tre quarti delle persone perseguitate e discriminate per la loro fede nel mondo. Questo ce lo ha ricordato di recente il Papa durante il vertice del 12 settembre a Roma, dove anche i rappresentanti OSCE si sono uniti per discutere sul tema dei crimini di odio contro i cristiani.

Nella risoluzione parliamo di Egitto, dove la situazione è ad alto rischio, poiché lì vive una forte comunità cristiana, il 10% della popolazione, e della Siria, per cui il commissario ONU ha parlato di possibili veri e propri crimini contro l'umanità. Ma mi preme ricordare che questi crimini si svolgono, oltre che in Africa, anche in varie parti dell'Asia. Mi riferisco alle recenti persecuzioni nelle Filippine, in India e in Pakistan.

I crimini contro i cristiani sono in preoccupante aumento: violenze e aggressioni contro i sacerdoti, religiosi e predicatori di strada protestanti e soprattutto attacchi alle chiese e ai cimiteri in un'atmosfera di totale mancanza di libertà religiosa, libertà che dovrebbe includere il diritto a predicare, educare, convertire, contribuire al discorso politico e partecipare pienamente alle attività pubbliche. Tutto ciò a molti cristiani nel mondo non è permesso.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Pretrvávajúca náboženská intolerancia a diskriminácia občanov koptského vierovyznania v Egypte, žiaľ, naberá na intenzite a rozmeroch. Vojenský zásah na koptských kresťanoch v Káhire začiatkom októbra po proteste proti útoku na kostol v provincii Assuán si vyžiadal takmer tridsať obetí a spôsobil ťažké zranenia viac ako 350 egyptským občanom. O prenasledovaní a strachu z neustálych násilných útokov vrátane úplného ničenia kostolov svedčí aj exodus viac ako 100 000 koptov, kresťanov, ktorí v strachu o holý život hľadajú útočisko pre seba a svoje rodiny v zahraničí. Oslabené štátne a spoločenské zriadenie zneužívajú islamskí extrémisti. Egyptské orgány musia pristúpiť – avšak v súlade s rešpektovaním základných ľudských práv – k ráznejším opatreniam na prevenciu a represiu nábožensky motivovaných trestných činov a náboženského násilia a zabezpečiť tak slobodu náboženstva pre všetkých občanov vrátane koptských kresťanov.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, on erittäin tärkeää, että Euroopan unioni, joka on arvoyhteisö, puuttuu tämäntyyppiseen asiaan ja lähettää samalla erittäin selkeän viestin Egyptille ja Syyrialle siitä, että uskonnollisia vähemmistöjä, kristittyjä vähemmistöjä, on kohdeltava asianmukaisesti. Meidän on tärkeä viedä sinne käsitystä demokratiasta, ihmisoikeuksista, mielipiteenvapaudesta ja oikeusvaltioperiaatteista. Ne ovat vielä kaukaisia haaveita, vaikka jotkut jo uskoivat, että arabikevät olisi johtanut tähän, mutta edelleen näyttää siltä, että ne ovat hyvin kaukaisia haaveita.

Uskonnonvapaus ei tarkoita sitä, että ihmiset vapautetaan kaikesta uskonnosta vaan sitä, että ihmisillä on oikeus harjoittaa omaa uskontoansa. Mitä tulee kopteihin, he ovat joutuneet kärsimään Egyptissä hyvin voimakkaasti ja maksamaan kovan hinnan omasta uskonnollisesta vakaumuksestaan. Samoin Syyriassa kristityt ovat maan alla johtuen siitä hirmuhallinnosta, mikä siellä tällä hetkellä on.

Tässä on Euroopan parlamentilla ja Euroopan unionilla todellinen toimintakenttä puhua näiden kristittyjen puolesta ja lähettää selkeä viesti sekä Syyrialle että Egyptille että näilläkin ihmisillä on oikeus ihmisarvoiseen, ehyeen ja hyvään elämään heidän omassa kotimaassaan ja ennen muuta uskonnonvapauteen.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, the sectarian violence in Egypt stands in stark contrast to the united movement which characterised the first phase of the revolution in Egypt. Then we saw working-class people, young people, older people, unemployed people and poor farmers fighting together across the religious divide to overthrow the hated dictatorship of Mubarak and to fight for real social change. It is the strength of that united movement that strikes fear into the heart of the military regime and the ruling class that they represent. That fear has returned to haunt them in recent times when they face significant strike movements of textile workers and teachers, to give two examples: people fighting for wage rises and to continue the revolutionary process.

The increase in sectarianism plays into the hands of the elite in Egypt who want to divide and rule working-class people. To move forward, what is needed is a united movement of workers across the divide to continue and deepen the revolution, fighting on the basis of a socialist programme to transform Eygptian society, to sweep away the remnants of the old regime and to obtain real social change.

Motion for a resolution RC-B7-0543/2011

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, Euroopan unionin tulee kannattaa vakaata ja demokraattista Ukrainaa, joka kunnioittaa sosiaalisen markkinatalouden ja oikeusvaltion periaatteita sekä ihmisoikeuksia, suojelee vähemmistöjä ja takaa ihmisten perusoikeudet. Tällainen Ukraina ei vielä tänä päivänä ole, kuten Tymošenkon tapaus meille selvästi osoittaa.

Ukrainassa on tällä hetkellä enemmän sanoja kuin tekoja, mutta uskon, että Ukraina vielä saavuttaa EU-jäsenyyden vaatimat ehdot. Haluan kuitenkin korostaa, että assosiaatiosopimus on niin tärkeä askel Ukrainan matkalla kohti Eurooppaa, että sen allekirjoittaminen joulukuussa on aiheellista.

Euroopan komission tulee seurata tarkkaan Ukrainan kehittymistä sekä muutosten ja uudistusten etenemistä. Ukraina ei ole erityisasemassa, vaan sen on eurooppalaistuttava aivan kuten EU:n jäseneksi haluavien Balkanin maidenkin. Ukrainassa tarvitaan tahtoa ja rohkeutta uudistua, tarvitaan aitoa, koko yhteiskunnan osallistavaa kansallista vuoropuhelua.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Ma sooviksin ka seletada, miks ma seda resolutsiooni toetasin ja miks ma teatud resolutsiooni osadele vastu hääletasin. Kõigepealt, ma olen ka selle resolutsiooni kaasautor ja see resolutsioon ei ole kaugeltki ideaalne resolutsioon, eriti veel see osa, mis on kirjas punktis kaks, kus öeldakse, et Tõmošenko kohtuprotsessiga rikutakse inimõigusi. Mina nii ei arva ja seetõttu ma hääletasin ka vastu. Küll aga toetan seda resolutsiooni kui kompromissi siin parlamendis ja toetan seda seepärast, et see resolutsioon annab väga selge Euroopa perspektiivi Ukrainale, Ukraina valitsusele, Ukraina rahvale. Mulle meeldib väga punkt üks, kus öeldakse, et igal Euroopa riigil, kes täidab kriteeriumid, on võimalik saada ka ühel päeval Euroopa Liidu liikmeks.

Muidugi ma eeldan seda, et Ukraina jätkab oma reforme ja kõiki kohustusi, mis on võetud, aga teine asi veel, miks ma seda resolutsiooni toetasin, on see, et siin on täpselt kirjas, et enne selle aasta lõpus toimuvat tippkohtumist ikkagi vaadatakse ringi võimalused läbirääkimiste jätkamiseks.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich bin der Meinung, dass diese Entschließung von großer Bedeutung ist, denn anders als manche Entwürfe spricht sie klar von einer Annäherung EU-Ukraine, und nicht von einer Annäherung der Ukraine an Europa. Die Ukraine ist Europa und war immer Europa!

Wenn gestern ein führender Repräsentant der EU im kleinsten Kreis gesagt hat, die Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten könnten sich nicht einigen, ob die Ukraine ein europäisches Land sei oder nicht, ist das ein Skandal! Im Gegensatz zur Türkei ist sie eindeutig ein europäisches Land. Aber sie kann natürlich derzeit in keiner Weise beitreten. Und sie ist ein Land, das sich leider Gottes zurückentwickelt. Darüber deutlich zu sprechen, das ist die Aufgabe des Europäischen Parlaments. Es wird nicht nur Frau Tymoschenko auf eine inakzeptable Weise verfolgt, es wird auch die Opposition insgesamt diskriminiert und verfolgt. Das können wir nicht akzeptieren.

Gerade weil wir die Ukraine für ein ureuropäisches Land halten, setzen wir uns kritisch und klar mit den Fehlentwicklungen in diesem wichtigen Land auseinander.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Wyrok skazujący byłą premier Julię Tymoszenko w powszechnej opinii uważany jest za rozczarowujący. Wydany został po procesie budzącym ogromne zastrzeżenia dotyczące zgodności z międzynarodowymi standardami sprawiedliwych, przejrzystych, a przede wszystkim niezależnych postępowań sądowych. W moim odczuciu nosi znamiona polityczne, nad czym ubolewam.

Mając na względzie jak najszerszą współpracę państw Unii, w tym Polski, z Ukrainą oraz nieustannie wspierając integracyjne aspiracje tego kraju, apeluję do władz w Kijowie o zapewnienie oskarżonym i skazanym byłym członkom rządu sprawiedliwych procesów odwoławczych. Wyrażam nadzieję, ze prezydent Wiktor Janukowycz dołoży wszelkich starań, by dotychczasowe relacje z Brukselą nie uległy pogorszeniu. Jednocześnie zwracam się do polskiej prezydencji, aktywnie działającej na polu Partnerstwa Wschodniego, o zaangażowanie na rzecz pozytywnego rozwiązania powstałej sytuacji. Jest to szczególnie ważne w obliczu kończących się negocjacji stowarzyszeniowych z Ukrainą. Popieram rezolucję.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In den letzten Wochen und Monaten haben vielerlei Versuche stattgefunden – auch von den Staats- und Regierungschefs, von Herrn Barroso, von Herrn Van Rompuy –, in der Ukraine die Rechtsstaatlichkeit zur Geltung zu bringen. Frau Tymoschenko und andere sind im Gefängnis, werden aufgrund von Rechtsgrundlagen, die in keinem Rechtsstaat mehr bestehen, verfolgt, auf der Grundlage eines Gesetzes, das 1927 von Josef Stalin eingeführt wurde, wahrscheinlich gegen Leo Trotzki. Wir müssen sehen, dass damit auch systematisch versucht wird, die Opposition davon abzubringen, Kandidaten aufzustellen und in demokratischen Wettbewerb zu treten. Ein weiterer Schritt, nachdem man im letzten Jahr die Wahlen gefälscht hat und offensichtlich jetzt das Wahlsystem verändern will, entgegen den Wünschen der Venice Commission.

Die Ukraine ist ein europäischer Staat mit europäischer Perspektive. Wir möchten Assoziierungsabkommen mit der Ukraine, aber dafür muss die Ukraine in die richtige Richtung gehen und darf nicht systematisch die Opposition verfolgen und Rechtsstaatlichkeit beseitigen. Deswegen liegt das Schicksal der Ukraine und seiner Bürger in den Händen von Präsident Janukowitsch.

Motion for a resolution B7-0538/2011

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Až 53 % Európanov si myslí, že antibiotiká zabíjajú vírusy. Takmer polovica z nich verí, že antibiotiká liečia chrípku a prechladnutie. Vo veľkom rozsahu sa používajú aj pri chove hospodárskych zvierat. Výsledkom je nadmerné užívanie antibiotík a narastajúca odolnosť bakteriálnych kmeňov. Problém prekračuje hranice jednotlivých členských štátov, a preto je na mieste spoločná európska akcia.

Verejné zdravie je skutočne ohrozené a s uspokojením som podporila túto rezolúciu, ktorá hovorí nielen o systéme monitorovania rezistencie a súvisiacich infekcií, ale aj spoločnom vývoji nových liekov proti odolným mikroorganizmom. Ako praktická lekárka by som privítala aj lepšiu komunikáciu so združením lekárov a pacientov. Antibiotiká vlastne by sa mali užívať len v prípadoch, keď si je lekár istý diagnózou. Práve v tomto období, ktoré sa vyznačuje nárastom chrípkových ochorení je potrebné venovať viac času aj finančných prostriedkov informačnej kampani.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Iliana Malinova Iotova (A7-0285/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo este relatório, na medida em que seguiu os trâmites habituais, respeitando os prazos exigidos para a sua apresentação, e apresenta um descritivo claro do que foi o trabalho da provedoria. Aproveito para salientar a importância deste organismo para receber queixas relativas a casos de má administração nas actividades das Instituições da União Europeia. O direito de apresentar queixa ao Provedor de Justiça Europeu está previsto no artigo 24.º do TFUE e no artigo 43.º da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on the Ombudsman's annual report 2010. The European Ombudsman is empowered to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of European Union institutions. I support the position of the rapporteur, which endorses the Ombudsman in his role of external control mechanism and welcomes the Ombudsman’s initiative to regularly publish studies examining the EU institutions’ follow-up to his critical remarks while urging the institutions to work together with the Ombudsman to improve their follow-up rate. It is important that, when the Ombudsman presents his annual report at a meeting of the Committee on Petitions, not only representatives of the European Commission but also of the respective administrations of the European Parliament, the Council and other EU institutions, agencies, services and bodies that have been the subject of an investigation, a special report, or critical remarks should be present to comment on the report and take part in the discussion. We, Members of the European Parliament, also call on the Ombudsman to keep Parliament informed of developments in his relations with the new European External Action Service and the Council.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Le Médiateur européen joue un rôle central dans le jeu institutionnel européen. Élu par le Parlement européen, il est chargé d’examiner les plaintes des citoyens, des entreprises et des associations à l’encontre des institutions européennes. Persuadée que le Médiateur contribue à plus de transparence démocratique, j’ai voté en faveur du rapport Iotova. La plupart des plaintes portent sur le manque de transparence de l’administration de l’Union. Le Médiateur a formulé des recommandations, approuvées par le Parlement européen, pour traiter des plaintes dans un délai plus court (plus de coordination avec les institutions européennes, allégement de la procédure …).

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą, kuriame Europos Parlamentas palankiai įvertino Europos ombudsmeno veiklą 2010 metais. Europos ombudsmenas atlieka labai svarbią Europos Sąjungos piliečių informavimo funkciją apie jiems prieinamas galimybes teikti skundus dėl netinkamo ES institucijų administravimo. Pavyzdžiui, per praėjusius metus daugiausia skundų buvo paduota dėl skaidrumo stokos, viešųjų pirkimų ir subsidijų, ES institucijų personalo skundai. Džiugu tai, kad 2010 m. daugelio skundų atvejais pavyko draugiškai susitarti ir tai dar kartą parodo ombudsmeno veiksmingumą ir tinkamą bendradarbiavimą su kitomis institucijomis. Vertinu tai, jog Europos ombudsmenas stengiasi palaikyti nuolatinį dialogą su skundo pareiškėjais. Tai yra labai svarbu, kadangi Lisabonos sutartis sustiprino dialogo su piliečiais vaidmenį. Ombudsmeno institucijai, kuri nagrinėja skundus, nuolatinis bendravimas su žmonėmis yra būtinas dalykas. Be to, labai svarbu, jog ombudsmenas kiekvienais metais savo interneto svetainėje skelbia tyrimą apie tolesnius veiksmus, kurių ėmėsi institucijos, reaguodamos į jo pateiktas pastabas ir kritiką.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O presente relatório, da autoria da colega Iliana Malinova Iotova, diz respeito ao Relatório Anual do Provedor de Justiça relativo ao ano de 2010. Trata-se do primeiro relatório elaborado pelo Provedor de Justiça Europeu, Nikiforos Diamandouros, após a sua tomada de posse perante o Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, em 25 de Outubro de 2010, na sequência da sua reeleição. A instituição presidida por Nikiforos Diamandouros comemorou, em Setembro de 2010, o seu 15.º aniversário tendo, durante os quinze anos da sua vigência, completado mais de 3 800 inquéritos e tratado cerca de 36 000 queixas relacionadas com a má administração nas actividades das Instituições da UE, ou seja, quando um organismo público não actua em conformidade com uma regra ou um princípio a que está vinculado. Uma das queixas principais é a dificuldade que os cidadãos sentem no acesso aos documentos da UE. Embora se compreenda a existência de documentação confidencial, as instituições não podem dificultar a vida ao cidadão neste campo. Saúdo a aprovação deste relatório, formulo votos para que o Provedor de Justiça consiga atingir os objectivos definidos na sua nova estratégia para o mandato 2009-2014 e espero que os cidadãos europeus sejam melhor informados sobre o seu papel.

  João Ferreira e Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O relatório anual do Provedor de Justiça permite-me verificar o trabalho realizado na aplicação das suas funções e objectivos. Sabendo-se que o Provedor de Justiça tem o direito de analisar a substância das acções e conclusões da Comissão quando investiga queixas sobre infracções, é importante verificar o que se passa com as queixas apresentadas e seguir a evolução do processo. Pode verificar-se, por exemplo, se as opiniões do Provedor de Justiça são razoáveis, bem argumentadas e completa e claramente explicadas aos queixosos. Consta do relatório que o Provedor de Justiça pôde ajudar os queixosos em 70% de todos os casos tratados em 2010, abrindo ele próprio um inquérito, transferindo a queixa para um organismo competente a nível da UE ou a nível nacional, ou, ainda, dando conselhos ao queixoso sobre onde se dirigir. No Relatório Anual relativo a 2010, é dada especial atenção à nova estratégia que o Provedor de Justiça e o seu pessoal formularam para o seu mandato 2009-2014.

Os objectivos são, designadamente: ouvir os interessados obtendo informações dos queixosos, alargando e aprofundando os contactos com as instituições da UE, identificar as melhores práticas para alcançar resultados mais rápidos, ao reduzir o tempo necessário para encerrar os inquéritos, e desenvolver procedimentos simplificados para promover a rápida resolução das queixas.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Európsky ombudsman Nikiforos Diamandouros bol znovuzvolený Európskym parlamentom na plenárnej schôdzi 20. januára 2010 v Štrasburgu a slávnostnú prísahu zložil pred Súdnym dvorom Európskej únie 25. októbra 2010 v Luxemburgu. V máji toho roku predložil predsedovi Európskeho parlamentu Jerzymu Buzekovi výročnú správu za rok 2010. Ombudsman sa podľa možnosti snaží dospieť k pozitívnemu výsledku tým, že hľadá priateľské riešenie, ktoré by uspokojilo sťažovateľa aj inštitúciu. V roku 2010 sa našlo priateľské riešenie v 179 prípadoch. Ak však nie je možné dospieť k prijateľnému riešeniu, prípad je buď uzatvorený s kritickou pripomienkou, alebo je vypracovaný návrh odporúčania. Vo výročnej správe za rok 2010 je osobitná pozornosť venovaná novej stratégii, ktorú vymedzil ombudsman so svojimi zamestnancami na funkčné obdobie 2009 – 2014. Ide v nej predovšetkým o rozšírenie a prehĺbenie kontaktov s inštitúciami EÚ a občianskou spoločnosťou, snahu o promptnejšie vyriešenie sťažností či poskytovanie užitočných informácií zúčastneným stranám a verejnosti. Inštitúcia ombudsmana využije túto novú stratégiu na upevnenie a riadenie svojej činnosti, ktorej cieľom je zaručiť, aby občania EÚ mohli v plnej miere ťažiť zo svojich práv a aby i takýmto spôsobom administratíva Únie bola skvalitnená.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la relazione fa un'analisi sul lavoro del Mediatore europeo, con numeri e statistiche. Oltre a questo si dichiarano però gli obiettivi e auspici per il futuro per migliorare sempre più l'organo in questione. Per questo il mio voto sarà positivo.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), par écrit. – Alors que l'on reproche de plus en plus à l'Europe d'être éloignée des citoyens et de gérer ses affaires de façon opaque, j'ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui encourage le Médiateur à renforcer l'accès aux documents des institutions européennes. Le Médiateur, en offrant à chaque citoyen un accès libre et transparents aux documents des institutions européennes, est un élément clef de la démocratie européenne. Véritable trait d'union entre les citoyens et les institutions, son action permet de renforcer l'ouverture et la transparence de l'Union européenne. Dans ce domaine, il existe encore de nombreux progrès à accomplir, comme le souligne la résolution, mais surtout comme en atteste le nombre de plaintes enregistrées par le Médiateur. L'Union européenne progresse sur le chemin de la transparence, aux institutions et au Médiateur de continuer à œuvrer pour faire de l'Union européenne une véritable démocratie moderne.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − I would like to echo the report in congratulating Mr Diamandouros on his re-election. It can often be challenging to communicate the message of the EU to our constituents, and the Ombudsman plays an important part in communicating that message and ensuring that the EU institutions are as transparent as possible. I remain concerned over the disproportionately high number of transparency cases brought to the Ombudsman; this is clearly an area which requires further attention. We must continue to analyse the most frequent transparency complaints and take steps to increase transparency. We must also highlight the improvements in transparency that have already occurred. Every question asked, speech made, report amended and written declaration signed by an MEP is freely available and, in many ways, the European Parliament is far more transparent than any national parliament. However we will continue to dialogue with the citizen to strive for increased transparency.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − 2011 m. gegužės 10 d. Europos Parlamento pirmininkui oficialiai pateiktas metinis pranešimas apie Europos ombudsmeno 2010 m. veiklą. Manau, kad būtina atkreipti dėmesį į naująją ombudsmeno strategiją, kurią jis parengė dabartinei savo kadencijai ir kuri yra jo iniciatyvų ir veiklos pagrindas. Į šią strategiją, inter alia, įtrauktas nuolatinis dialogas su skundų pateikėjais, pilietine visuomene ir kitais suinteresuotaisiais subjektais, geriausios patirties pavyzdžių nustatymas bendradarbiaujant ir konsultuojantis su kolegomis iš Europos ombudsmenų tinklo, ES procedūrų teisingumo ir skaidrumo didinimas ir geresnės ES institucijų administracijų aptarnavimo kultūros skatinimas. Pritariu ombudsmeno nuomonei, kad dar reikia daug nuveikti siekiant įtikinti pareigūnus, jog bendravimas su ombudsmenu vadovaujantis gynybiniu požiūriu yra prarasta jų atstovaujamų institucijų galimybė ir dėl to kyla pavojus pakenkti visos Europos Sąjungos įvaizdžiui. Reikia iš esmės patobulinti atsakymų procesą, taip pat sumažinti atsakymų rengimo laiką (ypač tais atvejais, kai laikas labai svarbus) ir rengti į sprendimus orientuotus, o ne gynybinius atsakymus. Pažymiu, kad pagal Pagrindinių teisių chartiją Europos piliečiai turi teisę į gerą administravimą.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. − The report emphasizes the positive work of the Ombudsman and points to a remarkable change from one year to the next. The Ombudsman has the duty to insist on important matters such as fundamental rights of access to documents, on proper implementation of the principle of transparency in the decision-making process, a citizen-friendly culture of service and a pro-active attitude by the EU’s institutions. I endorse this report, but there are still more things to be done. Moreover, I want to emphasize the fact that in the Eastern Partnership countries the Ombudsman has to be an important tool for democratisation and the EU has to be a positive example. There is Ombudsman cooperation, which has as its main objective to reinforce the powers of Ombudsman’s Offices in Eastern Partnership countries to participate in the building of democratic states that respect individuals’ rights.

  Peter Jahr (PPE), schriftlich. − Die Institution des Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten wurde im September dieses Jahres 15 Jahre alt. Innerhalb dieser Zeit wurden mehr als 36 000 Beschwerden beantwortet. Beide Zahlen sind für mich Beweis genug, dass die Institution des Bürgerbeauftragten einen wichtigen Anteil daran hat, Europa greifbarer und verständlicher für seine Bürger zu machen. Ich beglückwünsche Herrn Diamandouros ausdrücklich zu der geleisteten Arbeit. Durch die Bearbeitung der Beschwerden von Bürgern, Unternehmen, Vereinigungen und anderen hat der Bürgerbeauftragte die Möglichkeit, genau festzustellen, an welchen Stellen es Reibungspunkte gibt oder wo Verbesserungsmöglichkeiten bestehen. Ich wünsche dem Bürgerbeauftragten, dass er seine gute Arbeit fortsetzen und wo möglich sogar noch verbessern kann. So sollte zum Beispiel die Kommunikation mit den Bürgern noch weiter verbessert werden. Genauso sollte versucht werden, die Zeit bis zum Abschluss von Untersuchungen noch weiter zu verkürzen. Dabei wünsche ich Herrn Diamandouros viel Erfolg und hoffe auf weiterhin gute Zusammenarbeit im Petitionsausschuss.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Signora Presidente, cari colleghi, la relazione annuale 2010 del Mediatore europeo ci rammenta una delle responsabilità più importanti legate a tale incarico, cioè garantire che i cittadini dell'Unione siano a conoscenza dei propri diritti, nonché dei mezzi per esercitarli. Troppo spesso accade che i cittadini percepiscano l'Ue e le sue attività come qualcosa di lontano e poco accessibile, in realtà tutti i nostri sforzi devono essere rivolti a cambiare questa visione ed accrescere, invece, una concreta consapevolezza circa la vicinanza dell'UE nei confronti dei suoi cittadini. E in quest'ottica il ruolo del mediatore europeo acquisisce un ruolo fondamentale. Il mediatore è, infatti, stato concepito quale punto di collegamento tra i cittadini europei e l'amministrazione dell'UE, per far sì che fossero garantiti, tra gli altri, il dialogo continuo con i ricorrenti e la società civile, la promozione di una cultura del servizio nelle amministrazioni delle istituzioni dell'Unione europea e lo sviluppo di procedure decisionali più eque e trasparenti.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report and am happy that the Office of the Ombudsman, which currently has an establishment plan of 64 posts (20 officials and 44 temporary agents) and a budget of around EUR 9 million, uses these resources to ensure that EU citizens enjoy their rights fully and to work to enhance the quality of the EU administration.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), per iscritto. − Nella relazione annuale 2010 del Mediatore europeo, abbiamo accolto con favore i suggerimenti formulati per una nuova strategia di lavoro 2009-2014. Nello specifico, abbiamo apprezzato l'obiettivo, più volte sottolineato, di voler ascoltare le parti interessate per ottenere un feedback dai denuncianti, ampliando ed approfondendo i contatti con le istituzioni dell'Unione europea e della società civile e individuando le migliori pratiche. Si intende, quindi, migliorare la qualità e l'efficacia del lavoro di assistenza ai cittadini europei, nei casi di cosiddetta "cattiva amministrazione"; tutto ciò al fine di ottenere risultati più velocemente, riducendo il tempo necessario per chiudere le indagini e sviluppando procedure semplificate per favorire una rapida risoluzione dei reclami.

Siamo dell'idea che questa nuova strategia di lavoro possa ottenere un effetto positivo sulla cultura amministrativa delle istituzioni dell'Unione europea, contribuendo ad ottimizzare le pratiche amministrative e concentrandosi sui problemi sistemici. Fondamentale sarà il miglioramento della comunicazione con il pubblico; occorrerà fornire, in modo regolare, informazioni tempestive ed utili a tutte le parti interessate.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − Concordo con la relatrice sul fatto che, nonostante i notevoli progressi dell'ultimo periodo, si compiano ulteriori sforzi affinché i tempi richiesti per completare le indagini si riducano ulteriormente, così da poter meglio rispondere alle esigenze dei cittadini. Il mio voto è favorevole

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The most common allegation examined by the Ombudsman in 2010 related to the lack of transparency in the EU administration. I support this report and its calls for the delivery of faster results by reducing the time needed to close inquiries and by developing simplified procedures for rapid resolutions of complaints.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The rapporteur approves the work of the Ombudsman and I agree with the rapporteur.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Der Europäische Bürgerbeauftragte mit dem Amtssitz in Straßburg ist der Bürgerbeauftragte der Europäischen Union und untersucht Beschwerden über Missstände in der Verwaltungstätigkeit ihrer Organe, Einrichtungen und sonstigen Stellen. Seine Tätigkeit beruht auf Artikel 8d und Artikel 138e des Vertrags zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft und dem Beschluss des Europäischen Parlaments („Statut des Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten“) vom 9. März 1994 über die Regelungen und allgemeinen Bedingungen für die Ausübung der Aufgaben des Bürgerbeauftragten. Allein im Jahr 2010 gingen 2267 Beschwerden ein, von denen 326 abschließend untersucht werden konnten. Zwölf Untersuchungen wurden auf eigen Initiative durchgeführt. Die häufigsten Beschwerden haben mangelnde Transparenz zum Inhalt und kommen aus Deutschland, gefolgt von Spanien. Um die Arbeit des Bürgerbeauftragten zu verbessern, wurden für die Jahre 2009–2014 64 Planstellen und ein Budget von rund neun Millionen Euro beschlossen. Ich habe mich meiner Stimme enthalten, da ich der Ansicht bin, dass vor allem die Bevölkerung nicht ausreichend über die Tätigkeiten des Bürgerbeauftragten informiert wird.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Teigiamai vertinu metinį Europos ombudsmeno pranešimą apie jo veiklą 2010 m., kuris sudarė puikias sąlygas susipažinti su ombudsmeno nuveiktais darbais tiriant piliečių, įmonių ir organizacijų skundus bei skatinant Europos Sąjungos institucijose, įstaigose diegti aukščiausius administravimo standartus.

Manau, kad naujoji ombudsmeno strategija bus efektyvus ir tinkamas pagrindas siekiant užmegzti nuolatinį dialogą su skundų pateikėjais, pilietine visuomene ir kitais suinteresuotais subjektais bei toliau skatinti piliečių ir valstybės tarnautojų tarpusavio santykių darną.

Pritariu jo iniciatyvai nuolat skelbti tyrimus, kuriuose būtų nagrinėjama tolesni ES institucijų veiksmai, kurių buvo imtasi reaguojant į pateiktas kritines pastabas.

Be to, labai svarbu, kad ombudsmenas ir toliau ateityje kuo atviriau ir skaidriau vykdytų savo veiklą bei geriau panaudotų turimus išteklius.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório sobre o Relatório Anual do Provedor de Justiça Europeu relativo a 2010. No Relatório Anual relativo a 2010, entregue ao Parlamento Europeu, é dada especial atenção à nova estratégia que o Provedor de Justiça e o seu pessoal formularam para o seu mandato 2009-2014. Os objectivos são não só ouvir os interessados, obtendo informações dos queixosos, alargando e aprofundando os contactos com as Instituições da UE e a sociedade civil, e identificando as melhores práticas, como também alcançar resultados mais depressa ao reduzir o tempo necessário para encerrar os inquéritos e desenvolver procedimentos simplificados para promover a rápida resolução das queixas. Creio serem objectivos dignos e necessários para uma instituição que constitui muitas vezes o último recurso do cidadão para ver o seu problema com a administração resolvido.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Care colleghe e cari colleghi, a fronte dell'importanza fondamentale del ruolo del Mediatore europeo, marcata dagli importanti risultati raggiunti negli ultimi 15 anni, data della sua istituzione, esprimo il mio voto favorevole per la nuova strategia concernente in Mediatore europeo al fine di garantire che i cittadini dell'UE godano pienamente dei loro diritti.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − O Provedor de Justiça, cujo estatuto se encontra, desde logo, ancorado no artigo 228.º do Tratado de Funcionamento da União Europeia, traduz-se numa garantia dos cidadãos comunitários na sua relação com as instituições europeias (cf. art. 43.º CDFUE). Trata-se de um cargo público que desempenha duas funções centrais: por um lado, traduz-se numa via de resolução de conflitos à margem das instâncias formais de controlo, como o recurso aos tribunais; por outro, permite concretizar o verdadeiro status activus libertatis que se quer que os cidadãos comunitários assumam. O momento em que o Provedor de Justiça apresenta o seu relatório anual é sempre adequado, neste sentido, para retirar ilações para o futuro. Assim, a política comunitária deverá seguir no sentido de apoiar a sua actuação, procurando-se divulgar informações acerca da sua actividade e das suas funções, na medida em que, em países – como, de resto, Portugal – sem grande tradição de existência de um Ombudsman, não raro os cidadãos desconhecem este instrumento de recurso. Por outro lado, é ainda importante que se imponha um clima de cooperação entre as instituições comunitárias, de modo a maximizar o contributo do Provedor de Justiça. Por ver estes pontos vertidos na apreciação sujeita ao crivo do Parlamento Europeu, votei em sentido favorável.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), par écrit. – La présence d'un médiateur est indispensable à toute relation démocratique et efficace entre administrations et administrés. Selon le rapport annuel 2010 du médiateur, 2667 plaintes ont été déposées en 2010, tant par des citoyens, des organisations non gouvernementales et des associations que par des collectivités publiques. Il est tout à fait encourageant de constater que le médiateur a réussi dans 70% des cas à aider le plaignant, en s'efforçant de trouver, le plus souvent, une issue à l'amiable. Je me félicite également d'observer que près de 58% des plaintes ont été déposées via Internet. Les formulaires en ligne permettent une meilleure accessibilité des citoyens à ce droit, et j'espère qu'ils contribueront à faciliter et accélérer les procédures. Le rapport d'Iliana Malinova Iotova, auquel j'apporte mon soutien, met en lumière ces avancées, tout en proposant des mesures concrètes pour améliorer le travail du médiateur : poursuivre le dialogue avec les plaignants et les parties prenantes, améliorer la transparence en favorisant l'accès complet aux documents, accroître le dialogue entre médiateur européen et médiateurs nationaux, et diffuser les meilleures pratiques. Ces avancées sont nécessaires, et je me félicite de leur inclusion dans le rapport.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. On 10 May 2011, the European Ombudsman presented his Annual Report 2010 to Jerzy Buzek, the President of the European Parliament. On 23 May 2011 he presented his report at the meeting of Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, which is the committee responsible for relations with his institution. Mr Nikiforos Diamandouros, the European Ombudsman, was re-elected by the European Parliament in its plenary Strasbourg session on 20 January 2010 and he took the solemn oath of office before the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg on 25 October 2010. The legal basis for the European Ombudsman’s mandate is Article 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and he is empowered to receive complaints concerning instances of maladministration in the activities of European Union institutions(1).

The right to complain to the European Ombudsman is provided for in Article 24 TFEU and in Article 43 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Ombudsman’s mandate was broadened to include possible maladministration in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), including the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), per iscritto. − Un anno fa l'istituzione del Mediatore europeo ha festeggiato il suo 15° anniversario. In questi anni l'Istituzione ha trattato oltre 36 000 denunce e completato più di 3 800 inchieste su casi di presunta cattiva amministrazione. Il risultato dell'esame di così tante lamentele è che l'istituzione ha accumulato un notevole bagaglio di esperienze che offre al Mediatore una chiara visione delle tendenze della mala amministrazione, dei problemi e delle carenze strutturali nelle amministrazioni delle istituzioni UE. Questo gli permette di garantire risarcimenti, di contribuire ad aumentare la qualità delle amministrazioni dell'Unione europea e di contribuire a garantire che le buone prassi siano diffuse e applicate. La sua attività, che quando possibile cerca di giungere a un risultato positivo operando per una conciliazione amichevole soddisfacente per entrambe le parti, deve infine continuare ad essere messa nelle migliori condizioni di progredire nel pieno interesse del cittadino europeo.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da UE reconhece um conjunto de direitos pessoais, cívicos, políticos, económicos e sociais dos cidadãos e residentes, incorporando-os no direito comunitário. Enquanto que o artigo 41.º define a forma como os assuntos dos cidadãos devem ser tratados, o artigo 43.º salienta o direito de serem apresentadas petições ao Provedor de Justiça em casos de má administração de diversas instituições europeias. Concordo com o presente relatório por demonstrar que a UE realizou um esforço no sentido de reduzir o período médio para finalizar os inquéritos, continuar a insistir no direito fundamental de aceder aos documentos e promover a confiança dos cidadãos na função pública e nas instituições da UE. Gostaria ainda de felicitar o Provedor de Justiça pela estratégia definida de privilegiar o diálogo em curso com os queixosos, a sociedade civil e outros interessados, assim como de empreender todos os esforços no sentido de identificar as melhores práticas adoptadas pelos seus colegas da Rede Europeia dos Provedores de Justiça e tornar os procedimentos na UE mais equitativos e, sobretudo, mais transparentes.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui présente et évalue le rapport annuel du Médiateur européen.

L'existence d'un relais entre les citoyens et les institutions européennes permet aux premiers de mettre en évidence des manques et des cas de mauvaise administration. C'est donc un atout utile pour essayer de renforcer le lien entre citoyens et institutions et favoriser la démocratie.

Ce rapport annuel, prévu par les textes, est la preuve de l'importance accordée aux questions de citoyenneté et de bonne administration par le Parlement européen. Évaluer le travail, suggérer des améliorations possibles et indiquer de nouveaux objectifs, tel est le rôle du Parlement européen.

Parmi les objectifs à atteindre, ce rapport en cite deux qui me paraissent intéressants: améliorer l'accès des citoyens aux documents pour qu'ils puissent mieux se rendre compte du travail de leurs élus, élaborer un document sur les services publics pour mettre en place une culture de service public au sein de l'Union européenne.

Reste à savoir quelles seront les suites concrètes données à ce rapport. Sur ce point, je reste néanmoins plus dubitative.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR), písemně. − Při hlasování o zprávě, kterou předložila Iliana Malinova Iotova, o výroční zprávě evropského veřejného ochránce práv za rok 2010 jsem se zdržel, protože nemohu mimo jiné souhlasit s tvrzením, že „role veřejného ochránce práv při posilování otevřenosti a odpovědnosti rozhodovacích postupů a správní struktury Evropské unie významně přispívá k vytvoření takové Unie, v níž jsou rozhodnutí přijímána co nejotevřeněji a co nejblíže občanům.“ O činnosti evropského veřejného ochránce práv totiž drtivá většina obyvatel členských států nic neví a nikdy o této instituci neslyšela.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), schriftlich. − Der Europäische Bürgerbeauftragte untersucht mandatsgemäß Beschwerden über die Verwaltungsführung der EU-Institutionen. 2010 wurden 2667 neue Beschwerden registriert, wobei es dem Bürgerbeauftragen gelungen ist 326 der eingeleiteten Untersuchungen abzuschließen, über die Hälfte davon einvernehmlich. Das Büro des Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragen hat sich über die vergangenen 15 Jahres seines Bestehens eine breite Expertise auf den Gebieten der strukturellen Verwaltungsschwächen der EU angeeignet, womit der Bürgerbeauftragte dem Europäischen Parlament immer wieder bei seiner Arbeit unterstützt. Ich habe dem Bericht zugestimmt.

Report: Roberta Angelilli (A7-0294/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Com esta proposta de directiva, a Comissão propõe promover a luta contra a exploração e o abuso sexual, bem como contra a representação de práticas sexuais com menores de 18 anos. A proposta parte da constatação de que os actos delituosos neste domínio estão a aumentar. O desenvolvimento dos meios de comunicação modernos agrava ainda mais o problema, e as disposições legislativas, regulamentares e administrativas dos Estados-Membros da UE não são nem suficientemente severas nem suficientemente coerentes. A proposta contém disposições que definem as infracções e fixam as sanções. Salienta-se, no entanto, que os conteúdos dos meios de comunicação electrónica que representam actos sexuais com menores de 18 anos devem ser suprimidos o mais depressa possível. Os bloqueamentos são pouco eficazes, imprecisos e podem ser neutralizados sem dificuldade de maior. Do que necessitamos é de uma estratégia multidimensional que reforce e melhore a cooperação entre os serviços de polícia, os operadores Internet, as actuais instâncias de reclamações na Internet e a rede de fornecedores de serviços Internet INHOPE.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this important resolution on the Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children are particularly serious forms of crime as they are directed against children, the most vulnerable members of our society. These crimes cause long-term physical, psychological and social harm to victims and undermine the core values of a modern society relating to the special protection of children and trust in the relevant State institutions. Therefore, I strongly support the introduction of stricter and higher penalties for the crimes mentioned. I fully support this document, which aims to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes, while also aiming to introduce provisions to strengthen the prevention of the crime and the protection of its victims. It is of great importance that we Members of the European Parliament have voted in favour of introducing the concept of ‘child sex tourism’ for the first time in EU legislation and have also taken strict measures against websites containing or disseminating child pornography.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report in view of the importance of the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. This document aims to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, child pornography and solicitation of children for sexual purposes. As the European Parliament report underlines, this directive should be fully complementary with the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims. In addition to that, this report asks for reinforced protection for victims and prevention measures, both at EU level and at Member States level. The text stresses also that Member States must ensure the prompt removal of web-pages containing or disseminating child pornography hosted in their territory and endeavour to obtain the removal of such pages hosted outside of their territory, measures that I consider to be of primary importance.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Profondément attachée au respect des droits fondamentaux et à la lutte contre les abus sexuels à l’encontre des enfants, j’ai voté en faveur du rapport de ma collègue Roberta Angelilli. Le rapport introduit des mesures relatives à la prévention de ces abus, la poursuite des délinquants et la protection des victimes.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), i scríbhinn. − Cuirtear breis is 200 grianghraf phornagrafacha nua de leanaí ar an idirlíon gach lá; mar sin ní foláir den AE reachtaíocht a thabhairt isteach a chuirfeadh ar chumas an AE agus na mBallstát bearta láidre comhordaithe a ghlacadh chun leanaí a chosaint, agus iad siúd a thagann i dtír orthu a ionchúiseamh mar is ceart.

Níl sé maith go leor nach bhfuil comhordú éifeachtach á dhéanamh san AE chun an teacht i dtír gnéasach ar leanaí a chomhrac. Ní mór cur chuige cuimsitheach a chur i bhfeidhm, lena mbeadh ionchúiseamh ciontóirí, cosaint leanaí agus cosc ar chionta dá leithéid i gceist. D’fhéadfaí bac a chur ar dhaoine teacht ar an ábhar seo ar líne agus é a chur ar chumas an AE cosc a chur ar shuíomhanna áirithe ó lasmuigh den AE. Chuirfeadh pionóis chomhordaithe agus pianbhreitheanna íosta i gcás 20 cion bonn láidir le cur chuige comhordaithe Eorpach. Is pointe láidir é freisin gur féidir leis na Ballstáit pionós níos déine a ghearradh nuair a mheastar go bhfuil gá leis.

Tacaím freisin leis an moladh maidir le bearta dlíthiúla a chur i bhfeidhm sna Ballstáit uile chun a chinntiú go mbíonn cosaint ann d’íobartaigh le linn imeachtaí dlí.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − O abuso sexual e a exploração sexual de crianças, incluindo a pornografia infantil, constituem violações graves dos direitos fundamentais, em especial do direito da criança a protecção e aos cuidados necessários ao seu bem-estar, tal como estabelecido na Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre os Direitos da Criança e na Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia. O presente relatório prevê sanções penais mais severas contra as pessoas abusam sexualmente de crianças ou que acedam a pornografia infantil na internet. Obriga também os Estados Membros a removerem os sítios Web que contenham pornografia infantil. Caso isso não seja possível deverão bloquear o acesso a essas páginas. Criminaliza o aliciamento de crianças através da Internet para fins sexuais e o turismo sexual infantil, tanto nos casos em que o crime seja cometido no território de um Estado-Membro ou por um cidadão europeu fora da Europa. Prevê igualmente que as pessoas condenadas por crimes sexuais possam ser impedidas, temporária ou permanentemente de exercer actividades pelos menos profissionais que impliquem contactos directos e regulares com crianças. Pelo exposto, votei favorável o presente relatório.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio Europos Parlamento pranešimo, kadangi ši direktyva – tai didžiulis žingsnis į priekį, siekiant užtikrinti kiek įmanomą platesnį ir veiksmingesnį bendradarbiavimą tarp Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių, tarp ES bei trečiųjų šalių, kovojant su vaikų seksualiniu išnaudojimu ir jų pornografija. Tyrimai rodo, kad apie 10–20 proc. nepilnamečių Europoje gali būti patyrę seksualinę prievartą vaikystėje. Seksualinis vaikų išnaudojimas – tai sunkiausi ir žiauriausi nusikaltimai vykdomi prieš vaikus. Taigi, Europos Parlamentas siūlo visoje Europos Sąjungoje sugriežtinti bausmes už tokius nusikaltimus, nes tada ES valstybės narės negalės taikyti švelnesnių bausmių vaikų prievartautojams. Naujoje direktyvoje raginama vykdyti baudžiamąjį persekiojimą už tokius veiksmus kaip vaikų viliojimas. Siūloma traukti baudžiamojon atsakomybėn grįžusius namo sekso turistus, kurie prievartą prieš vaikus vykdo užsienyje. Didelis dėmesys skiriamas aukų apsaugai, paramai ir tolimesnei nusikaltimų prevencijai. Šioje direktyvoje buvo susitarta, kad būtina šviesti vaikus ir tėvus apie pavojus, tykančius internete, suteikti psichologinę bei kitokio tipo pagalbą aukoms ir jų šeimoms. Vienas iš svarbiausių pasiekimų šioje direktyvoje – tai tokių nusikaltimų prevencija, kaip antai švietimas, šioje srityje dirbančių pareigūnų mokymas, bendradarbiavimas su atitinkamomis pilietinėmis organizacijomis.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − UKIP is firmly against all forms of sexual offences against children and in favour of tough, comprehensive criminal law to criminalise all forms of sexual offences against young people. The UK already has a considerable body of criminal law dealing with these crimes and remains at the forefront of developing new laws and techniques to combat perpetrators' activities as they develop in the internet age. UKIP supports the thrust of this report but cannot, as a matter of principle, concede to the EU the right to determine UK criminal law. For that reason we have abstained.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté pour le rapport sur l'exploitation et les abus sexuels concernant les enfants et la pédopornographie. Ce rapport constitue une véritable avancée dans la lutte contre la pédopornographie. Il prévoit notamment la possibilité pour les employeurs, lorsqu'ils recrutent une personne pour des activités impliquant des contacts avec des enfants, de demander des informations sur cette personne à propos de l'existence de condamnations pour abus sexuel sur des enfants.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei a favor desta directiva que prevê sanções penais mais severas contra as pessoas que abusam sexualmente de crianças ou que acedem a pornografia infantil na Internet. Estudos revelam que entre 10 a 20% das crianças na Europa sofrem alguma forma de abuso sexual. Concordo com as regras propostas na directiva, as quais obrigam também os Estados-Membros a remover os sítios Web que contenham pornografia infantil ou, se isso não for possível, lhes permitem bloquear o acesso a essas páginas.

  Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore di questa relazione in quanto ritengo estremamente importante adottare misure forti per proteggere i bambini da fenomeni quali l'abuso e sfruttamento minorile e la pedopornografia. Tali violenze arrecano danni permanenti al bambino non solo fisici, ma psicologici e sociali. A tal proposito è necessario adottare misure più restrittive che possano scoraggiare dal perpetrare tali abusi a danno dei minori. In un'epoca ormai completamente dominata dalla tecnologia informatica (IT) si è registrato uno spaventoso aumento nella diffusione di materiale pedopornografico facilmente reperibile attraverso l'utilizzo di siti Internet.

Confido, quindi, in delle misure preventive che possano restringere l'accesso ai siti che diffondono video e foto che riguardano minori. Credo, inoltre, che sia auspicabile e necessario unire gli sforzi a livello globale promuovendo una cooperazione internazionale volta a combattere questi spregevoli abusi. È altresì importante l'attività di prevenzione di tali fenomeni: una società che protegge i bambini renderebbe presto inaccettabili simili comportamenti.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. − În contextul politic, economic şi financiar actual, copiii sunt categoria cea mai expusa şi cea mai vulnerabilă. Sărăcia, sistemele de securitate socială inadecvate, conflictele şi intervenţiile militare reprezintă principalele cauze care duc la sporirea numărului de abuzuri, de încălcări ale drepturilor şi abandon al copiilor. Infracţiunile grave precum exploatarea sexuală a copiilor, pornografia infantilă, abuzurile şi detenţia necesită măsuri stricte şi imediate care să includă urmărirea penală a infractorilor, pedepsirea acestora, protecţia împotriva recrutării ilegale sau folosirii lor de către forţele armate sau grupurile armate precum şi prevenirea fenomenului. În mod regretabil, tot mai mulţi copii sunt exploataţi sau folosiţi pentru cerşit, furt şi prostituţie în ţări ale Uniunii Europene.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Conform unor studii în domeniu, s-a constatat că abuzul sexual asupra copilului este subraportat şi subevaluat de cele mai multe ori, iar copiii care sunt victime ale abuzurilor sexuale suferă consecințele acestora toată viața. Știm cu toții că abuzul sexual asupra copiilor și exploatarea sexuală a acestora reprezintă forme deosebit de grave de infracțiune, cu efecte negative asupra lor şi care impun îngrijire și protecție specială. Aceste fenomene lasă urme grave asupra victimelor pe termen lung, de natură atât fizică, psihologică, cât și socială.

Consider că diferențele între legislațiile și procedurile naționale la nivelul statelor Uniunii pot determina diferențe în ceea ce privește cercetarea și urmărirea penală, iar infractorii condamnați pot continua să reprezinte un pericol după executarea pedepsei, de aceea ele trebuie eliminate şi aliniate la un standard european. Cred că armonizarea definițiilor în materie de abuz sexual asupra copilului, cât şi crearea unei siguranțe juridice cu privire la exploatarea sexuală a copiilor ar trebui să constituie un obiectiv-cheie pentru toate statele membre.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), par écrit. – Internet est un formidable outil d’information, de communication et d’échanges. Mais internet est malheureusement devenu aussi un instrument de diffusion de matériel pédopornographique, du fait de son anonymat, de sa vitesse, de sa disponibilité et des tarifs peu élevés pour y avoir accès. La pornographie infantile est l’activité criminelle sur internet ayant connu le développement le plus rapide, générant jusqu’à 20 milliards de dollars, selon une étude de l’ONU. Il est donc urgent de lutter plus efficacement contre les auteurs de ces abus et les personnes qui les diffusent. Ce type de criminalité profite pleinement du caractère « sans frontières » des nouveaux moyens de diffusion par internet, qui favorise la constitution de groupes criminels parfaitement organisés. C’est donc à l’échelle européenne qu’il faut réagir. Désormais les États-membres doivent supprimer à la source ou, si cela n'est pas techniquement possible, bloquer les pages internet contenant ou diffusant de la pédopornographie. Pour ce faire, les États pourront agir par des mesures législatives, judiciaires ou autres. L’Union européenne devra également mieux coopérer avec les pays tiers pour obtenir ces suppressions lorsque les sites incriminés sont hébergés en dehors de l’UE.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Sexual crimes against children constitute one of the most abhorrent crimes, and we must do our utmost to prevent them from taking place. This report provides tools to do just that, and I welcome many of the new provisions. The main reason why I could not support this report is because it also introduces provisions which allow for access to certain Internet web sites to be blocked. I wholeheartedly agree that the mass dissemination of images of abuse through the Internet must be stopped; however, this can only be achieved through the removal at source of such material. However, if we want to allow blocking as a complementary measure, we must ensure that the conditions and safeguards for blocking are stringent and in conformity with our fundamental rights. This is particularly important as such provisions are being introduced in EU legislation for the very first time, and therefore set a precedent. However, the current provisions fall short of these standards because they are not stringent enough and may, therefore, pave the way for restricting internet users on a broader scale, thus leading to the censorship of the Internet on the basis of intellectual property rights breaches or other minor offences.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório por defender a aplicação de sanções mais pesadas para ofensas de abuso, exploração e pornografia infantis. Sublinho a importância de as novas regras, já acordadas com o Conselho de Ministros da UE, obrigarem também os Estados-Membros a remover os sítios Web que contenham pornografia infantil e a reforçar as medidas para prevenir estes crimes e proteger as vítimas.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Considero que a exploração e o abuso sexual de crianças e a pornografia infantil são crimes especialmente graves, pelo facto de serem cometidos contra pessoas que, em virtude da idade, são mais fracas e muitas vezes dependentes dos seus agressores, estando, por isso mesmo, mais sujeitas a toda a espécie de abusos e violência. É urgente legislação que estabeleça medidas comuns de combate aos crimes relacionados com a pornografia infantil e exploração sexual de menores, muitos deles cometidos online; regras europeias que permitam o combate eficaz a sites com conteúdos pedófilos ou que incentivem a pedofilia, bem como sites de pornografia infantil, e que castiguem os seus utilizadores; medidas mais severas para quem cometa crimes de exploração e abuso sexual de crianças. Na Convenção sobre os Direitos da Criança refere-se o direito ao desenvolvimento pleno e harmonioso. Consta também o direito à protecção contra todas as formas de violência física ou mental, dano ou sevícia, abandono ou tratamento negligente; maus-tratos ou exploração, incluindo a violência sexual. Não deixemos que estes sejam apenas direitos inscritos numa folha.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O abuso e a exploração de crianças e a pornografia infantil são actividades inaceitáveis numa sociedade livre e responsável. Infelizmente, situações de pobreza e o subdesenvolvimento de alguns países potenciam estas práticas que, devido às novas auto-estradas da informação, encontram condições favoráveis à sua proliferação. Este relatório, elaborado por Roberta Angelilli, debruça-se sobre a proposta de directiva do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho relativa à luta contra o abuso e a exploração sexual de crianças e a pornografia infantil, e revoga a Decisão-Quadro 2004/68/JAI. Entre 10 e 20% dos menores estão em risco de serem vítimas de violência sexual. Uma criança vítima de violência sexual fica marcada para toda a vida. A legislação actual é obsoleta, pelo que é de importância crucial a adopção de uma directiva que garanta um maior nível de protecção dos menores, tanto na União Europeia como fora dela. Congratulo-me com a aprovação deste relatório e espero que esta directiva seja adoptada por todos os Estados-Membros no mais curto espaço de tempo possível, pois é inaceitável qualquer abuso sexual de crianças e é urgente acabar com o turismo sexual de menores, bem como pôr cobro à exposição abusiva da imagem de crianças na Internet.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O abuso e a exploração sexual das crianças constituem crimes horrendos, que importa prevenir e combater. Este relatório propõe-se avançar com alguns instrumentos para o fazer, alguns deles acertados e positivos. Todavia, a par destes, são introduzidas disposições que nos suscitam as maiores reservas e preocupações, como as que permitem o acesso a determinados sítios na Internet e o seu bloqueio. Concordamos, evidentemente, com o facto da circulação de imagens de abusos e de pornografia infantil na internet dever ser severamente combatida e travada, mas tal só pode ser feito eficazmente removendo na fonte esses materiais. As disposições constantes deste relatório não oferecem garantias cabais e suficientes de que o bloqueio de sítios Web - cuja possibilidade é pela primeira vez usada na legislação da UE, criando assim um precedente - não venha a abrir caminho para formas de censura na Internet e em outros domínios. Importa referir ainda que a questão da exploração sexual de menores não pode ser dissociada das condições sociais em que se encontram estes menores, sendo conhecido que as crianças provenientes de meios e famílias em situação de pobreza enfrentam um maior risco de serem alvo deste tipo de crimes. Estas causas também devem ser severamente combatidas.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), per iscritto. − Il fenomeno della pedopornografia e degli abusi sessuali sui minori è un crimine troppo spesso sottaciuto e di difficile tracciabilità a causa dei canali tecnologici di cui si serve. Questi crimini, che violano qualsiasi diritto fondamentale, impongono una maggiore attenzione particolare e, attraverso una capillare legiferazione, si può predisporre una prevenzione concreta del fenomeno, ponendo particolare attenzione alla rete, strumento spesso usato senza il controllo di adulti da bambini di età sempre minore e che attraverso social network e siti web non controllati è un pericoloso canale di sfruttamento e adescamento di minori. Molto deve essere fatto anche per contrastare il turismo a scopi sessuali, così come previsto dalle Dichiarazioni dell'Organizzazione Mondiale del Turismo, regolamentando al meglio la punibilità di cittadini comunitari che viaggiano verso paesi dove è facile avere contatti sessuali con bambini. E` necessario attivare canali di collaborazione con i governi di questi paesi, che troppo spesso disconoscono questa grave situazione che li interessa a causa dell´indotto di questo turismo criminale, per facilitare la persecuzione di chi perpetra questi crimini. Ho votato a favore al fine di predisporre una politica che per essere realmente efficiente richiede un approccio comprensivo che preveda prevenzione, repressione e non in ultimo protezione per le vittime di questi crimini.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O relatório aborda uma temática importante, no âmbito do combate contra o abuso sexual e a exploração sexual das crianças, assim como na luta contra a pedofilia. Salientamos como prioridade reforçar e criar mais condições para que se condenem todos estes crimes. No entanto, parece-nos fulcral centrar esta discussão nas próprias vítimas, neste caso crianças, padecentes de uma violência atroz contra a sua integridade física e psicológica, sendo por isso fundamental um acompanhamento das vítimas e das famílias ao longo da sua vida. Além disso, colocamos algumas reservas face à uniformização da legislação nesta matéria, que poderá ser um problema no que diz respeito à própria resolução destes crimes. Referimos ainda que não se pode ser permissivo ou ignorar a realidade da exploração sexual de menores, nomeadamente de crianças que se encontraram numa situação socioeconómica desfavorecida. Como sabemos, estas questões nunca são aleatórias, e também aqui se denotam bem as questões de classe.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Sexuálne zneužívanie, sexuálne vykorisťovanie detí a detská pornografia predstavujú závažné porušenie základných práv, najmä práv dieťaťa na ochranu a starostlivosť nevyhnutnú pre jeho blaho, ako sa stanovuje v Dohovore OSN o právach dieťaťa a Charte základných práv Európskej únie. Detským obetiam prinášajú dlhodobú telesnú, duševnú a sociálnu ujmu a už samotná existencia týchto odsúdeniahodných trestných činov nezriedka podkopáva dôveru v základné hodnoty modernej spoločnosti, predovšetkým tie, ktoré sa týkajú osobitnej ochrany detí. Hoci spoľahlivé a presné štatistické údaje nie sú k dispozícii, štúdie uvádzajú, že menší, avšak zďaleka nie zanedbateľný počet detí v Európe môže byť obeťou sexuálnych útokov. Výskyt niektorých foriem sexuálneho násilia má navyše vzostupnú tendenciu a rozširuje sa najmä používaním nových technológií a internetu. Som toho názoru, že takto závažné trestné činy si vyžadujú celistvý prístup, ktorý zahŕňa trestné stíhanie páchateľov, ochranu obetí v detskom veku, no predovšetkým je potrebné zapojiť všetky dostupné prostriedky na účinné predchádzanie týmto závažným trestným činom. Pri uskutočňovaní represívnych opatrení v boji proti takýmto ohavnostiam je nevyhnutne potrebné vždy a za každých okolností zohľadňovať v prvom rade najlepší záujem dieťaťa, a to práve v súlade s už spomenutou Chartou základných práv Európskej únie a Dohovorom OSN o právach dieťaťa.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'argomento in questione è delicato e molto importante. La relazione prevede dei nuovi reati, relativi in particolare alle minacce che esistono con lo sviluppo delle tecnologie informatiche. La direttiva fissa poi 22 tipi di reato, lasciando la possibilità agli Stati membri di prevedere pene più severe. Prevedere che gli Stati membri abbiano precisi obblighi di legge nel punire i crimini contro i minori è fondamentale per avere un'Europa più attenta a questo tema. Per questo il mio voto sarà positivo.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − The Union must fully realise the dangers that come with new technological developments, particularly ICT and the internet, when talking about sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The sexual exploitation of children and child pornography has long existed, but a significant increase of cases of sexual exploitation of children, particularly across borders, over the years should point to the gravity of the problem. New, evolutionary developments in communication and information technology facilitate sexual offenders to reach their victims and easily abuse their rights. Sexual predators are also constantly provided with different instruments to buy, produce, distribute, transmit, and supply child pornography pictures and videos across Europe. Child abuse and pornography span the Europe Union and are not limited to individual Member States; therefore, we need a comprehensive pan-European approach that centres around the best interests of the child. I believe that this Directive, if implemented accordingly, will be a valuable legal instrument which will establish minimum rules and criminalise the most serious forms of child sexual abuse. It will make a real difference in covering the prosecution of offenders, strengthening the protection of child victims, and preventing an increase of the phenomenon as well as future crimes against children.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai soutenu le rapport sur la lutte contre l'exploitation, la pédopornographie et les abus sexuels d'enfants. C'est la deuxième législation européenne en matière de droit pénal qui harmonise les sanctions et peines de prisons pour ces crimes. Après de longs débats, le texte final reprend le principe de la suppression des images et données pédopornographiques sur l'nternet, méthode bien plus efficace que le simple blocage des sites incriminés, comme envisagé précédemment. L'Union se dote d'un réel arsenal judiciaire et pénal pour lutter contre cette criminalité, ainsi que contre la récidive.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), skriftlig. − Jag röstade ja till betänkandet, utifrån barnkonventionen och att barnens bästa måste komma först. Barnporr är ett gränsöverskridande problem som skadar barn, därför stöder jag åtgärder mot det. Tekniken att blockera sajter är visserligen trubbig och sajterna återuppstår på andra håll. Men det är ett användbart verktyg. Att ta bort eller blockera material på internet är dock en inskränkning i yttrandefriheten, och det måste göras på ett rättssäkert sätt. Internetanvändarna måste få veta varför en sajt blockeras och få veta hur de kan överklaga. Det är också viktigt att de EU-regler som införs inte stör det svenska arbetet mot barnporr. Medlemsländer som redan har ett bra system mot barnporr måste få behålla det.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau šiam dokumentui, kadangi Europos Komisija šiuo pasiūlymu dėl direktyvos nori paskatinti kovą su seksualine prievarta prieš jaunesnius nei 18 metų asmenis, su jų seksualiniu išnaudojimu ir lytinių veiksmų su jais pavaizdavimu. Pasiūlyme daroma prielaida, kad nusikaltimų šioje srityje daugės, dėl modernios ryšių sistemos vystymosi ši problema paaštrės ir kad ES valstybių narių teisės aktai nėra pakankamai griežti ir nuoseklūs. Šia direktyva nustatytos pagrindinės nusikalstamų veikų ir sankcijų apibrėžčių taisyklės seksualinės prievartos prieš vaikus, jų seksualinio išnaudojimo, vaikų pornografijos ir ryšių su vaikais mezgimo seksualiniais tikslais srityse. Ja taip pat įvedamos nuostatos, kad būtų sustiprinta tų nusikaltimų prevencija ir nuo jų nukentėjusiųjų apsauga. Todėl būtina gerinti padėtį šioje srityje. Pritariu ir nuostatai, kad būtų baudžiami ir juridiniai asmenys.

  Kent Johansson (ALDE), skriftlig. − Barnpornografibrott måste bekämpas kraftfullt och jag stödjer att EU tar steg för att ytterligare stärka skyddet för barn. Men lösningen består inte i att på Internet blockera sidor som kan hysa brottsligt material eftersom sådana åtgärder innebär att vi blundar för problemet snarare än att förhindra att övergrepp begås. Vidare kan blockering av Internetsidor av privata aktörer resultera i stora problem ur ett rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. Det är därför bra att detta betänkande inte fokuserar på blockering som metod utan istället förordar andra åtgärder. Jag röstade för betänkandet.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei in primo luogo ringraziare l'on. Angelilli per il pregevole lavoro svolto su questa relazione. Quello dell'abuso e dello sfruttamento dei minori è un tema molto delicato, che richiede la massima rigidità sia in ambito istituzionale che in quello legislativo. Perseguire e punire chi commette questa tipologia di reati, gravissimi perché rivolti contro chi, più di altri, non può difendersi, deve, a mio avviso, rientrare tra i principali obiettivi di una legislazione congiunta a livello europeo, a maggior ragione oggi, dopo la ratifica del trattato di Lisbona. La relazione odierna va nella direzione di un´analisi compiuta della questione, che acquista profili problematici nel momento in cui tocca anche alcuni ambiti, spesso meno tangibili ma più pericolosi, quali quelli del coinvolgimento di internet nella commissione di reati pedopornografici. La tutela dei minori da questa tipologia di reati deve, come previsto dalla relazione, rivolgersi anche ad un percorso educativo e formativo che accompagni il minore dopo il trauma eventualmente subito. Coordinare i diversi aspetti del problema, riuscire a coinvolgere anche le organizzazioni no profit che operano a livello mondiale ed europeo, è un ottimo viatico per sconfiggere un reato che tutti noi avvertiamo come il più odioso perché rivolto ai soggetti più vulnerabili, i bambini.

  Sabine Lösing and Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Sexual crimes against children constitute one of the most abhorrent crimes, and we must do our utmost to prevent them from taking place. This report provides tools to do just that, and I welcome many of the new provisions. The main reason why I could not support this report is because it also introduces provisions which allow for access to certain Internet web sites to be blocked. I wholeheartedly agree that the mass dissemination of images of abuse through the Internet must be stopped; however, this can only be achieved through the removal at source of such material. However, if we want to allow blocking as a complementary measure, we must ensure that the conditions and safeguards for blocking are stringent and in conformity with our fundamental rights. This is particularly important as such provisions are being introduced in EU legislation for the very first time, and therefore set a precedent. However, the current provisions fall short of these standards because they are not stringent enough and may, therefore, pave the way for restricting internet users on a wider scale, thus leading to the censorship of the Internet on the basis of intellectual property rights breaches or other minor offences.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. − Propunerea acestei directive vine la momentul oportun, întrucât în ultimii ani numărul cazurilor de pedofilie a crescut alarmant. Ţinând cont că aproximativ 20 % dintre autorii de infracţiuni sexuale recidivează după condamnare, consider că pentru aceştia este nevoie de pedepse mult mai aspre decât închisoarea pentru un număr de ani, variabil în funcţie de gravitatea situaţiei.

Pentru pedofilii recidivişti, consider că trebuie să aplicăm pedepse precum castrarea chimică sau condamnarea pe viaţă. Să nu uităm că legea castrării chimice există deja în ţări precum Danemarca, Suedia, Cehia, SUA, iar anul trecut a intrat în vigoare şi în Polonia. Este de datoria noastră să analizăm şi să aplicăm şi la nivel european pedepse mai aspre pentru pedofilii recidivişti.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution, which says that serious forms of child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation should be subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. This includes, in particular, various forms of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation facilitated by the use of information and communication technologies, such as the online solicitation of children for sexual purposes via social networking websites and chat rooms. The definition of child pornography should also be clarified and brought closer to that contained in international instruments.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), per iscritto. − L'abuso e lo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori sono reati particolarmente gravi, che possono comportare danni duraturi a livello fisico, psicologico e sociale. Ci sembra fondamentale adottare un approccio volto ad affrontare le cause all'origine del problema, con l'obiettivo di eliminare il reato, la cui natura sta cambiando velocemente, soprattutto a causa del progresso della tecnologia e delle sue applicazioni. In passato le manifestazioni di pedopornografia erano limitate a supporti fisici, corrispondenza o fotografie. Oggi le immagini possono essere inviate in tutto il mondo tramite Internet, rapidamente e senza costi. La natura criminale di questi atti richiede un'azione forte e risoluta. Abbiamo a lungo discusso della questione del blocco e della cancellazione dei contenuti dei siti internet.

È necessario trovare un attento equilibrio tra libertà di espressione e protezione dei minori. Gli Stati membri hanno il dovere di lavorare con i fornitori di servizi Internet, onde garantire che i minori siano protetti dall'attività illecita attraverso l'istituzione di un sistema di vigilanza. Gli Stati membri devono ottenere, in primo luogo, la soppressione delle pagine Internet che contengono o diffondono contenuto pedopornografico oppure, qualora la soppressione non fosse possibile, prevedere il blocco degli accessi a queste pagine web.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − E' assolutamente necessario che reati gravi come lo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori e la pedopornografia vengano affrontati a livello globale con un'iniziativa che comprenda l’azione penale contro gli autori del reato, la protezione delle vittime e la prevenzione del fenomeno. Il mio voto è favorevole.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The protection of children from sexual abuse and exploitation should be a priority in all Member States. I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to combat the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children by criminalising any such abuse and exploitation not currently covered by EU legislation.