Index 
Texts adopted
Thursday, 27 February 2014 - Strasbourg
SOLVIT
 European Investigation Order ***I
 Visa requirements for third-countries nationals ***I
 EU-Indonesia voluntary partnership agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the EU ***
 Control of persons at external borders ***I
 Third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement ***I
 Situation in Ukraine
 Situation in Iraq
 Use of armed drones
 Fundamental rights in the European Union (2012)
 European arrest warrant
 EU-Indonesia voluntary partnership agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the EU
 Situation in Venezuela
 Future of EU visa policy
 Specific actions in the Common Fisheries Policy for developing the role of women
 Private copying levies

SOLVIT
PDF 138kWORD 54k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on SOLVIT (2013/2154(INI))
P7_TA(2014)0164A7-0059/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU of 17 September 2013 on the principles governing SOLVIT(1),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 17 September 2013 on ‘Empowering businesses and citizens in Europe’s single Market: An action plan for boosting Your Europe in cooperation with the Member States’ (COM(2013)0636),

–  having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document of 24 February 2012 on ‘Reinforcing effective problem-solving in the Single Market – Unlocking SOLVIT’s full potential at the occasion of its 10th anniversary’ (SWD(2012)0033),

–  having regard to the first Commission report of 28 November 2012 on ‘State of the Single Market Integration 2013 – Contribution to the Annual Growth Survey 2013’ (COM(2012)0752),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 8 June 2012 entitled ‘Better Governance for the Single Market’ (COM(2012)0259),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working document of 24 February 2012 entitled ‘Making the Single Market deliver – Annual governance check-up 2011’ (SWD(2012)0025),

–  having regard to the online Single Market Scoreboard made public on 4 July 2013,

–  having regard to the study ‘A European Single Point of Contact’ of July 2013, commissioned by its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection,

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 February 2013 on the governance of the Single Market(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 June 2012 entitled ‘Single Market Act – The Next Steps to Growth’(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on governance and partnership in the single market(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2010 on SOLVIT(5),

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0059/2014),

A.  whereas the rights of citizens and businesses in the single market need to be used effectively, and whereas EU law guaranteeing these rights needs to be enforced effectively to ensure that citizens and businesses all benefit from the internal market’s potential;

B.  whereas informing citizens about their rights and facilitating their enjoyment of those rights help to make the internal market work better;

C.  whereas SOLVIT currently handles around 1 300 cases a year, and manages to find solutions for around 90 % of its clients within the deadline of 70 days;

D.  whereas interest in and use of Your Europe is growing fast, and whereas, according to the online Single Market Scoreboard, more than 11 000 visitors consulted the portal each day in 2012, as compared to 6 500 the year before;

E.  whereas it has repeatedly called for further reinforcement of the SOLVIT network, and for the availability of more and better information about EU rights;

F.  whereas SOLVIT plays an important role as a key problem-solving tool and, hence, as a means of ensuring better compliance with Union law pertaining to the single market; whereas, in spite of this, SOLVIT remains under-used and has not fulfilled its potential;

G.  whereas, if full use is made of it, the SOLVIT system can, in a large number of areas, become a useful way of preventing excessive use being made of court systems, which can be extremely complicated, thus making it difficult for citizens and businesses to resolve their problems;

H.  whereas, according to its commissioned study ‘A European Single Point of Contact’, while an extensive array of online information, advice and assistance is available to European citizens and business, awareness of these services is very low, with 91,6 % of those asked having no knowledge of any online service to which to turn to in order to address problems relating to the single market;

I.  whereas the effectiveness of the assistance provided by SOLVIT depends to a large extent on how well its staff are trained;

J.  whereas greater effort should be made to integrate SOLVIT in a better way in the range of assistance services and enforcement tools available at national and Union level;

K.  whereas citizens and businesses, in order to identify problems correctly when they occur and be able to resolve them, need to be aware of their rights within the single market, and whereas more still needs to be done to enhance that awareness;

Introduction: effective use of rights and opportunities in the single market

1.  Reiterates that the potential of the single market can only be unleashed if citizens and businesses are aware of their rights and opportunities, and are able to make effective use of them; recalls that these objectives can only be achieved if effective enforcement of single market legislation is ensured by the Member States and if good-quality information and efficient problem-solving mechanisms are made available;

2.  Highlights that many single market issues are the result of gold-plating, late or wrongful implementation by one or more Member States, or national rules that run counter to Union law; strongly calls on the Commission, in this regard, to put pressure on those Member States that are not complying with single market rules;

3.  Points out that many problems relating to the implementation of single market rules are detected through the SOLVIT network, and commends the contribution of SOLVIT to administrative and regulatory changes to remedy such problems; urges the Council to take measures to improve the tasks of public administrations in order to strengthen the cooperation between national authorities and the Commission;

4.  Stresses the need for SOLVIT to have an efficient means of alerting the Commission to internal-market problems arising from non-implementation of EU law that have come to its notice;

5.  Stresses that proper implementation and enforcement of, and compliance with, single market legislation is of utmost importance for European consumers and businesses and, thereby, for the economy at large and citizens’ trust in the functioning of the single market; stresses as well the Member States’ legal obligations in this regard;

6.  Reiterates its calls for further development of the applicable infringement proceedings, including by means of ensuring more stringent use of such proceedings for breaches of Union law provisions in the field of the single market, and by applying faster procedures;

7.  Underlines, furthermore, the importance of making every effort to ensure that enforcement problems are prevented, detected or removed before it becomes necessary to initiate formal infringement procedures;

8.  Highlights the use of zero-tolerance for non-compliance with, and of peer review in the implementation and transposition of, the Services Directive, as methods to ensure effective application of single market law;

SOLVIT: helping individuals and businesses solve problems

9.  Welcomes the new Commission recommendation on the principles governing SOLVIT, paving the way for SOLVIT 2.0;

10.  Notes that the SOLVIT network has achieved tangible results and proved its usefulness; notes, however, that there is ample room for improvement, in particular as regards settling business-related disputes and the time taken to resolve queries;

11.  Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to continue to improve the effective work of the SOLVIT network on the informal, swift resolution of cross‑border disputes related to the internal market – a tool for addressing misapplications following transpositions – using procedures which are as accessible as possible for citizens, and suggests that Member States should work closely with the Commission to improve the SOLVIT system, as a free, user-friendly service;

12.  Considers that the performance of SOLVIT centres should be continuously improved, especially as regards social security cases, and encourages better coordination of national social security systems;

13.  Calls for a special focus on all cross‑border labour law issues, social rights and equal treatment, paying particular attention to issues related to pensions, European Union workers and posted workers;

14.  Highlights in particular the importance of SOLVIT for mobile workers with regard to questions of equal treatment and the solving of cross-border problems;

15.  Notes that a large majority of SOLVIT clients are citizens; stresses the need to unleash the large potential of SOLVIT as a problem-solving tool for businesses; stresses that more needs to be done to make businesses, in particular small and medium-sized businesses, more aware of SOLVIT, educate them about its possibilities and enable them to make better use of it; welcomes the recent update of the Your Europe business portal as a positive step in that direction;

16.  Calls for SOLVIT public relations to be stepped up in order to significantly raise awareness of the network; calls on the Member States, the Commission and Members of the European Parliament, in their constituencies, to engage in awareness-raising campaigns to promote the role of Your Europe and SOLVIT; underlines the fact that Member States have the option to further promote SOLVIT regionally while noting that all case handling must take place at national level;

17.  Draws attention to the fact that SOLVIT is still attracting a large volume of non-SOLVIT cases, and that this is slowing down the handling of SOLVIT complaints; stresses, therefore, the need for SOLVIT’s remit to be better explained to citizens and businesses;

18.  Calls on the Members States to ensure that adequate resources are made available to maintain the SOLVIT network, with reference to the conditions governing the organisation of SOLVIT centres set out in the Commission recommendation of 17 September 2013;

19.  Stresses the importance of maintaining the quality of the service offered by SOLVIT in spite of budgetary restrictions and limited human resources; stresses the importance of ensuring that SOLVIT centres have sufficient numbers of well-trained staff, with adequate legal expertise and knowledge of the relevant Union languages, and that staff are accordingly provided with appropriate training in order to continually upgrade their skills and knowledge;

20.  Emphasises the importance of the SOLVIT centres in the various Member States all providing a similar standard of service, as this is key to effective problem resolution;

21.  Stresses the importance of quick solutions to problems which only require clarification of Union law and adequate communication with applicants in complicated cases;

22.  Calls for better streamlining with other complaint-handling procedures, in particular the EU Pilot;

23.  Stresses the importance of gearing SOLVIT towards handling more business-related cases; notes that this requires broader knowledge about SOLVIT within the business community, closer cooperation between SOLVIT and European and national business associations, for instance in the form of a working group bringing together SOLVIT centres and business associations, and a willingness in some SOLVIT centres to take on more complex cases;

24.  Regrets that many business-related cases that could be handled by SOLVIT are rejected on the grounds that they are too complex; considers that if some SOLVIT centres finds such business-related cases to be too complex to handle, this is a problem that needs to be addressed locally at those SOLVIT centres;

25.  Highlights the importance of the Commission providing informal assistance in case-handling, including informal legal advice in complex cases; calls on the SOLVIT centres to make use of such assistance;

26.  Stresses the importance of exchanges of information between SOLVIT centres and recommends that Member States invest in improving cooperation between these centres; encourages SOLVIT centres across the Union to initiate more detailed and far-reaching exchanges of best practice, and stresses the importance of such exchanges between SOLVIT centres with regard to the implementation and promotion of the services provided;

27.  Welcomes the clarification made in Commission Recommendation 2013/461/EU as regards SOLVIT’s mandate in respect of cases where national rules run counter to Union law (also known as structural cases); welcomes the take-up of such cases by some SOLVIT centres; calls on all SOLVIT centres to provide effective assistance whenever such structural problems arise, including by helping to identify potential problems posed by proposed national legislation;

28.  Calls on SOLVIT centres to be bolder and more efficient in responding to complaints and, in particular, in handling more complex cases;

29.  Highlights that it is important that the applicant, the SOLVIT centres involved and the Commission maintain communication and close collaboration throughout the procedure; notes that in many cases the applicant is not consulted during the procedure but is only in contact with the SOLVIT centre when it submits the application and when the case is finished;

30.  Believes that there should be closer cooperation between all levels of government in the Member States and SOLVIT;

31.  Welcomes in particular the protection of personal data demonstrated by SOLVIT centres and calls for this protection to be continuously monitored and, whenever necessary, increased to meet the data protection demands of users;

32.  Stresses the importance of increasing awareness of and the visibility of the SOLVIT network and of bringing it closer to people who are not aware of it; calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure equal access to SOLVIT centres and online portals, e.g. for people with a disability and the elderly, and to develop all possible options as regards establishing contact between users and SOLVIT centres in this context; takes into account the Commission proposal for a directive on the accessibility of public sector bodies’ websites (COM(2012)0721);

33.  Stresses the need to link and integrate SOLVIT portals with other related actors and platforms in order to increase accessibility and visibility for all users; suggests that Member States should work closely with the Commission to improve the SOLVIT system by securing a coherent approach throughout the EU and improving its visibility; considers that the relevant European institutions’ webpages should include a link to the Your Europe site;

34.  Underlines the importance of spreading knowledge about the SOLVIT cases database and welcomes the Commission’s recommendation regarding the need to provide information about alternative problem-solving networks or sources of information, including other possible means of redress, at both national and Union level, in cases which SOLVIT cannot handle;

35.  Encourages SOLVIT centres to engage proactively by taking initiatives of their own to create contacts with citizens, businesses and national parliaments;

36.  Welcomes the online Single Market Scoreboard, which provides data on the performance of the Member States with regard to SOLVIT and Your Europe, and on their performance with regard to EU legislation relevant to the functioning of the single market;

37.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take further steps to disseminate information about the availability of these instruments among citizens, businesses and entrepreneurs, using all forms of media, including the internet, in order to ensure that the information reaches the largest possible number of citizens and businesses; calls on the Member States to organise information campaigns targeted at specific groups, including businesses – in particular small and medium-sized businesses;

38.  Calls on the Commission to continue monitoring, within the annual report on the single market integration, the performance of the Union’s problem-solving mechanisms – in particular SOLVIT – as part of the Annual Growth Survey; reiterates, furthermore, its call on the Commission to strengthen single market governance by establishing a specific pillar of the European Semester, including dedicated country-specific recommendations;

39.  Remains committed to monitoring the progress of SOLVIT closely; urges the Commission to set up measurable milestones for the desired development of SOLVIT; encourages the Member States also to set their own measurable targets and deadlines for the development of case handling in local SOLVIT centres; considers, in this regard, that splitting up citizen- and business-related cases for the purpose of monitoring progress could be the way forward; believes that, if these targets are not reached, the possibility of replacing the informal procedure by a legislative act should be reconsidered, taking into account existing mechanisms such as those provided for in Directive 2013/11/EU on alternative dispute resolution and Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 on online dispute resolution; urges the Council to follow Parliament’s ambition in this respect; calls on the Commission and the Member States to monitor closely the progress made towards these EU and national SOLVIT targets within the European Semester;

Your Europe: responding better to the needs of citizens and businesses

40.  Notes the continuous increase in the use of the Your Europe portal;

41.  Encourages the Commission and the Member States to make a clear difference between Your Europe and SOLVIT while coordinating their respective visibility campaigns;

42.  Welcomes the aims set out in the Your Europe Action Plan, namely to complete the provision of practical, good-quality information on EU rights in the single market, to increase awareness about Your Europe and to put into practice a close partnership between the Commission and the Member States;

43.  Encourages the Commission to take more effective steps to position Your Europe as a tool for businesses and to increase its visibility, including by making better use of the social media; considers, that through branding and with the inclusion of SOLVIT, the Your Europe portal should become the single access point for European consumers and businesses when confronted with problems or when seeking information; believes that such a single access point could serve as the reference point of citizens and businesses and better facilitate their access to different information tools and specialised problem solving mechanisms, including SOLVIT;

44.  Calls on the Commission to widen the scope of Your Europe so as to fully cover rights, obligations and opportunities in the single market and to make it as user-friendly as possible;

45.  Urges the Member States to provide information on national rules and procedures regarding EU rights; calls on the Member States to ensure that this information is practical, free of jargon, equally accessible for all, up to date and available in the relevant languages, and to link their national portals (e-government) with Your Europe;

o
o   o

46.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 249, 19.9.2013, p. 10.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0054.
(3) OJ C 332 E, 15.11.2013, p. 72.
(4) OJ C 296 E, 2.10.2012, p. 51.
(5) OJ C 349 E, 22.12.2010, p. 10.


European Investigation Order ***I
PDF 193kWORD 76k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 February 2014 on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (09288/2010 – C7-0185/2010 – 2010/0817(COD))
P7_TA(2014)0165A7-0477/2013

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the initiative emanating from a group of Member States submitted to Parliament and the Council (09288/2010),

–  having regard to Article 76(b) and Article 82(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the draft act was submitted to Parliament (C7‑0185/2010),

–  having regard to Article 294(3) and (15) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 5 December 2013 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rules 44 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0477/2013),

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 February 2014 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2014/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters

P7_TC1-COD(2010)0817


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2014/41/EU.)


Visa requirements for third-countries nationals ***I
PDF 197kWORD 34k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 February 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (COM(2013)0853 – C7-0430/2013 – 2013/0415(COD))
P7_TA(2014)0166A7-0104/2014

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0853),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 77(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0430/2013),

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

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 13 February 2014 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0104/2014),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 February 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

P7_TC1-COD(2013)0415


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 259/2014.)


EU-Indonesia voluntary partnership agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the EU ***
PDF 190kWORD 34k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 February 2014 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Indonesia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the European Union (11767/1/2013 – C7-0344/2013 – 2013/0205(NLE))
P7_TA(2014)0167A7-0043/2014

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (11767/1/2013),

–  having regard to the draft Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Indonesia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products into the European Union (11769/1/2013),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(3), first subparagraph, Article 207(4), first subparagraph, Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7‑0344/2013),

–  having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0043/2014),

1.  Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

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


Control of persons at external borders ***I
PDF 198kWORD 37k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 February 2014 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Croatia and Cyprus of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period and repealing Decision No 895/2006/EC and Decision No 582/2008/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0441 – C7-0186/2013 – 2013/0210(COD))
P7_TA(2014)0168A7-0082/2014

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2013)0441),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and points (a) and (b) of Article 77(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0186/2013),

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

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 5 February 2014 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0082/2014),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 February 2014 with a view to the adoption of Decision No …/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus and Romania of certain documents as equivalent to their national visas for transit through or intended stays on their territories not exceeding 90 days in any 180-day period and repealing Decision No 895/2006/EC and No 582/2008/EC

P7_TC1-COD(2013)0210


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 565/2014/EU.)


Third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement ***I
PDF 204kWORD 40k
Resolution
Text
Annex
European Parliament legislative resolution of 27 February 2014 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (COM(2012)0650 – C7-0371/2012 – 2012/0309(COD))
P7_TA(2014)0169A7-0373/2013

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2012)0650),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 77(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7‑0371/2012),

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

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 5 February 2014 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0373/2013),

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

2.  Approves the statement by Parliament, the Council and the Commission annexed to this resolution;

3.  Takes note of the statement by the Commission annexed to this resolution;

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 27 February 2014 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

P7_TC1-COD(2012)0309


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 509/2014.)

ANNEX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

European Parliament, Council and Commission statement on the further assessment of Colombia and Peru

The European Parliament and the Council recognise the need for a further assessment of the fulfilment by Colombia and Peru of the relevant criteria before the Commission presents recommendations to the Council for decisions authorising the opening of negotiations on visa waiver agreements with those countries.

The Commission commits to proceed with those assessments without delay and to transmit them to the European Parliament and to the Council as soon as possible after the entry into force of this Regulation.

The European Parliament and the Council take note of that commitment by the Commission.

Commission statement on informing the European Parliament

The Commission welcomes the adoption by the European Parliament and the Council of its proposal amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 aimed at updating the Annexes containing the lists of third countries whose nationals are subject to, or exempt from, the visa requirement.

In accordance with the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010 on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission, and in particular point 23 thereof, the Commission reiterates its commitment to inform the European Parliament regularly about the conduct of negotiations on visa waiver agreements arising from the transfer of certain countries to Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. The Commission will present updates to the relevant bodies in the European Parliament at least twice a year.


Situation in Ukraine
PDF 131kWORD 51k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the situation in Ukraine (2014/2595(RSP))
P7_TA(2014)0170RC-B7-0219/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the European Neighbourhood Policy, on the Eastern Partnership (EaP) and on Ukraine, with particular reference to its resolution of 6 February 2014 on the situation in Ukraine(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2013 on the outcome of the Vilnius Summit and the future of the Eastern Partnership, in particular as regards Ukraine(2),

–  having regard to the European Council conclusions of 19-20 December 2013,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on Ukraine of 20 February 2014,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas since the decision of the Ukrainian President and Government to suspend the signing of the Association Agreement, hundreds of thousands of people have spontaneously taken to the streets all over the country to demonstrate in favour of European integration; whereas in Kyiv the demonstrators have been peacefully occupying Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti), calling for strong political change with a view to making the government review its decision;

B.  whereas the authorities under President Yanukovych clearly violated the law by authorising the security forces to use live ammunition against the protesters and by deploying snipers on roofs in and around Independence Square, which since late November 2013 has been the epicentre of an anti-government and pro-European protest; whereas protesters and bystanders were executed on the streets of Kyiv, provoking international outrage and condemnation;

C.  whereas, at the same time, three foreign affairs ministers from the EU travelled to Kyiv in an effort to mediate a compromise solution between President Yanukovych and the opposition; whereas they managed to broker an agreement on a roadmap for a peaceful and democratic exit from the crisis; whereas the Russian special envoy also facilitated the agreement, but without co-signing it;

D.  whereas, as a consequence, the EU decided to impose targeted sanctions, including an asset freeze and a visa ban, on those responsible for human rights violations, violence and use of excessive force; whereas the Member States agreed, furthermore, to suspend export licences on equipment which might be used for internal repression and reassess export licences for equipment covered by Common Position 2008/944/CFSP;

E.  whereas the citizens of Lviv and Donetsk took the initiative of using the Russian and Ukrainian languages respectively in their daily business of 26 February 2014 as a gesture of solidarity and unity for the whole country;

F.  whereas the Verkhovna Rada adopted a resolution on 21 February 2014 denouncing the ‘anti-terrorism’ operations and demanding that the security forces withdraw from the centre of Kyiv; whereas, by doing so, the parliament demonstrated its determination to play a central role and to take control of the situation in the country; whereas, the following day, it voted on the dismissal of President Yanukovych, the return to the 2004 Constitution, early elections on 25 May 2014 and the release of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko;

1.  Pays tribute to those fighting and dying for European values, and expresses its deepest condolences to the families of the victims, strongly condemns all acts of violence and calls on all Ukrainian citizens, along with political and civic leaders, to act with the utmost responsibility in this historic moment for Ukraine;

2.  Firmly condemns the brutal and disproportionate action of anti-riot forces such as Berkut, snipers and others that led to the dramatic escalation of violence; deplores the deaths and injuries sustained on all sides and expresses its most sincere condolences to the families of the victims; warns that any further escalation of violence would be disastrous for the Ukrainian nation and could undermine the unity and territorial integrity of the country; stresses that it is now of paramount importance that all parties demonstrate a sense of responsibility, restraint and commitment to an inclusive political dialogue, and exclude extrajudicial retaliation; urges all political forces to work together at this critical juncture for Ukraine and to facilitate compromise solutions, taking clear distance from extremists and avoiding provocation and violent actions that might fuel separatist moves;

3.  Welcomes the responsible role played by the Verkhovna Rada in assuming its full constitutional functions and filling the political and institutional vacuum created by the resignation of the government and the dismissal of the President, who was then ousted by the Parliament; takes note of the measures adopted so far by the parliament with regard, in particular, to the return to the 2004 Constitution, the decision to hold presidential elections on 25 May 2014, the decision to withdraw police and security forces, and the release from prison of Yulia Tymoshenko; stresses how important it is that the Ukrainian Parliament and its members continue to abide by the rule of law;

4.  Commends the people of Ukraine on the orderly change in power and on their civic resilience in the past few months, and underlines the fact that this civic and popular protest serves as an example and will mark a watershed in the history of Ukraine; stresses that this democratic, civic victory should not be marred by any spirit of revenge or acts of retribution towards adversaries, or by political infighting; stresses that those who committed crimes against the citizens of Ukraine and who misused the power of the state should face independent trials; calls for the setting-up of an independent commission to investigate, in close collaboration with the Council of Europe International Advisory Panel and the OSCE, the human rights violations that have taken place since the beginning of the demonstrations;

5.  Supports the EU’s approach, which combines intensified diplomatic efforts with targeted sanctions against those responsible for ordering human rights abuses related to political oppression; calls for the enactment of the targeted sanctions as agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council and urges the Member States to implement their own anti‑money‑laundering legislation to stop the flow of embezzled money from Ukraine, and to ensure the return of stolen assets deposited in the EU; considers that a truly independent investigation of the crimes committed should start immediately and that the targeted sanctions should be lifted as soon as the situation in Ukraine improves and such an investigation of the crimes committed starts to deliver results; calls for an investigation into the massive embezzlement of state funds and assets by the cronies and ‘family’ of ousted President Yanukovych, for the freezing of all their assets pending clarification of how they were acquired and, where they are proved to have been stolen, for the return of such assets by the governments of the Member States;

6.  Urges the Commission, the Member States and international humanitarian organisations to deploy quick, robust and direct medical and humanitarian assistance for all victims;

7.  Calls on all sides and third countries to respect and support the unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine; calls on all political forces within Ukraine and all the international actors involved to commit themselves to work for the territorial integrity and national unity of Ukraine, taking account of the cultural and linguistic composition of the country and its history; calls on the Ukrainian Parliament and the incoming government to respect the rights of minorities in the country and the use of Russian and other minority languages; calls for the adoption of new legislation in line with Ukraine’s obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

8.  Recalls that the existing borders of Ukraine were guaranteed by the United States of America, the Russian Federation and the United Kingdom in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances when Ukraine relinquished nuclear weapons and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); reminds the Russian Federation that, together with the two other countries mentioned above, it committed itself in the same act to refraining from economic coercion designed to subordinate to its own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind;

9.  Stresses the importance of not losing momentum in addressing the root causes of the crisis, and establishing people’s trust in politics and the institutions; believes, furthermore, that this requires constitutional and structural reforms aimed at the creation of an effective system of checks and balances, a closer link between politics and society, the rule of law, accountability, and a truly independent and impartial judicial system and credible elections;

10.  Welcomes the conclusions of the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council of 20 February 2014 and, in particular, the decision to introduce targeted sanctions, including an asset freeze and a visa ban directed against those responsible for human rights violations, violence and the use of excessive force, and to suspend export licences for equipment that might be used for internal repression; notes the enormous impact that these sanctions have had on Ukrainian public opinion, and is of the opinion that these measures could have been adopted earlier; takes the view, however, that these sanctions should be maintained as part of the EU policy towards Ukraine during this transitional period;

11.  Welcomes the release of former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from prison, and hopes that her release will symbolise the end of selective and politically motivated justice in Ukraine; demands the immediate and unconditional release of all the demonstrators and political prisoners who have been illegally detained, the dropping of all charges against them, and their political rehabilitation;

12.  Urges all political forces to work together, at this critical juncture for Ukraine, towards a peaceful political transition, an ambitious and broad-based reform agenda and a European-standards-oriented government, to uphold the unity and territorial integrity of the country, and to facilitate compromise solutions for the future of Ukraine; calls on the interim authorities to guarantee democratic rights and freedoms to all democratic political forces and to prevent attacks against any of them;

13.  Stresses that it is for the Ukrainian people – and for them alone – to decide, free from foreign interference, about the country’s geopolitical orientation and which international agreements and communities Ukraine should join;

14.  Condemns the attack on and destruction of the headquarters of the Communist Party of Ukraine and other parties, and the attempts to prohibit the Communist Party of Ukraine;

15.  Reiterates that the Association Agreement / Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) is ready for signing with the new government, as soon as possible and as soon as the new government is ready to do so;

16.  Welcomes the fact that out of the three benchmarks set by the Foreign Affairs Council of 2012, the one on ending selective justice (including the imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko) has been met, while the remaining two, on justice and the election systems, these being the demands of the protest movement, are already the subject of profound change and reform, which will hopefully soon be completed by the new coalition government and supported by the new parliamentary majority;

17.  Calls on the Commission to work together with the Ukrainian authorities to find ways to counterbalance the effects of the retaliatory measures adopted by Russia in order to stop the signing of the Association Agreement, as well as of possible new measures; welcomes the announcement by the EU Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Euro, Olli Rehn, of the EU’s readiness to provide a substantial, ambitious, both short- and long-term financial aid package, once a political solution is in place based on democratic principles, a commitment to reform and the appointment of a legitimate government; calls on Russia to adopt a constructive attitude so as to create the conditions for Ukraine to benefit from bilateral relations with both the EU and Russia; urges the EU and its Member States to speak to Russia with one voice in support of the European aspirations of Ukraine and other EaP countries that freely choose to deepen their relations with the EU;

18.  Expects the Council and the Commission to come forward as soon as possible, together with the IMF and the World Bank, with short-term financial assistance and a balance of payments facility, complemented with a long-term package, together with the EBRD and the EIB, of financial support to help Ukraine tackle its worsening economic and social situation and provide economic support to launch the necessary deep and comprehensive reforms of the Ukrainian economy; calls for an international donors’ conference to be held without undue delay; calls on the Commission and the EEAS to make the best use of funds available for Ukraine under the existing financial instruments and to consider making additional resources available for Ukraine as soon as possible;

19.  Acknowledges that widespread corruption at all levels of government continues to hamper Ukraine’s potential to develop and is undermining the confidence of citizens in their own institutions; urges the new government, therefore, to make the fight against corruption a top priority in its programme, and calls for the EU to assist these efforts;

20.  Stresses the urgent need to set up a truly independent and impartial judicial system;

21.  Calls on the Council to authorise the Commission to speed up the visa dialogue with Ukraine; stresses that the swift finalisation of the visa liberalisation agreement – following the example of Moldova – between the EU and Ukraine is the best way to respond to the expectations of Ukrainian civil society and youth; calls, in the meantime, for the immediate introduction of temporary, very simple, low-cost visa procedures at EU and Member State level, together with strengthened research cooperation, expanded youth exchanges and increased availability of scholarships;

22.  Takes the view that the DCFTA provisions do not represent any commercial challenges for the Russian Federation and that the Association Agreement is no impediment to Ukraine’s good relations with its eastern neighbour; underlines that instability in the shared neighbourhood is neither in the EU’s nor in Russia’s interest; emphasises that applying political, economic or other coercion is in breach of the Helsinki Final Act;

23.  Takes note of the decision to hold presidential elections on 25 May 2014; underlines the need to ensure that these elections will be free and fair; strongly encourages the Verkhovna Rada to adopt the necessary electoral legislation in line with the Venice Commission recommendations, including a renewed law on the financing of political parties that addresses the issues identified by GRECO and the OSCE/ODIHR; encourages international observation of the upcoming elections and declares its readiness to set up its own observation mission for this purpose through a substantial European Parliament election observation mission; believes that legislative elections should be organised swiftly after the presidential elections and before the end of the year; calls on the Commission, the Council of Europe and the OSCE/ODIHR to provide reinforced pre-election support and a substantial long-term election monitoring mission so that the presidential elections scheduled for 25 May 2014 can be held in accordance with the highest standards and produce a result all contenders can accept; calls for detachment of European Parliament staff to the EU delegation in Kyiv for a transitional period leading up to the elections;

24.  Welcomes the recent recognition by the Council that the Association Agreement, including a DCFTA, does not constitute the final goal in EU–Ukraine cooperation; points out that the EU stands ready to sign the AA/DCFTA as soon as the current political crisis is resolved and the new Ukrainian authorities are ready for a serious European perspective; stresses furthermore that Article 49 TEU refers to all European States, including Ukraine, which may apply to become a Member of the Union, provided that it adheres to the principles of democracy, respects fundamental freedoms and human and minority rights, and ensures the rule of law;

25.  Stresses the importance of secure, diversified and affordable energy supply as a pillar of economic, social and political transition and of securing a competitive and prosperous economy for all Ukrainians; in this regard underlines the strategic role of the Energy Community, of which Ukraine holds presidency in 2014, as the only treaty currently connecting Ukraine and the European Union.

26.  Expresses support for the civil-society and non-partisan initiative to set up a ‘Maidan Platform’, in order to develop a strategy to overcome the endemic corruption in Ukraine;

27.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the acting President, Government and Parliament of Ukraine, the Council of Europe and the President, Government and Parliament of the Russian Federation.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0098.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0595.


Situation in Iraq
PDF 131kWORD 49k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the situation in Iraq (2014/2565(RSP))
P7_TA(2014)0171RC-B7-0188/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Iraq, in particular that of 10 October 2013 on recent violence in Iraq(1),

–  having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Iraq, of the other part, and to its resolution of 17 January 2013 on the EU-Iraq Partnership and Cooperation Agreement(2),

–  having regard to the Commission’s EU Joint Strategy Paper for Iraq 2011-2013,

–  having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on Iraq, in particular those of 10 February 2014,

–  having regard to the statements by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Catherine Ashton, on Iraq, in particular those of 5 February 2014, 16 January 2014, 18 December 2013 and 5 September 2013,

–  having regard to the statement by the spokesperson for the VP/HR of 28 December 2013 on the killing of residents at Camp Hurriya,

–  having regard to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Presidential Statement on Iraq of 10 January 2014,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, to which Iraq is a party,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas Iraq continues to face serious political, security and socioeconomic challenges, and whereas its political scene is extremely fragmented and plagued by violence and sectarian politics, to the severe detriment of the Iraqi people’s legitimate aspirations for peace, prosperity and a genuine transition to democracy; whereas Iraq is facing the most severe wave of violence since 2008;

B.  whereas even though Iraq has been able to restore its oil productivity almost to full capacity, social inequality is growing as the Iraqi state continues to be unable to provide basic services to the Iraqi population, such as regular electricity in the summer, clean water and public health care;

C.  whereas according to casualty figures released by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) on 1 February 2014, a total of 733 Iraqis were killed and another 1 229 wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in January 2014; whereas the figures for January 2014 do not include casualties resulting from the ongoing fighting in Anbar province, owing to problems with verification and with ascertaining the status of those killed or injured;

D.  whereas the ongoing civil war in Syria has exacerbated the situation in Iraq; whereas it is spilling over into Iraq, with militants – in particular those of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) – extending their activities into Iraqi territory;

E.  whereas on 10 January 2014 the UNSC condemned the attacks being perpetrated by the ISIL against the people of Iraq in an attempt to destabilise the country and the region;

F.  whereas the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has not addressed the concerns of the Sunni minority; whereas the de-Baathification policy pursuant to the Justice and Accountability Law has led to the dismissal of predominantly Sunni officials, which has reinforced the perception of the government’s sectarian agenda; whereas, in particular, the demolition of the year-long Sunni protest camp in Ramadi by the government on 30 December 2013 precipitated the violent confrontation in Anbar province; whereas, as a result, Fallujah and other cities in Anbar province have seen fighting between government forces and ISIL militants since December 2013;

G.  whereas on 13 February 2014 more than 63 000 families (amounting to more than 370 000 people, according to UN calculations) affected by the fighting in Anbar province were registered as internally displaced; whereas many have fled to other parts of the country, including Karbala, Baghdad and Erbil provinces, while others have sought safety in outlying communities in Anbar province or are unable to flee the fighting; whereas their condition remains precarious, with food stocks and potable water running low, poor sanitation and limited access to health care;

H.  whereas deadly bomb attacks across Iraq – such as the attack of 5 February 2014 on the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs – continue unabated, mainly striking Shia neighbourhoods, while several prison breaks have increased the number of fighters filling up the ranks of extremist militant groups;

I.  whereas on 25 December 2013 at least 35 people were killed and dozens more wounded in bomb attacks in Christian areas of Baghdad; whereas since 2003 at least half of Iraq’s Christians are believed to have left the country;

J.  whereas on 5 February 2014 the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad was attacked, and whereas on 10 February 2014 the convoy of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Osama al-Nujaifi, was attacked in the city of Mosul in Ninawa province;

K.  whereas disagreement between Iraq’s federal government and the Kurdistan Regional Government continues over how to share the use of Iraq’s mineral resources, with a new pipeline expected to transport 2 million barrels of oil every month from Kurdistan to Turkey and the central government preparing legal action against the province;

L.  whereas serious social and economic problems – widespread poverty, high unemployment, economic stagnation, environmental degradation and a lack of basic public services – continue to affect a large proportion of the population;

M.  whereas violence and sabotage have hindered efforts to revive an economy shattered by decades of conflict and sanctions; whereas Iraq has the world’s third-largest crude oil reserves, but whereas attacks, corruption and smuggling have crippled exports; whereas the country’s social fabric, including its former level of equality for women, has been severely upset;

N.  whereas press and media freedom has repeatedly and increasingly come under attack from both the government and extremist groups; whereas journalists and news outlets have been attacked or censored and Reporters Without Borders has reported a news blackout on the situation in Anbar province; whereas Iraq is rated as ‘not free’ by the Freedom House 2014 Freedom in the World report;

O.  whereas the Iraqi constitution guarantees equality before the law for all citizens, along with the ‘administrative, political, cultural and educational rights of the various nationalities’;

P.  whereas the EU-Iraq PCA, in particular its human rights clause, emphasises that the EU-Iraq political dialogue should focus on human rights and strengthening democratic institutions;

Q.  whereas amendments to Iraq’s electoral law were passed in November 2013, paving the way for the general elections due to take place on 30 April 2014;

R.  whereas the EU has reaffirmed its commitment to assisting Iraq in its transition to democracy, recalling that the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq are essential elements in building a secure and prosperous state for all its citizens and bringing stability to the whole region;

S.  whereas the Cooperation Council between the EU and the Republic of Iraq held its first meeting in Brussels on 20 January 2014; whereas the Cooperation Council, which is meeting within the framework of the EU-Iraq PCA, reaffirmed the commitment of both parties to continuing to strengthen their relations; whereas the EU will continue to advance cooperation in all fields of mutual interest, providing targeted assistance in jointly agreed areas;

T.  whereas the Iraqi authorities continue to apply the death penalty; whereas the EU Heads of Mission in Baghdad co-signed a statement on the World Day Against the Death Penalty in October 2013, which expressed deep concern at Iraq’s use of the death penalty and called on the Government of Iraq to introduce a moratorium;

U.  whereas a massive arming campaign for Iraq is ongoing, involving large-scale sales of military equipment;

1.  Strongly condemns the recent acts of terrorism and heightened sectarian violence, which carries the danger that the country will fall back into sectarian strife and is generating fears of wider sectarian conflict across the region; points out that although violence occurs along sectarian lines, its causes are political rather than religious; extends its condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and injured;

2.  Strongly condemns the ISIL attacks in Anbar province and supports the UNSC’s call on the people of Iraq, including Iraqi tribes, local leaders, and Iraqi security forces in Anbar province, to cooperate in combating violence and terror; stresses that the ISIL is subject to the arms embargo and assets freeze imposed by UNSC resolutions 1267 (1999) and 2083 (2012) and underlines the importance of prompt and effective implementation of those measures;

3.  Is deeply concerned about the developments in Anbar province and the large numbers of internally displaced persons fleeing the conflict zones; calls for humanitarian access to Fallujah; calls on the Government of Iraq to honour its duty to protect the civilian population in Fallujah and elsewhere; encourages the Government of Iraq to continue to work with UNAMI and humanitarian agencies to ensure the delivery of humanitarian relief; welcomes the UN’s efforts to provide aid to those affected by the fighting in Anbar province, despite the challenges posed by the deteriorating security environment and ongoing operations in the province;

4.  Calls on the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission to support all the efforts of the Iraqi Government and UNAMI in protecting the civilian population in Fallujah and elsewhere so as to try to ensure the safe passage of civilians trapped in conflict areas and the safe return of internally displaced persons as conditions allow;

5.  Calls on the Iraqi Government to address the long-term issues contributing to the country’s instability, including the legitimate concerns of the Sunni minority, by launching an inclusive national dialogue on the reform of the Justice and Accountability Law, refraining from inflammatory sectarian statements and implementing measures aimed at national reconciliation; rejects calls for the establishment of a Sunni federal region in Iraq as a solution to the current conflict, as this is likely to lead to more sectarianism and violence;

6.  Notes with concern the spill-over of violence from the conflict in Syria; calls on the Iraqi Government to make a strong effort to insulate Iraq from the Syrian civil war by refraining from supporting any party involved in the conflict and by preventing fighters, both Sunni and Shiite, from crossing from or into Syria;

7.  Is deeply concerned about the continuing acts of violence perpetrated against the civilian population, vulnerable groups and religious communities; calls on the Iraqi Government and on all political leaders to take the necessary measures to provide security and protection for all people in Iraq, in particular members of vulnerable groups such as women, journalists, young people, fundamental rights activists, trade unionists and religious communities, including Christians; calls on the Iraqi Government to ensure that the security forces comply with the rule of law and international standards;

8.  Supports the EU’s efforts to assist Iraq in promoting democracy, human rights, good governance and the rule of law, including by building on the experiences and achievements of the EUJUST LEX-Iraq mission, which – regrettably – completed its mandate on 31 December 2013, along with the efforts of UNAMI and of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General to assist the Government of Iraq in strengthening its democratic institutions and processes, promoting the rule of law, facilitating regional dialogue, improving the provision of basic services and ensuring the protection of human rights; welcomes the capacity-building programme launched on 22 January 2014 – funded by the EU and implemented by the UN Office for Project Services – to support the Iraqi High Commission for Human Rights in implementing its mandate to promote and protect human rights in Iraq;

9.  Welcomes the passing of amendments to Iraq’s electoral law on 4 November 2013, which has paved the way for the general elections due to take place on 30 April 2014; highlights the importance of these elections for Iraq’s continued democratic transition and calls on all actors to ensure that they are inclusive, transparent, credible and held on time; calls on the EEAS to assist the Iraqi Government as much as possible with the practical preparations;

10.  Is deeply concerned about the high rate of executions in Iraq; calls on the Iraqi authorities to introduce a moratorium on the implementation of all death sentences; believes that a reform of the justice system is of primary importance in order to re-establish a sense of security among the citizens of Iraq, and should include the revision of the Anti-Terrorism Law, which provides significantly fewer protections for suspects and detainees than the Code of Criminal Procedure, and calls for an end to impunity, in particular for state security forces;

11.  Calls on all state and non-state actors to respect the freedom of the press and media and to protect journalists and news outlets from violence; recognises that a free press and media is an essential part of a functioning democracy, providing access to information and a platform for citizens;

12.  Calls for the EU to develop a common position in favour of prohibiting the use of depleted uranium munitions and to offer support for the treatment of victims, including victims of chemical weapons, and for possible efforts to decontaminate affected areas;

13.  Considers that the recent talks between the E3+3 and Iran also afford an opportunity for Iraq to stabilise, provided that all neighbouring powers cease to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs;

14.  Strongly condemns the rocket attack at Camp Hurriya on 26 December 2013, which according to various reports claimed the lives of several camp residents and left people injured; stresses that the circumstances in which this brutal incident took place must be clarified; calls on the Iraqi authorities to step up security measures around the camp so as to protect its residents from any further violence; urges the Iraqi Government to find the perpetrators of the attack and hold them accountable; notes that the EU invites all parties to facilitate the work of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in relocating all Camp Hurriya residents to a permanent and safe location outside Iraq as soon as possible;

15.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Government and Council of Representatives of Iraq, the Regional Government of Kurdistan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the United Nations Human Rights Council.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0424.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0022.


Use of armed drones
PDF 114kWORD 38k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the use of armed drones (2014/2567(RSP))
P7_TA(2014)0172RC-B7-0201/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the reports on the use of armed drones by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions of 28 May 2010 and 13 September 2013, and by the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism of 18 September 2013,

–  having regard to the statement made by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 13 August 2013 on the use of armed drones,

–  having regard to the hearing of 25 April 2013 on the human rights implications of the use of drones, organised by Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights jointly with its Subcommittee on Security and Defence,

–  having regard to its study of 3 May 2013 on the ‘Human rights implications of the usage of drones and unmanned robots in warfare’,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 19 and 20 December 2013 on preparations for a programme of next-generation European Medium Altitude Long Endurance Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS),

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, hereinafter ‘drones’) in extraterritorial lethal operations has increased steeply over the past decade;

B.  whereas unknown numbers of civilians have been killed, seriously injured or traumatised in their daily lives by drone strikes outside declared conflict zones;

C.  whereas in the event of allegations of civilian deaths as a result of drone strikes, states are under the obligation to conduct prompt, independent investigations and, if the allegations are proved correct, to proceed to public attribution of responsibility, punishment of those responsible and provision of access to redress, including payment of compensation to the families of victims;

D.  whereas Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions states that ‘acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited’;

E.  whereas drone strikes outside a declared war by a state on the territory of another state without the consent of the latter or of the UN Security Council constitute a violation of international law and of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of that country;

F.  whereas international human rights law prohibits arbitrary killings in any situation; whereas international humanitarian law does not permit the targeted killing of persons who are located in non-belligerent states;

G.  whereas any expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications is excluded from EU budget funding (Article 41(2) TEU);

H.  whereas seven Member States (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain) have signed a letter of intent with the European Defence Agency (EDA) tasking it to draw up a study on joint production of Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) craft, which can be used to strike military targets or for surveillance of migrant boats in the Mediterranean Sea, thus starting work on a European RPAS;

I.  whereas research and development studies associated with the construction of drones, military and civilian, have been supported with EU funds, and whereas it is planned that this will continue in the future;

1.  Expresses its grave concern over the use of armed drones outside the international legal framework; urges the EU to develop an appropriate policy response at both European and global level which upholds human rights and international humanitarian law;

2.  Calls on the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Member States and the Council to:

   (a) oppose and ban the practice of extrajudicial targeted killings;
   (b) ensure that the Member States, in conformity with their legal obligations, do not perpetrate unlawful targeted killings or facilitate such killings by other states;
   (c) include armed drones in relevant European and international disarmament and arms control regimes;
   (d) ban the development, production and use of fully autonomous weapons which enable strikes to be carried out without human intervention;
   (e) commit to ensuring that, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that an individual or entity within their jurisdiction may be connected to an unlawful targeted killing abroad, measures are taken in accordance with their domestic and international legal obligations;
   (f) support the work and follow up on the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;

3.  Urges the Council to adopt an EU common position on the use of armed drones;

4.  Calls on the EU to promote greater transparency and accountability on the part of third countries in the use of armed drones with regard to the legal basis for their use and to operational responsibility, to allow for judicial review of drone strikes and to ensure that victims of unlawful drone strikes have effective access to remedies;

5.  Calls further on the Commission to keep Parliament properly informed about the use of EU funds for all research and development projects associated with the construction of drones; calls for human rights impact assessments in respect of further drone development projects;

6.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice‑President/High Representative of the Union for Foreign and Security Policy, the European External Action Service, the parliaments of the Member States, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and the UN Secretary-General.


Fundamental rights in the European Union (2012)
PDF 262kWORD 160k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2012) (2013/2078(INI))
P7_TA(2014)0173A7-0051/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the preamble of the Treaty on European Union (‘EU Treaty’), notably its second and its fourth to seventh indents,

–  having regard in particular to Article 2, Article 3(3), second indent, and Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union, and to the articles of the TEU and TFEU relating to respect for and promotion and protection of fundamental rights in the EU,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000 (‘the Charter’), proclaimed on 12 December 2007 in Strasbourg, which entered into force with the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009,

–  having regard to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the conventions, recommendations, resolutions and reports of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the Human Rights Commissioner and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe,

–  having regard to the European Social Charter, as revised in 1996, and the case law of the European Committee of Social Rights,

–  having regard to United Nations conventions on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which the EU is a party, along with almost all its Member States,

–  having regard to the guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights, adopted on 27 October 2012 by the United Nations Human Rights Council (A/HRC/21/39),

–  having regard to the Commission communications entitled ‘Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union – Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based’ (COM(2003)0606), ‘Strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by the European Union’ (COM(2010)0573), and ‘Operational Guidance on taking account of Fundamental Rights in Commission Impact Assessments’ (SEC(2011)0567),

–  having regard to the conclusions on the Council’s actions and initiatives for the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, adopted by the Council on 23 May 2011, and to the Council’s Guidelines on methodological steps to be taken to check fundamental rights compatibility at the Council’s preparatory bodies(1),

–  having regard to the 2013 Commission Report on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (COM(2013)0271) and to the accompanying staff working documents,

–  having regard to the EU Citizenship Report 2013 entitled ‘EU citizens: your rights, your future’ (COM(2013)0269),

–  having regard to the ‘Stockholm Programme – an open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens’(2),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication on an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (COM(2011)0173) and the European Council conclusions of 24 June 2011,

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Steps forward in implementing national Roma integration strategies’ (COM(2013)0454) and to the proposal for a Council Recommendation on ‘Effective Roma integration measures in the Member States’ (COM(2013)0460),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law(3),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(4), Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(5) and the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426),

–  having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(6),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents(7),

–  having regard to the decisions and case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the case law of national constitutional courts, which use the Charter as a reference for interpreting national law,

–  having regard to the State of the Union address by Mr Barroso to the European Parliament on 11 September 2013 and the speech by Mrs Reding on the European Union and the rule of law on 4 September 2013 at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels,

–  having regard to the letter of 6 March 2013 sent by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Germany, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands to the Commission President, Mr Barroso, calling for the establishment of a mechanism to foster compliance with fundamental values in the Member States,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 6 and 7 June 2013 on fundamental rights and the rule of law and on the 2012 Commission Report on the Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the conference on ‘A Europe of equal citizens: equality, fundamental rights and the rule of law’, organised by the Irish Presidency of the Council on 9 and 10 May 2013,

–  having regard to the fourth annual symposium of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 7 June 2013 on ‘Promoting the rule of law in the EU’,

–  having regard to the draft Council conclusions on the evaluation of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights of 13 September 2013,

–  having regard to the activities, annual reports, studies and opinions of the FRA, in particular the Annual Report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU in 2012,

–  having regard to the joint report by the FRA, the UNDP, the World Bank and the Commission entitled ‘The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States – Survey results at a glance’, published in May 2012,

–  having regard to the report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, published in April 2013, on ‘Management of the external borders of the European Union and its impact on the human rights of migrants’,

–  having regard to NGO reports and studies on human rights and the relevant studies requested by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, in particular the study on ‘The triangular relationship between fundamental rights, democracy and the Rule of Law in the EU - towards an EU Copenhagen mechanism‘,

–  having regard to its resolutions on fundamental rights and human rights, in particular its resolution of 15 December 2010 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2009) – effective implementation after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon(8) and its resolution of 12 December 2012 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011)(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 April 2004 on the risks of violation, in the EU and especially in Italy, of freedom of expression and information (Article 11(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2005 on the protection of minorities and anti-discrimination policies in an enlarged Europe(11),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy(12),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2009 on the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effects of Public Information(13),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 September 2010 on the situation of Roma and on freedom of movement in the European Union(14),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2011 on violation of freedom of expression and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in Lithuania(15),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion(16),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2011 on media law in Hungary(17),

–  having regard to its resolution of 21 May 2013 on the EU Charter: standard settings for media freedom across the EU(18),

–  having regard to its resolution of 24 May 2012 on the fight against homophobia in Europe(19),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2013 on strengthening the fight against racism, xenophobia and hate crime(20),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2011 on the EU’s efforts to combat corruption(21),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (final report)(22),

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to its resolution of 16 February 2012)(23),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2012 on alleged transportation and illegal detention of prisoners in European countries by the CIA: follow-up of the European Parliament TDIP Committee report(24) and its follow-up resolution of 10 October 2013(25),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2013 on endangered European languages and linguistic diversity in the European Union(26),

–  having regard to the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

–  having regard to the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011-2020), adopted by the Council in March 2011,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 21 September 2010 entitled ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’ (COM(2010)0491),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence of 7 April 2011,

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2011 on priorities and outline of a new EU policy framework to fight violence against women(27) and of 6 February 2013 on the 57th session on UN CSW: Elimination and prevention of all forms of violence against women and girls(28),

–  having regard to its resolution of 24 May 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on application of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value(29),

–  having regard to working documents I and II on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2012 (rapporteur Louis Michel),

–  having regard to the public hearing held on 5 November 2013 by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on ‘The situation of fundamental rights in the European Union: how to strengthen fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law in the EU‘,

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0051/2014),

A.  whereas European integration is a political project born out of the ashes of the Second World War and the persecution and repression of individuals by totalitarian regimes, and whereas its aim has been to anchor European states to democracy and the rule of law in order to respect and promote human rights, fundamental rights, equality and the protection of minorities, on the basis of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other instruments on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and avoid a return to any kind of authoritarian regime;

B.  whereas the individual, citizen or resident, must be at the centre of the European Union, and whereas fundamental rights protect any individual against possible interference, abuse and violence by authorities – at all levels – with respect to their private life and their rights and freedoms; and whereas respect for and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the values and principles enshrined in the EU treaties and international human rights instruments (UDHR, ECHR, ICCPR, ICESCR, etc.) must be at the centre of European integration;

C.  whereas the European Union has developed a fundamental acquis, which aims to ensure that fundamental rights are respected, protected and promoted, including through the development of the ‘Copenhagen criteria’, the inclusion of Articles 2, 6 and 7 in the EU Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the obligation to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and the corresponding national legislative provisions of the Member States;

D.  whereas, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Charter has transformed values and principles into tangible and enforceable rights and whereas, having the same value as the Treaty of Lisbon, it has become legally binding on the institutions, bodies and agencies of the EU, as well as the Member States when implementing EU law;

E.  whereas a genuine culture of fundamental rights must be developed, promoted and reinforced in the institutions of the Union but also in Member States, especially in applying and implementing Union law, both internally and in relations with third countries; whereas the implementation of these values and principles must also be based on effective monitoring of respect for the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter, for example when legislative proposals are being drawn up; whereas other considerations may not take precedence over respecting and guaranteeing those fundamental rights, since this would risk discrediting the role and image of the European Union regarding human rights, particularly in its relations with third countries;

F.  whereas the European Union operates on the basis of the presumption and mutual trust that EU Member States conform with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as enshrined in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, notably in relation to the development of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the operation of the mutual recognition principle;

G.  whereas the mutual recognition principle leads to a situation where people can be transferred from one jurisdiction to another, without any prior human rights scrutiny of the respective decisions;

H.  whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union underlined in joined cases C-411/10 and C-493/10 that such a presumption of compliance with fundamental rights must be rebuttable and that judges must therefore check whether there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the judicial system of the other Member States;

I.  whereas it is consequently necessary to make sure that national authorities have sufficient evidence available in order to take an informed decision as to whether or not there are systemic flaws in the judicial systems of other Member States;

J.  whereas corruption causes social harm and violations of fundamental rights, as organised crime groups use it to commit other serious crimes, such as trafficking in human beings; whereas an efficient, independent and impartial judicial system is essential for the rule of law and to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens in Europe;

K.  whereas the European Union is going through a period of economic and financial crisis, and also a democratic and constitutional crisis, as demonstrated by recent events in certain Member States, and whereas these tensions have highlighted the lack of appropriate instruments to cope with this crisis, as well as the lack of political will and the difficulties in applying the monitoring, evaluation and sanctioning mechanisms provided for in the existing treaties, in particular the requirements under Articles 2 and Article 7 of the EU Treaty;

L.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for a strengthening of the mechanisms to ensure that the values of the Union set out in Article 2 of the EU Treaty are respected, protected and promoted, and for crisis situations in the Union and in the Member States to be addressed, and whereas a debate is under way on the creation of a ‘new mechanism’, in which the Commission, the Council and Member States are joining Parliament and NGOs;

M.  whereas the FRA underlined in the focus section of its Annual Report on 2012 dedicated to ‘The European Union as a Community of values: safeguarding fundamental rights in times of crisis‘ the fact that a common understanding of the Article 2 values and the legal obligations deriving therefrom is an aspiration that calls for the establishment of a regular dialogue within the EU;

N.  whereas the Commission has indicated its desire to strengthen the rule of law in the European Union and whereas it could propose the use of letters of formal notice under Article 7(1) of the existing EU Treaty; whereas it has also spoken of the need to amend the treaties and has announced that it might propose amendments before the end of 2013, or in early 2014, with a view to holding a debate during elections (including on Article 7) and seeking a consensus on these proposals, the aim of which should be to ensure that the EU policy on fundamental rights in the EU is based on clear rules and mechanisms, objective indicators, data and evidence which are transparent, fair and predictable and provide strong protection for individual rights, democracy and the rule of law;

O.  whereas any decision on the matter should guarantee, as soon as possible, the proper application of Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the EU Treaty and ensure that every decision is taken on the basis of objective criteria and an objective evaluation, in order to address criticisms of a lack of indicators and evaluation criteria, of differential treatment and of political bias;

P.  whereas numerous fundamental rights violations are still occurring in the European Union and in the Member States, as detailed in (annual and special) reports by the Commission, the FRA, the Council of Europe (annual reports and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, documents and reports of the Commissioner for Human Rights, CoE Parliamentary Assembly documents), UN documents (including the documents and reports of the UN Human Rights Council, of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, of the Special Rapporteurs, etc.), documents produced by NGOs (such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Open Society Institute, ILGA-Europe, ECRE, Reporters without Borders, Freedom House, FIDH, etc.), etc.; whereas such violations require appropriate responses from the Commission, the Council and Member States, given their gravity and recurrence;

Q.  whereas these organisations have expressed and recorded their concerns, particularly with regard to the situation of Roma, migrants, asylum seekers, refugees, minorities, members of LGBT communities, the media and journalists, the actions of the security forces, police and secret services, the investigations necessary to prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights violations, state involvement in acts of torture and ill-treatment committed in third countries, the use of evidence thus obtained, conditions of detention and the ill-treatment of detainees;

R.  whereas the preamble of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 8, 9, 10, 19 and 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the case law established by the EU Court of Justice acknowledge the importance of fundamental social rights through their embodiment in cross-cutting principles of Community law, thus making it clear that the EU must guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms, such as trade union rights, the right to strike, and the right of association, assembly, etc., as defined in the European Social Charter, and whereas Article 151 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union contains an explicit reference to fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter;

S.  whereas Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights recognise the right to life and the right to the integrity of the person;

T.  whereas there are about 100 million children in the European Union and about 80 million European persons with disabilities; whereas persons with disabilities, especially children, are still suffering from a lack of assistance and support as regards their inclusion in schools, and are experiencing difficulties in accessing buildings or services and trouble in being heard and participating in decisions affecting their lives; whereas the EU, as a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, has the obligation to promote, protect and respect the rights of persons with disabilities as enshrined in the Convention, to adopt a strategy to implement the Convention and to ensure that policies and existing and future primary and secondary law comply with the provisions of the Convention;

U.  whereas women and girls are the main victims of gender-based violence, given that, according to estimates in the EU, 20-25 % of women have suffered physical violence at least once during their lives; whereas hundreds of thousands of women living in Europe have been subjected to genital mutilation and thousands of girls are at risk;

V.  whereas women in the EU earn around 16 % less per hour than men;

W.  whereas poverty, gender inequality and gender stereotypes increase the risk of violence and other forms of exploitation, including trafficking in women and prostitution, and hamper the full participation of women in all areas of life;

X.  whereas fundamental freedoms, human rights and equal opportunities should be guaranteed for all citizens of the European Union; whereas, however, the protection of national minorities and regional and minority languages in an enlarged EU is a major issue, which cannot be resolved simply by combating xenophobia and discrimination, but by adopting specific legal, linguistic, cultural, social, etc. regimes and treatments;

1.  Stresses, that as a political, historical and ethical project, the European Union endeavours to bring together countries which share and together promote common European values, such as those laid down in Article 2 TEU and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as the ECHR, including respect for human dignity, democracy, the rule of law, fundamental rights, equality, freedom, non-discrimination and protection of minorities, which are closely linked and are mutual preconditions, and believes therefore that a fundamental pillar of the European identity is, and must be, the internal and external promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy, which are European values;

2.  Recommends that Parliament, the Commission and the Council recognise the existence of positive obligations to protect and promote human rights; emphasises that respect for fundamental rights and freedoms implies actions at various levels; highlights the role played in this area by regional and local authorities, NGOs and civil society, and asks the Commission and the Council to improve their cooperation with these actors;

3.  Reminds the Union institutions and the Member States of the need to comply with their obligations to respect fundamental freedoms and rights; notes that participation in international treaties for the protection and promotion of human rights can only serve to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights within the EU;

4.  Condemns the worrying trends with regard to breaches of human rights within the European Union, particularly in the fields of immigration and asylum, and with regard to discrimination and intolerance – especially affecting certain population groups (minorities and migrants) – security and terrorism, freedom of the press, freedom of movement within the Union and social and trade union rights; observes more and more frequently that Member States are adopting obstructive attitudes towards respect for these fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly with regard to Roma, women, LGBT people, asylum-seekers, migrants and other vulnerable population groups;

Institutional questions

5.  Points out that it is essential for the European Union, its institutions and the Member States to guarantee respect for the common European values set out in Article 2 TEU, that all the instruments currently provided for in the treaties in this regard urgently need to be applied and implemented, and that where necessary amendments to the treaties should be prepared; stresses that the obligation to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria does not lapse after accession but remains incumbent on the Member States, that fundamental rights are part of Union primary law and that they must be respected when Union law is applied by any court or authority, be it at Union or national level; in this connection, regrets in particular the length of time taken by ECHR accession negotiations and the fact that EU accession to the ECHR has not already been completed;

6.  Reminds the European institutions and the Member States that any policy relating to fundamental rights must first of all prevent any violations from occurring, particularly by means of accessible procedures for prevention and redress before a decision or measure is taken, to enable particular cases to be considered and judged as quickly as possible and in an effective, just and equitable manner, without discrimination;

7.  Considers that the general public are increasingly concerned about respect for fundamental rights and about their protection and promotion, as demonstrated by the mobilisation in relation to, and greater attention devoted to, cases of violations, abuses or inequalities, both in everyday life and in symbolic or well-known cases, thanks in part to the better circulation of information with the aid of new technologies, social networks and the media; recalls that any violation, abuse or inequality is detrimental to democracy and the rule of law, as well as to the confidence of citizens in institutions and their representatives, particularly political decision-makers; stresses that institutions and political decision-makers must note and support this democratic trend by establishing new procedures for dialogue with citizens and by enhancing scrutiny of State authorities by members of the public, parliaments, courts and the media, while those authorities must be more open and transparent in order to serve the interests of citizens better;

8.  Believes that in order to make full use of the potential of the treaties, there is a need to:

   (a) complete the process of acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights and immediately put in place the necessary instruments to fully accomplish this obligation, which is enshrined the treaties, as it will provide an additional mechanism for enforcing the human rights of its citizens, inter alia with a view to ensuring the application by the Member States of the judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly ‘pilot judgments; accede, as called for by the Council of Europe, to the European Social Charter, signed in Turin on 18 October 1961 and revised in Strasbourg on 3 May 1996; and for Member States to accede to and ratify the human rights conventions of the Council of Europe, to implement the already existing instruments of the acquis communautaire and to reconsider the opt-outs, which might risk affecting the rights of their citizens;
   (b) ensure that legislative proposals and policies comply with the Charter and respect fundamental rights, by taking tangible steps towards ensuring that they are verified against the Charter in all phases of the drafting of legislation and that the impact on fundamental rights of EU legislation and its implementation by the Member States is systematically examined in the evaluation reports on the implementation of such legislation, as well as in the annual report on the monitoring of the application of EU law;
   (c) ensure that the Commission – and the Council, where it initiates legislation – where appropriate, make use of the external independent expertise of the FRA;
   (d) intensify the cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, as well as with the European Parliament and the national parliaments, in order to improve the implementation of existing EU human rights legislation;
   (e) ensure that the drafting and transposition of EU law which affects and develops fundamental rights are strengthened and are carried out correctly, by following a rigorous policy of evaluation and monitoring and by bringing violations before the Court of Justice, particularly in areas within the competence of the EU, such as non-discrimination, equality, gender, disability, data protection, asylum and immigration;
   (f) ensure the promotion of a substantial rule of law approach which takes into account how fundamental rights are protected in practice;
   (g) acknowledge that a strong political will is required to address these issues, especially in times of economic and financial crisis;
   (h) strengthen and ensure transparency in the interinstitutional dialogue on fundamental rights or when European citizens’ interests are at stake;
   (i) ensure that the Commission makes full use of the existing mechanisms and that it launches objective evaluations and investigations and initiates infringement proceedings if a case is well grounded, thus avoiding double standards, wherever a Member State violates the rights enshrined in the Charter when implementing EU law;
   (j) plan ambitious, efficient and far-reaching policies and action programmes relating to fundamental rights and common European values, particularly in order to comply proactively and systematically with the EU’s obligations with regard to combating discrimination and promoting equality, as referred to in Articles 8 and 10 TFEU and Article 21 of the Charter;
   (k) cooperate in a more systematic and coordinated fashion at all levels, in particular with the Council of Europe and other international institutions, according to their specific expertise, in order to avoid any duplication;
   (l) streamline the multiplicity of mechanisms already available to prevent violations of fundamental rights in the EU, tackle breaches of fundamental rights and avoid forum shopping, and to step up the role which can be played by regional and local authorities, together with human rights organisations;
   (m) prepare comparative and summary country-by-country tables, on the basis of which the Commission should issue country-specific recommendations on fundamental rights policy, as it does for EU27 economic policy; the Council could endorse or amend these recommendations and the Commission‘s proposals regarding blatant fundamental rights violations, by the next European Council summit;
   (n) develop a peer review mechanism, with the participation of national human rights bodies, similar to the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC): each Member State would be peer-reviewed once every three or four years, the main objectives being to help the country concerned understand in what ways it could improve its fundamental rights strategy and structures; and to identify and share good practice in human rights policy and strategy within the EU;
   (o) establish a ‘new Copenhagen mechanism‘ to ensure that the fundamental rights and values of the Union referred to in Article 2 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights are respected, protected and promoted;

9.  Stresses that this ‘new Copenhagen mechanism‘, aimed at monitoring compliance with the Copenhagen criteria by every Member State in an effective and binding manner, could be activated immediately, on the basis of a Commission decision, with the full involvement of Parliament, and that it should:

   (a) set indicators – on the basis of existing or already developed and recognised fundamental rights standards – such as those developed at UN and Council of Europe level, taking into account the advice of NGOs working in the area of human rights and fundamental freedoms (FRA and Commission);
   (b) be based on objective and reliable data and information structured around such indicators, which would be further developed through a transparent and credible process (FRA, Commission);
   (c) monitor the situation in the EU and in the individual Member States through a regular and objective process (FRA, Commission, Council, European Parliament and national parliaments);
   (d) carry out objective, comparative and regular assessments, for each of the fundamental rights and/or subject areas and for each institution and Member State individually – while striving for maximum comparability - also on the basis of the findings and recommendations issued by existing monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe, the United Nations and the EU institutions and bodies, in addition to information submitted by civil society organisations (FRA reports, Commission annual reports, Parliament annual reports, Council annual reports) and on this basis issue recommendations;
   (e) establish a European policy cycle on the application of Article 2 of the EU Treaty (democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights, equality) to provide an annual and multiannual framework, and an open annual interinstitutional forum on these European values, in particular the protection of fundamental rights;
   (f) bring all existing data and analysis from national, European and international bodies together in order to ensure that existing information that is relevant for the protection of fundamental rights, the rule of law, democracy and equality is more accessible and visible;
   (g) ensure that DG Justice and the FREMP working party in the Council work with Parliament‘s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to establish a regular structured dialogue between these institutions and civil society organisations on fundamental rights issues inside the EU;
   (h) develop and adopt a set of recommendations along with effective and proportionate penalties which act as an effective deterrent (e.g. the temporary suspension of Fund commitments, the application of certain acts, etc.) to deal with violations of Articles 2 and 7 of the EU Treaty and to ensure that the rights enshrined therein are successfully upheld;
   (i) incorporate an early-warning system, political and technical dialogue, letters of formal notice and a ‘freezing procedure’, as already called for by Parliament, to ensure that Member States, at the request of EU institutions, suspend the adoption of laws that might disregard or breach fundamental rights or the EU legal order; the Commission should hold meetings at technical level with the services of the Member State concerned but not conclude any negotiations in policy areas other than those relating to Article 2 TEU until full compliance with Article 2 TEU has been ensured;

10.  Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the FRA, to adopt a decision establishing this ‘new Copenhagen mechanism‘, as it did for the monitoring of corruption in the EU and in the Member States, and to revise the FRA rules in order to give it enhanced powers and competences;

11.  Calls for the establishment, preferably under an interinstitutional agreement, of a ‘Copenhagen commission‘ composed of independent high-level experts on fundamental rights, to be appointed inter alia by Parliament, whose aim should be to ensure compliance by all Member States with the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU and continuous compliance with the ‘Copenhagen criteria’ and to advise and report on fundamental rights matters, pending the amendment the FRA Regulation to allow the agency to have stronger powers and a wider remit, including in monitoring individual Member States in the field of fundamental rights, as requested on repeated occasions by Parliament;

12.  Recommends the opening of a dialogue between the EU institutions and a Member State where there is a risk of a serious breach of the values of the Union, as well as the possibility for the European institutions to make recommendations as provided for in Article 7(1) of the EU Treaty; fully supports the Commission’s proposal to use letters of formal notice in this context;

13.  Invites the Commission and the Council to set up, together with Parliament, a contact group to follow up on the effective implementation of the values of the Union, and to specifically carry out joint assessments of the fundamental rights situation in specific cases that have been noted with concern by any of these three institutions of the Union; calls also on these institutions to take into account the resolutions of the Council of Europe and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights;

14.  Welcomes the statements made by the President of the Commission and by Vice-President Reding announcing a communication setting out possible changes to the Treaties, in addition to the options available under the current Treaties, and calls on its competent committees to examine the following proposals in detail, with a view to strengthening the protection of fundamental rights in the EU Treaties:

   revision of Article 7 of the EU Treaty, adding an ‘application of Article 2 of the EU Treaty’ stage, separating the ‘risk’ stage from the ‘violation’ stage, with different thresholds for the majorities provided for, a strengthening of technical and objective (not only political) analysis, enhanced dialogue with the Member States’ institutions and a wider range of detailed and predictable penalties which are applicable throughout the procedure;
   drawing on Article 121 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to devise a stronger and detailed fundamental rights coordination and supervision mechanism;
   extending the scope for redress and the powers of the Commission and the Court of Justice;
   a reference to the FRA in the Treaties, including a legal base making it possible to amend the Agency’s founding regulation not by unanimity as is currently the case but via the ordinary legislative procedure;
   deletion of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
   enabling Parliament to launch proceedings on the violation of Article 2 TEU on an equal footing with the Commission and the Council, and for the FRA to be able to contribute its necessary specialised support to the procedure;
   reviewing the unanimity requirement in areas relating to respect for and protection and promotion of fundamental rights, such as equality and non-discrimination (e.g. Article 19 TFEU);

calls also on its competent committee to clarify the application of, and eventually review, the procedure whereby Parliament can activate Article 7 TEU;

15.  Calls on the FRA to set up a public website collecting and pooling information and documents related to fundamental rights issues drawn up by the UN, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, NGOs, the FRA, the European Parliament, courts, national parliamentary committees, ombudsmen, etc.; considers that such information should be retrievable by date, state, author and right, so as to provide sources and information on the fundamental rights situation in the EU and its Member States;

Specific rights based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights

Dignity

16.  Expresses its alarm at the persistence of instances of violation of human dignity in the Union and in its Member States, whose victims include minorities, Roma in particular, asylum-seekers, migrants, people suspected of having links with terrorism and people who are deprived of their freedom, as well as vulnerable groups and poor people; stresses that public authorities must abide by the absolute prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, carry out swift, effective and independent in-depth investigations into any breach and prosecute those responsible;

17.  Expresses its concern about the numerous instances of ill-treatment by police and the forces of law and order, particularly in relation to the disproportionate use of force against peaceful participants and journalists in connection with demonstrations, and the excessive use of non‑lethal weapons, such as batons, rubber bullets and tasers; calls on the Member States to ensure that the uniforms of law enforcement personnel bear a means of identifying the wearer and that such personnel are always held to account for their actions; calls for an end to police checks that are based on ethnic and racial profiling; expresses concern at the increasing number of restrictions on freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration and points out that the rights of assembly, association and freedom of expression form the basis to the right to demonstrate; calls on the Member States not to take measures that would undermine or criminalise people’s exercise of their fundamental freedoms and rights, urges them to take measures to ensure that force is used only in exceptional cases duly justified by a real and serious threat to public order and recalls that the primary role of the police forces is to guarantee people’s safety and protection;

18.  Reiterates its support for a European initiative to ensure that the fundamental rights of persons deprived of their freedom are upheld and that persons who are imprisoned can be reintegrated into society upon their release; expresses concern at the disastrous level of prison overcrowding in many Member States, and at bad prison conditions and treatment of inmates, and calls for a European initiative to be launched to ensure that the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are implemented, including by the police and in immigration centres and psychiatric hospitals; recommends that measures be taken to reduce prison overcrowding, such as avoiding excessive use of pre‑trial detention, providing alternatives to custodial sentences, considering the decriminalisation of certain offences and/or shortening the periods for which people can be held without charge;

19.  Reiterates its call for a full investigation into collaboration by European states in the ‘extraordinary rendition’ programme of the United States and the CIA, flights and secret prisons within the territory of the Union, and insists that Member States must perform effective, impartial, in-depth, independent and transparent investigations and that there is no place for impunity; reminds the Member States that the ban on torture is absolute and, therefore, that state secrecy cannot be invoked to limit the obligation on states to investigate serious human rights violations; stresses that the Member States’ reputation and trust in their commitment to protect fundamental rights will be at stake should they fail to comply with the above;

20.  Stresses that the climate of impunity as regards the CIA programme has made it possible for fundamental rights violations to continue under EU and US counter‑terrorism policies, as emphasised by the revelations concerning the mass espionage activities which were conducted under the surveillance programme of the US National Security Agency and by intelligence bodies in various Member States and which are currently being considered by Parliament; calls for legislation concerning EU and Member State security and intelligence agencies to be revised, with a particular focus on ex‑ante judicial and parliamentary scrutiny, and the right to appeal and to rectify data collected, held or processed by these agencies;

21.  Calls on those Member States which have not yet done so to fully transpose and implement Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and to take appropriate measures to ensure that victims of trafficking in human beings are adequately assisted and protected, that traffickers are prosecuted and handed down effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and that preventive measures are also put in place;

22.  Calls on the Member States to fully transpose Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, adopting appropriate measures to ensure adequate assistance and protection of victims of crime;

23.  Calls for respect for dignity at the end of life, notably by ensuring that decisions expressed in living wills are recognised and respected;

24.  Recognises that sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) are an essential element of human dignity, which need to be addressed in the broader context of structural discrimination and gender inequalities; calls on the Member States to safeguard SRHR through the FRA and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), not least by providing for reproductive health programmes and services, including the types of care and medicines essential for voluntary family planning and maternal and new-born health, and by maintaining vigilance on policies and/or legislation which may infringe upon sexual and reproductive health and rights;

Freedoms

25.  Stresses that democracy and the rule of law are based on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms and that any action or measure against terrorism or organised crime, and international cooperation with this aim, must not breach European fundamental rights standards but must strictly comply with them, notably in relation to the presumption of innocence, due process, rights of the defence, protection of privacy and personal data, etc.; underlines the need for stronger democratic scrutiny, and protection of and respect for fundamental rights in the context of cross‑border cooperation in these fields, in particular in the light of ever greater collection and use by authorities of personal data; calls, therefore, for measures to be taken to guarantee privacy and the protection of personal data in this field;

26.  Criticises the fact that the Internal Security Strategy (ISS) focuses on security to the detriment of civil liberties, fundamental rights and the adoption of preventive measures; deplores the widening gulf between stated objectives and the way policies are actually implemented; believes that Parliament should play a decisive role in the evaluation and framing of internal security policies, given that they have serious consequences for the fundamental freedoms and rights of all persons residing in the Union, with a view to ensuring democratic monitoring and scrutiny of security policies, including intelligence activities, and, where necessary, the revision of those policies in order to safeguard human rights and fundamental freedoms;

27.  Expresses its concern about the revelations concerning the flagrant breach of the right to private life and protection of personal data committed in the secret programmes of mass surveillance of European citizens, without case-by-case judicial authorisation and without appropriate parliamentary control, established by European and non-European states; condemns such practices and urges these states to end such infringements without delay; calls for full details of these programmes and possible international involvement in them to be disclosed, and for the programmes to be reviewed immediately; stresses that the EU and its Member States should take firm action against states which violate the fundamental right to privacy by spying on the communications of EU citizens and institutional, political and economic representatives and actors in Europe; is concerned at the fact that intelligence services have escaped democratic, parliamentary and judicial control, conducting secret programmes and operations without political approval; calls, consequently, for an urgent revision of mechanisms for the judicial and parliamentary oversight of secret services so as to ensure that intelligence services are anchored in democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, as required by Article 2 TEU; condemns the secret involvement of private undertakings in mass surveillance activities; stresses that the EU should react more forcefully and that it should call for measures to be taken at international level to ensure that European privacy and data protection rules are enforced and upheld, and should promote technologies that guarantee the confidentiality of communications in Europe;

28.  Deplores the fact that discussions on the adoption of a draft regulation and directive on the protection of personal data are stalling in the Council despite the fact that Parliament has expressed strong support for more stringent rules; regrets the decision taken by the European Council at its meeting of 24-25 October 2013 to complete the digital single market only by 2015, thereby delaying the adoption of the data protection package, and calls on the Council to move forward with the data protection directive and regulation negotiations in order to have the data protection package adopted before the end of this parliamentary term;

29.  Believes that the EU and its Member States should adopt a whistle‑blower protection system for persons revealing serious violations of fundamental rights by intelligence services that have eluded all democratic, parliamentary and judicial scrutiny;

30.  Stresses that the rapid pace of change in the digital world (including increased use of the internet, applications and social networks) necessitates more effective protection of personal data and privacy in order to guarantee confidentiality;

31.  Welcomes the fact that a growing number of Member States are respecting the right to found a family through marriage, civil partnership or registered cohabitation and adoption, without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, and calls on the remaining Member States to do the same; welcomes the recent judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vallianatos and others v. Greece affirming that same‑sex couples must be able to enter into civil unions; calls on the Commission and all Member States to propose and adopt legislation and policies to combat homophobia, transphobia and hate crimes, and welcomes the publication of Opinion No 2/2013 of the FRA on the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia – with special attention to the rights of victims of crime; calls on the Commission and all Member States to enforce the directive on freedom of movement without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; reiterates its call for the Commission to propose an ambitious regulation on the mutual recognition of the legal effects of civil status documents;

32.  Is extremely concerned about the number of suicides among young people who are the victims of homophobia; recalls the findings of the FRA‘s EU LGBT survey which showed that 26 % of all respondents had been attacked or threatened with violence at home or elsewhere, a figure which rises to 35 % among all transgender respondents, while 19 % of respondents felt discriminated against at work or when looking for a job, despite legal protection under EU law; calls on the Commission, therefore, to use these findings as a basis for a comprehensive European response to the fundamental rights problems of LGBT persons, in the shape of an EU roadmap for equality on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, as repeatedly called for by Parliament and NGOs;

33.  Regrets the fact that legal gender recognition procedures for transgender people still include compulsory sterilisation in 14 Member States; calls on the Member States to review these procedures so that they fully respect transgender people‘s right to dignity and bodily integrity; congratulates the Commission on its commitment to working within the World Health Organisation to withdraw gender identity disorders from the list of mental and behavioural disorders and ensure a non-pathologising reclassification in the negotiations on the 11th version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11);

34.  Recognises freedom of thought, conscience, religion, belief and non‑belief, and freedom to practise the religion of one‘s choice and to change religion; condemns any form of discrimination or intolerance, and believes that secularism defined as the strict separation between non-confessional political authorities and religious authorities, as well as the impartiality of the State, are the best means of guaranteeing non‑discrimination and equality between religions and between believers and non‑believers; calls on the Member States to protect freedom of religion or belief, including the freedom of those without a religion not to suffer discrimination as a result of excessive exemptions for religions from laws on equality and non-discrimination;

35.  Recalls that national laws that criminalise blasphemy restrict freedom of expression concerning religious or other beliefs, that they are often applied to persecute, mistreat, or intimidate persons belonging to religious or other minorities, and that they can have a serious inhibiting effect on freedom of expression and on freedom of religion or belief; recommends that the Member States decriminalise such offences;

36.  Regrets the fact that young people in some Member States are still being prosecuted and sentenced to imprisonment because the right to conscientious objection to military service is still not adequately recognised, and calls on the Member States to stop the persecution of and discrimination against conscientious objectors;

37.  Recalls that freedom of expression, information and the media are fundamental with a view to ensuring democracy and the rule of law, and reiterates its call for the Commission to review and amend the audiovisual media services directive along the lines indicated by Parliament in its report on the subject; strongly condemns violence, pressure or threats against journalists and the media, including in relation to the disclosure of their sources and information about breaches of fundamental rights by governments and states; calls on the Union institutions and the Member States to respect, guarantee, protect and promote the fundamental right to freedom of expression and information, and hence to refrain from exerting or developing mechanisms to impede those freedoms;

38.  Is concerned at the impact of the economic crisis in Europe on the ownership of media outlets and the prospect of privatisation of public service media in some Member States; calls on the Member States to safeguard the independence of public service media and comply with their institutional duty to safeguard media pluralism and provide high-quality, diversified, accurate and reliable information; believes that media ownership and management should always be transparent and not concentrated; stresses that transparency of media ownership is crucial for the monitoring of intra-EU media investments and non-European investors exerting an increasing influence in the information that is provided in Member States;

39.  Stresses the importance of respecting and protecting the rights of refugees and migrants, and underlines the fact that special attention should be paid to women and children migrants; expresses its concern about the numerous breaches of the right to asylum and of the obligation to ensure protection in the event of removal, expulsion and extradition of any migrant; stresses the obligation to comply with international human rights conventions, particularly the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the principle of non-refoulement, and the obligation to come to the assistance of people at sea who are risking their lives to reach the EU, and to arrange for reception conditions and procedures which respect their dignity and fundamental rights; calls on the EU and the Member States to amend or review any legislation sanctioning people assisting migrants in distress at sea; calls on the Commission to review Council Directive 2002/90/EC defining the sanctions in case of facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence in order to clarify that providing humanitarian assistance to migrants at sea who are in distress is to be welcomed and not an action which should ever lead to any form of sanctions;

40.  Welcomes the completion of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) and calls on the Member States to make the necessary legislative and administrative reforms to effectively implement it so as to ensure that the CEAS is fully established as planned, provides better access to the asylum procedure for those who seek protection, leads to fairer, quicker and better-quality asylum decisions and provides dignified and decent conditions both for those who apply for asylum and those who are granted international protection within the EU; deplores, however, the fact that children can still be placed in detention and calls for them to be systematically excluded from accelerated procedures; reiterates its call for the Commission to draw up strategic guidelines based on best practices to establish common minimum standards for the reception and protection of unaccompanied children; underlines the fact that procedural safeguards must be adequate and appropriate; calls for the application of the recent ECJ judgment stating that LGBT applicants for asylum can constitute a particular social group who are liable to be persecuted on account of their sexual orientation and that the existence of a term of imprisonment in the country of origin sanctioning homosexual acts may constitute an act of persecution per se;

41.  Condemns the fact that a large number of migrants continue to die at sea attempting to reach the EU despite the many and varied technical means provided by the Member States and the EU for the surveillance and control of the EU's external borders; demands that the EU and its Member States implement the recommendations made in the resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 24 April 2012, entitled ‘Lives lost in the Mediterranean Sea: who is responsible?’(30); welcomes the decision of the Court of Justice which annulled Council Decision 2010/252/EU;

42.  Stresses the vulnerability of persons crossing Europe‘s southern sea borders, calls for a viable solution of the overall issue of immigration in the Mediterranean fully respecting the principle of non-refoulement and calls for the Member States and EU institutions to take into account, as an absolute minimum, the recent opinions of the FRA on how best to protect the fundamental rights of migrants in the context of maritime surveillance;

43.  Welcomes the handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration produced by the FRA together with the European Court of Human Rights as a concrete contribution assisting legal practitioners in Europe in upholding fundamental and human rights;

44.  Calls on the Member States and the Council to speed up the work of the Task Force Mediterranean in order to ensure a significant expansion of rescue capacity at sea and launch a comprehensive plan on migration and asylum, based on solidarity and responsibility sharing, focusing on all relevant aspects such as the revision of EU and Member State laws allowing the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance to persons in distress at sea, the development of safe and legal routes for refugees and migrants to Europe and development cooperation with third countries with a view to strengthening democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law in order to ensure that tragedies such as those which have occurred off Lampedusa do not happen again;

45.  Condemns the increasingly frequent violations of migrantsʼ fundamental rights, particularly where they are deported to non-EU countries as highlighted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants in his special report published on 24 April 2013(31) and by the FRA report(32); stresses, in this connection, the need for the Return Directive, the readmission agreements and the work of Frontex to be genuinely appraised in terms of their respect for fundamental rights; calls on the Commission to provide a tangible follow-up to its 2011 report criticising the EU‘s readmission measures and agreements with non-EU countries; condemns the restrictive policies of Member States with regard to issuing visas to nationals of some specific non-EU countries;

46.  Calls on the Member States to adopt policies encouraging legal migration and to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families;

Equality

47.  Stresses that the principles of human dignity, equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination on any grounds are among the foundations of democratic society; considers that the Union and the Member States should step up their measures to promote equality, combat discrimination and protect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, and their measures relating to gender equality, the rights of the child, the rights of older persons, the rights of persons with disabilities, the rights of LGBT persons and the rights of persons belonging to national minorities;

48.  Calls on the Member States to adopt a national legislative framework to address all forms of discrimination and guarantee the effective implementation of the existing EU legal framework, including by launching infringement proceedings; deplores the deadlock in the Council negotiations on the proposal for a directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation and reiterates yet again its call for the Council to adopt the proposal; welcomes the position taken by the Lithuanian Council Presidency to back the proposal and calls on other Member States to follow this example; welcomes, in this connection, the FRA’s Opinion 1/2013 on the situation of equality in the European Union 10 years on from initial implementation of the equality directives; considers that discrimination on linguistic grounds should also be tackled;

49.  Recalls its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020(33), calling for full respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

50.  Expresses its concern at the fact that persons with disabilities continue to face discrimination and exclusion, which hinders their ability to enjoy their fundamental rights on an equal basis with others; calls on the EU institutions and EU Member States to continue implementing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in their respective fields of competence; notes that the further development of EU law and policy in the area of non-discrimination could play a role in the process of harmonising legislation with the CRPD across the EU, for example regarding equality before the law; encourages the Member states to develop adequately resourced policies to better integrate persons with disabilities and facilitate their access to housing, education, labour market, public transport and facilities, and participation in the political process, notably by abolishing legal and practical discrimination and restrictions to their right to vote and stand for election; deplores the fact that certain persons with disabilities have no choice but to live in special homes, given the lack of community-based alternatives, and calls on the Member States to champion arrangements which enable more persons with disabilities to live independently;

51.  Calls on the Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of EU legislation and policies in order to assess their compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; believes that EU legislative procedures and policy making should be adapted so as to ensure respect, and provide for the implementation, of the CRPD; calls on the Commission to adopt specific impact assessment guidelines to this end and to submit the draft EU progress report on the implementation of the CRPD in the EU to Parliament; believes that Parliament should hold regular debates and formulate recommendations through a resolution on the progress achieved in the enjoyment by persons with disabilities of their rights enshrined in the CRPD, including on the basis of the Commission report; supports the ongoing initiatives to set up a cross-committee task force in Parliament on the implementation of the CRPD in order to ensure that Parliament‘s actions in monitoring and supporting the implementation of the Convention are comprehensive and consistent;

52.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to protect, promote and enforce children’s rights in all internal and external actions and policies having an impact on them; expresses its concern about children who suffer violence and sexual exploitation and calls on the Member States to complete the transposition of Directive 2011/93/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the FRA to continue their efforts to assess the way in which children are treated during judicial proceedings; considers that, when parents separate or divorce, the best interests of the children should always be taken into consideration and that every child ought to be able to be in regular and direct contact with both parents;

53.  Expresses its concern about the situation of Roma in the EU and the numerous instances of persecution, violence, stigmatisation, discrimination, evictions, relocations and unlawful forced evictions, unlawful registration and ethnic profiling by law enforcement authorities, which are contrary to fundamental rights and European Union law; reiterates its position stated in its resolution of 12 December 2013 on the progress made in the implementation of the National Roma Integration Strategies(34) and calls once more for the effective implementation of strategies to foster real inclusion and for strengthened and pertinent action to promote integration, particularly in the field of fundamental rights, education, employment, housing and healthcare, and to combat violence, hate speech and discrimination of Roma; calls for an end to unlawful forced evictions, to the dismantling of settlements without alternative housing being provided, and to segregation of Roma children in schools and their illicit placement in special schools; calls on the Member States to make greater use of the EU funds placed at their disposal to implement integration projects in cooperation with local authorities, on the front line managing daily new arrivals on their territory;

54.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide an effective response to Roma exclusion by developing integrated policies and implementing the measures set out in the strategies focusing on anti-discrimination measures and measures aiming to increase their employability and access to the labour market in cooperation with representatives of the Roma population, while also ensuring their full participation in the management, monitoring and evaluation of projects affecting their communities, and to allocate sufficient budget resources to this end and ensure the efficiency of spending; calls also on the Commission and the FRA to present common, comparable and reliable indicators to monitor progress in Member States;

55.  Believes that the Commission should take strong action in cases of violation of the fundamental rights of Roma in Member States, especially by opening infringement proceedings in the event of failure to allow them access to and the exercise of their economic and social rights, the right to freedom of movement and of residence, the right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to the protection of personal data; calls on the Commission to set up a monitoring mechanism on hate crime against Roma, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the lack of birth registration and birth certificates for Roma residing in the EU; reiterates its call for a targeted approach to the social inclusion of Roma women in order to avoid multiple discrimination; calls for the European Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies to be developed into a fully-fledged European Strategy;

56.  Stresses that it is essential that the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities are respected; expresses its concern at the fact that, in everyday life, people belonging to these minority communities encounter obstacles in justice, health and social services, as well as in education and culture, and that this undermines their rights and dignity as human beings and citizens of the Union and leads to situations in which they are treated as second-class citizens by the national authorities of their own Member States; considers that such minorities have specific needs that are different from those of other minority groups, that public policies should be more focused and that the Union itself must address these needs in a more appropriate way;

57.  Considers that no single solution exists for improving the situation of such minorities in all the Member States, but that some common and minimum objectives for public authorities in the EU should be developed, taking account the relevant international legal standards and existing good practices; calls on the Member States to ensure that their legal systems guarantee that persons belonging to a recognised national minority will not be discriminated against, and to adopt adequate measures to promote effective equality, based on the relevant international norms and good practice, inter alia the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities; calls on the Commission to establish a policy standard for the protection of national minorities, including indigenous, traditional ethnic and linguistic minority communities, bearing in mind that they comprise more than 10 % of the total population of the EU, in order to avoid applying double standards that differentiate between candidate countries and Member States; stresses the need for a comprehensive EU protection system for traditional national minorities, regional linguistic groups and constitutional regions accompanied by a functioning monitoring mechanism, following the example of the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies; calls on the Member States to provide comprehensive data on violations of the fundamental rights of minorities, so as to allow the FRA and the EU to ensure data collection and reporting;

58.  Points out that positive measures implemented for the purpose of protecting minority persons and groups, fostering their appropriate development and ensuring that they are granted equal rights and treatment with respect to the rest of the population in the administrative, political, economic, social and cultural fields and in other spheres should not be considered as discrimination;

59.  Condemns racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic/transphobic and xenophobic violence and violence against migrants, religious minorities and ethnic groups, which have reached alarming levels, in particular on the internet, in the absence of strong action by the authorities to combat these types of violence; calls on the Member States to implement Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, to address discrimination, to ensure that hate speech and hate crimes are investigated, to adopt criminal legislation prohibiting incitement to hatred on any grounds including sexual orientation, and to ensure that there is effective protection against racism, anti-Semitism, anti-gypsyism, xenophobia and homophobia and that victims are offered proper assistance; calls on the Commission to launch infringement proceedings against Member States that fail to implement the framework decision correctly from 1 December 2014; calls for the revision of the framework decision to ensure that it also covers hate speech and acts of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and religious intolerance, anti‑Gypsyism, homophobia and transphobia, and strengthen its application; fully supports the initiative launched under the Irish Presidency of the Council to strengthen the fight against intolerance and calls the Council to continue such constructive work;

60.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch a coordinated and comprehensive action to combat and prevent hate crime systematically in the EU and to make hate crime visible through data, ensuring that such data is comparable so as to allow an EU overview of the situation, by working together with the FRA to improve hate crime data collection and harmonisation; condemns hate speech stigmatising groups of people on account of their social, cultural, religious or foreign origins and incitement to racial hatred, notably when made by public figures; points to FRA Opinion 2/2013 on the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia and stresses the need to ensure respect for the rights of victims of crime, and in particular in cases of hate crime;

61.  Calls on the Member States, recognising that education is vital in the fight against discrimination, to ensure that their integration strategies focus on reforming national curriculums to include xenophobia, racism and anti-gypsyism within syllabuses and to establish this as a form of discrimination in public discourse from a young age;

62.  Urges the EU and the Member States to:

   ensure equality between women and men and prevent, combat and prosecute all forms of violence against women as a fundamental rights violation, while ensuring support and protection for victims;
   sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), and set up a data collection system to support the parties to the Convention by providing accurate and comparable data on the extent, forms and consequences of violence against women;
   step up their efforts to achieve the objectives of the European Pact for Equality between women and men (2011-2020), and to take adequate measures to tackle all forms of direct and indirect discrimination against women, in particular the gender pay gap, occupational segregation, stereotyping, and all forms of violence against women, since women continue to suffer multiple discrimination in various areas of everyday life in spite of the legislation in force on combating discrimination;
   promote gender equality education, gender mainstreaming and sufficient monitoring mechanisms for the implementation of EU gender policy;
   step up their efforts to combat human trafficking, in a bid to end sexual exploitation which affects women in particular, and forced labour;
   ensure the proper implementation of the existing gender equality directives including by initiating infringement proceedings;
   bring forward a European strategy on combating violence against women which will follow on from its previous commitments in this field and will meet the many demands made by Parliament; welcomes, in this connection, the Commission’s ‘Zero tolerance of violence against women‘; calls, however, for more action, including an EU-wide strategy to end violence against women, as announced in the Council conclusions of March 2010, comprising legally binding instruments and awareness-raising actions;
   keep the issue of violence against women – including violence in close relationships, sexual violence (rape, sexual assault and harassment), sexual exploitation and harmful traditional practices, such as forced marriage and ‘honour crimes’ – high on the agenda as gender-based violence is both a consequence of the inequalities between women and men and an obstacle to equality and. Therefore, should not be tolerated;
   apply a zero tolerance policy to female genital mutilation;
   take measures and launch projects for better reconciliation of family and working life for all generations of women, welcoming the decision to declare 2014 as the European Year of Work and Family Life Balance;

63.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take account of women’s needs and concerns by, inter alia, collaborating with civil society and women’s NGOs, when drawing up legislation and analysing the situation of fundamental rights in the EU; stresses the importance of monitoring and evaluating the implementation of European legislation relating to gender equality in Member States;

64.  Calls on the Member States to guarantee decent wages and pensions, reduce the gender pay gap and create more high-quality jobs for women, and to enable women to benefit from high-standard public services and improve welfare provisions;

65.  Calls on the Member States to take action to combat the economic and social causes that foster violence against women, such as unemployment, low wages and pensions, housing shortages, poverty, and non-existent or inadequate public services, in particular public health, education and social security services;

66.  Calls on the Commission to step up its efforts against the violation of the fundamental rights of young girls, specifically against that industry which perceives young girls as sexual objects and which triggers an increase in sexual trafficking in young girls within the EU;

67.  Calls on the Member States to ensure the implementation of national strategies concerning respect for and the safeguarding of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHRs); insists on the role of the Union in awareness-raising and promoting best practices on this issue, given that health is a fundamental human right essential for the exercise of other human rights;

68.  Invites the Commission to put forward a proposal for a legal framework on the issue of multiple and intersectional discrimination;

69.  Considers that women’s underrepresentation in political and business decision‑making constitutes a deficit; calls, therefore, on Member States to introduce positive discrimination measures such as legislation for parity systems and gender quotas;

70.  Stresses the fact that progress in narrowing the gender pay gap is extremely slow; points out that the implementation of the principle of equal pay for the same work and for work of equal value is crucial to achieve gender equality; urges the Commission to revise without delay Directive 2006/54/EC and to propose amendments thereto in accordance with Article 32 of the directive and on the basis of Article 157 TFEU, following the detailed recommendations set out in the annex to Parliament’s resolution of 24 May 2012;

71.  Stresses the fact that cutbacks in public services providing childcare have a direct impact on the economic independence of women; points out that in 2010 28,3 % of women’s inactivity and participation in part-time work was explained by a lack of care services, compared with 27,9 % in 2009; points out also that, in 2010, the employment rate of women with young children in the EU was 12,7 % lower than that of women without children, an increase from 11,5 % in 2008;

72.  Deplores the fact that the fundamental rights of older women are too often violated, including a high number of cases of violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse and financial abuse in several Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take further action to protect elderly women from all forms of abuse, including ill-treatment in care homes for the elderly;

73.  Considers that women with disabilities suffer from double discrimination as a result of their gender and their disability; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to take measures to safeguard and protect the fundamental rights of disabled women in the EU;

74.  Calls for a stronger commitment by the Commission and the Member States to ending the sexist stereotypes conveyed in the media, and in particular advertising, given the crucial role they may play in transforming the way in which male and female roles are generally portrayed;

75.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase citizens’ awareness and knowledge about all their rights enshrined in the Charter and to encourage participative democracy by maintaining a continuous dialogue with civil society, relevant NGOs and women‘s organisations; calls on women’s organisations in particular to share their invaluable expertise regarding persisting stereotypes and discrimination as women have always been the most vulnerable victims;

76.  Calls for greater involvement of EU institutions and improved multi-stakeholder dialogue on the challenges which older people face in the full application of their human rights;

Solidarity

77.  Stresses that the financial and economic crisis and the measures taken to tackle it have had a greater impact on the poorest and most deprived sections of the population, often affecting them very seriously, as reflected in the issue paper by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights entitled ‘Safeguarding human rights in times of economic crisis‘, in which reference is made to groups at risk of social marginalisation such as migrants, asylum seekers, Roma, women and children; points out that in 2012 a quarter of the population in EU 28 was at risk of poverty or social exclusion; calls for particular attention to be paid and appropriate, more incisive and effective measures to be taken to remedy this situation and fight inequalities and poverty; condemns remarks by politicians which aim to make scapegoats of these groups; expresses its concern at the fact that economic and social crises put fundamental rights, the rule of law and democratic values under strain, at both national and supranational level;

78.  Underlines the fact that social rights are fundamental rights, as recognised by international treaties, the ECHR, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Social Charter; highlights that these rights must be protected both in law and in practice to ensure social justice, notably in periods of economic crisis and austerity measures; underlines the importance of the right to dignity, occupational freedom and the right to work, the right to non‑discrimination, including on the basis of nationality, protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, the right to health and safety at work, social security and social assistance, the right to health care, freedom of movement and of residence, the right to protection against poverty and social exclusion, through the provision of effective access to employment, adequate housing, training, education, culture and social and medical assistance, and in relation to remuneration and social benefits, guaranteeing a decent standard of living for workers and the members of their families, as well as of other conditions of employment and working conditions, autonomy of social partners, and freedom to join national and international associations for the protection of workers’ economic and social interests and to bargain collectively;

79.  Underlines the fact that unemployment, poverty or social marginalisation makes it much more difficult, if not practically impossible, for people to exercise the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; points out that the following rights and freedoms are particularly under threat: the right to human dignity (Article 1), the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work (Article 15), non-discrimination (Article 21), protection in the event of unjustified dismissal (Article 30), the right to social security and social assistance (Article 34), the right to health care (Article 35) and freedom of movement and of residence (Article 45); highlights, further, the fact that being unemployed, poor or socially marginalised can also make it more difficult for people to gain access to basic social, financial and other services;

80.  Stresses that systems which recognise social justice as an important principle which must be underpinned by robust legislation form the best buffer against the social consequences of the economic and financial crisis;

81.  Recommends that all Member States lift their remaining reservations on the European Social Charter as soon as possible; considers that Parliament should stimulate a permanent dialogue on progress made in this respect; believes that the reference to the ESC in Article 151 TFEU should be used more effectively, for example by including a social rights test in the impact assessments of the Commission and Parliament;

82.  Calls for stronger action to help homeless persons and provide them with shelter and support, condemns – notably at a time when the persistent economic and financial crisis is driving more and more people in vulnerable situations onto the streets – laws and policies at national or local level criminalising those persons, who are more in need, as this amounts to a striking and inhumane violation of fundamental rights;

83.  Stresses the need to ensure that crisis-remedying measures are compatible with the values and objectives of the Union, and particularly to ensure respect for the rule of law in relation to Union actions in the countries most afflicted by the effects of the crisis in the euro area;

84.  Reiterates as a matter of urgency its appeal to the Council to include the topic ‘Access by the poorest groups to all of their fundamental rights‘ in the thematic areas of the FRA’s next multiannual framework;

85.  Deplores the fact that in some Member States transitional rules on free movement of workers are still in place; stresses that fears of negative impacts of labour migration are unfounded; points out that estimates show a long-term increase of almost 1 % in the GDP of the EU15 countries as a result of post-enlargement mobility (in 2004-09)(35);

86.  Notes that the recent labelling of free movement as migration to benefit from social security systems is not based on facts(36); emphasises that discrimination is a major obstacle preventing European citizens from enjoying fundamental rights; stresses that EU citizens residing permanently in another Member State enjoy the right to equal treatment regarding social security pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004;

87.  Emphasises the need for the Commission and the Member States to strengthen their work on developing and guaranteeing labour rights and fundamental social rights as a crucial step towards ensuring that equal treatment, decent jobs and living salaries are obtained in the European Union;

88.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the right of workers to safe and healthy working conditions, as set out in Article 3 of the European Social Charter, is essential for workers to have the opportunity to live a decent life and to ensure that their fundamental rights are respected;

89.  Highlights the importance of the social partners’ role in collective bargaining for safeguarding the fundamental rights and equal treatment of workers, particularly with regard to young people, women, persons with disabilities and other socially disadvantaged groups in the labour market;

Citizenship

90.  Stresses that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the rising expectations of citizens and civil society – as demonstrated by the failure of ACTA and the surveillance scandals – make it necessary to strengthen and increase democratic and institutional transparency and openness in the EU, in particular in its institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and in its Member States; is of the opinion that transparency and openness are key principles that must be further strengthened and promoted in order to ensure good governance and the full participation of civil society in the EU’s decision-making process;

91.  Deplores the interinstitutional blockage of the revision of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on the right of access to documents and information; calls on the Council and the Commission to resume their work on the revision of this regulation, on the basis of Parliament’s proposals to guarante greater transparency in the EU decision-making process and improved access to documents for EU citizens; calls on all EU institutions, offices, bodies and agencies to fully implement Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as required by the Lisbon Treaty and notes, in the light of the case-law of the ECJ and complaints to the Ombudsman, that they have not done so; calls on the Council and the Commission at the same time to take the necessary measures to ensure transparency in informing the general public of how the funding passed on to Member States from the EU budget is used;

92.  Emphasises that the right to good administration also entails a duty on the authorities to inform citizens of their fundamental rights, to help the most deprived to have their rights explained to them, and to support them in ensuring that these rights are respected;

93.  Recalls that citizenship implies, under Article 21 of the UDHR, the right of every person to participate in the public affairs of their country of residence; recalls that European citizenship is not limited to the right to vote and stand in municipal and European elections, nor to the exercise of their rights, however essential they may be, as regards freedom of movement and residence; stresses therefore that European citizenship implies the ability of each resident in the territory of the Union to participate actively and without discrimination of any kind in the democratic, political, social and cultural life of the Member State in which he or she resides and to exercise all the fundamental political, civil, economic, cultural and social rights and freedoms recognised by the European Union;

94.  Draws attention to the need to organise awareness-raising and information campaigns in order to promote the values and objectives of the Union among citizens, and calls specifically for the widest possible dissemination of the texts of the relevant articles of the TEU and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

95.  Welcomes the decision to declare 2013 the European Year of Citizens; calls, however, on the Commission, together with the Member States, to continue to inform EU citizens about their rights, so that they can fully enjoy their EU citizenship;

96.  Calls on the Member States to launch information campaigns to inform EU citizens about their right to vote and stand for election; calls for the necessary reform of European election procedures to be carried out in all Member States in order to promote active EU citizenship; calls on the Member States to encourage the active participation of citizens through citizens‘ initiatives and the exercise of the right of petition and the right to submit complaints to the European Ombudsman;

97.  Reiterates the importance of the work of the European Ombudsman to the rights of individuals; stresses that the Ombudsman‘s independence is an important means of ensuring that his work has credibility and calls, therefore, for the Ombudsman‘s Statute to be amended so that members of the body appointing the Ombudsman, whether former members or members still in office, are officially not eligible to stand as candidates for the post;

98.  Stresses that the right to freedom of movement and residence of European citizens and their families, as well as the freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work, laid down in the Treaties and guaranteed by the Directive on freedom of movement, is one of the fundamental rights of European citizens and represents an important economic benefit for host countries, contributing to addressing skill and job mismatch and helping to compensate for the European Union‘s demographic deficit; underlines the fact that the directive already provides for exceptions and restrictions to the right to free movement; condemns any attempt to review this acquis, and calls for any breach of the rules to result in action before the Court of Justice;

Justice

99.  Stresses that the independent, equitable, effective, impartial and just administration of justice, within reasonable time limits, is fundamental to democracy and the rule of law and to their credibility; expresses its concern about the numerous breaches which have occurred in this context, as demonstrated by the number of cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has found against states; calls on the Member States to fully implement the Court‘s decisions; stresses that any impunity on grounds of a position of power, force or influence over persons or the judicial or political authorities cannot be tolerated in the EU;

100.  Acknowledges the importance of – in addition to courts – non-judicial and quasi-judicial institutions for access to justice, such as national human rights institutions, equality bodies, ombudsperson institutions, and data protection authorities as well as other such institutions with a human rights remit; stresses, in this context, that national human rights institutions should be appointed or established in all the Member States with a view to their full accreditation under the so called Paris Principles (Principles relating to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights, UN General Assembly resolution 48/134, 20 December 1993); stresses that a full independence requirement would also benefit other institutions with a human rights remit;

101.  Calls on the FRA to conduct a study, in collaboration with the UN Special Rapporteur concerned, on special laws and procedures justified on grounds of combating terrorism, and on their compliance with fundamental rights; rejects any exceptional procedure which manifestly creates an imbalance in the positions of the prosecution and the defence in judicial proceedings, such as secret hearings or sentencing in secret, or which gives governments special powers to censor the media or allow secret surveillance on the population; notes and deplores the fact that policies on combating terrorism are being gradually extended to a growing number of crimes and offences, giving rise in particular to an increase in the number of summary judicial proceedings and of minimum sentences that must be served in full, and in the information being recorded on the population;

102.  Calls on the Commission to continue its work on criminal justice and the implementation of the road map on procedural safeguards and calls on the Member States to take up a more ambitious stance on the matter;

103.  Welcomes the FRA report on access to justice in cases of discrimination in the EU and stresses that accessing justice is often complicated and cumbersome; believes that improvements could include facilitated procedures and enhanced support to those seeking justice;

104.  Notes the justice scoreboard issued by the Commission, which unfortunately covers only civil, commercial and administrative justice issues, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament had requested that it also cover criminal justice matters, fundamental rights and the rule of Law; calls, therefore, for the scoreboard to be developed so as also to cover these areas; stresses that it should be incorporated into the new Copenhagen mechanism and the European policy cycle on the application of Article 2 of the TEU; stresses also that improving the functioning of justice systems cannot have as its sole objective to make a country a more attractive place to invest and do business, targeting above all the efficiency of judicial proceedings, but that it should also be aimed at safeguarding the right to a fair trial and respect for fundamental rights;

105.  Urges the Commission to examine the effective implementation in the EU of the right of access to justice in the context of the right of every person of present and future generations to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being;

106.  Expresses its concerns about the politicisation of constitutional courts in certain Member States and recalls that an independent judicial system is of the utmost importance;

o
o   o

107.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

(1) Council Document 10140/11 of 18 May 2011.
(2) OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55.
(4) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.
(5) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
(6) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(7) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
(8) OJ C 169 E, 15.6.2012, p. 49.
(9) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0500.
(10) OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 1026.
(11) OJ C 124 E, 25.5.2006, p. 405.
(12) OJ C 294 E, 3.12.2009, p. 54.
(13) OJ C 224 E, 19.8.2010, p. 18.
(14) OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 73.
(15) OJ C 136 E, 11.5.2012, p. 50.
(16) OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 112.
(17) OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 154.
(18) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0203.
(19) OJ C 264 E, 13.9.2013, p. 54.
(20) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0090.
(21) OJ C 51 E, 22.2.2013, p. 121.
(22) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0444.
(23) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0315.
(24) OJ C 353 E, 3.12.2013, p. 1.
(25) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0418.
(26) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0350.
(27) OJ C 296 E, 2.10.2012, p. 26.
(28) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0045.
(29) OJ C 264 E, 13.9.2013, p. 75.
(30) Resolution 1872(2012) of the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe adopted on 24 April 2012.
(31) Regional study: management of the external borders of the European Union and its impact on the human rights of migrants, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, François Crépeau, 24 April 2013, A/HRC/23/46.
(32) FRA report on Fundamental rights at Europe‘s southern sea borders, March 2013.
(33) OJ C 131 E, 8.5.2013, p. 9.
(34) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0594.
(35) Employment and social developments in Europe 2011, chapter 6: Intra-EU labour mobility and the impact of enlargement, p. 274.
(36) See ‘A fact finding analysis on the impact on the Member States’ social security systems of the entitlements of non-active intra-EU migrants to special non-contributory cash benefits and healthcare granted on the basis of residence’, DG Employment, Final report submitted by ICF GHK in association with Milieu Ltd., 14 October 2013.


European arrest warrant
PDF 275kWORD 58k
Resolution
Annex
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (2013/2109(INL))
P7_TA(2014)0174A7-0039/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to Article 5 of its Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament(1),

–  having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States(2),

–  having regard to the Commission reports on the implementation of the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (COM(2005)0063 and SEC(2005)0267, COM(2006)0008 and SEC(2006)0079, COM(2007)0407 and SEC(2007)0979 and COM(2011)0175 and SEC(2011)0430),

–  having regard to the Council’s final report of 28 May 2009 on the fourth round of mutual evaluations - the practical application of the European Arrest Warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States (8302/4/2009 – CRIMORG 55),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption, and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (final report)(3),

–  having regard to the revised version of the European Handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant (17195/1/10 REV 1),

–   having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a Justice Programme for the period 2014 to 2020(4),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 September 2011 entitled 'Building Trust in EU-wide justice, a new dimension to European Judicial Training' (COM(2011)0551),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU(5),

–  having regard to its recommendation of 9 March 2004 to the Council on the rights of prisoners in the European Union(6),

–  having regard to the assessment of the European added value of Union measures concerning the European Arrest Warrant, carried out by the European Added Value Unit of the European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission of 20 October 2010(7),

–  having regard to Rules 42 and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0039/2014),

A.  Whereas the European Union has set itself the aim of offering its citizens an area of freedom security and justice, and whereas, pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), it respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, thereby taking on positive obligations which it must meet in order to honour that commitment; whereas to be effective, the principle of mutual recognition must be premised upon mutual trust which can only be achieved if respect for the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons and procedural rights in criminal proceedings are guaranteed throughout the Union; whereas mutual trust is enhanced through training, cooperation and dialogue between judicial authorities and legal practitioners, creating a genuine European judicial culture;

B.  Whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has for the most part been successful in meeting its aim of speeding up surrender procedures throughout the Union compared to the traditional extradition system among Member States and constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, now laid down in Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU);

C.  Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting from gaps in the Framework Decision such as failing to explicitly include fundamental rights safeguards or a proportionality check as well as from the incomplete and inconsistent implementation thereof; whereas other problems are shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments due to the incomplete and unbalanced development of the Union area of criminal justice;

D.  Whereas clearly defined and effective instruments for mutual recognition of judicial measures are of key importance to national prosecution services in connection with investigations into serious cross-border crimes and will be equally important in investigations carried out by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office once it has been set up;

E.  Whereas in its final report the Special Committee on Organised Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering (CRIM) stressed the need to ensure swift mutual recognition, whilst fully respecting the principle of proportionality, of all judicial measures, with particular reference to criminal judgments, confiscation orders and European Arrest Warrants (EAWs);

F.  Whereas concern exists inter alia about:

   (i) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other mutual recognition instruments of an explicit ground for refusal where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State’s obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ("the Charter");
   (ii) the absence of a provision in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other mutual recognition instruments on the right, as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, to an effective remedy which is left to be governed by national law, leading to uncertainty and inconsistent practices between Member States;
   (iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Interpol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of an EAW and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts with the result that persons subject to EAWs are unable to move freely within the area of freedom security and justice without the risk of future arrest and surrender;
   (iv) the lack of precision in the definition of serious crimes list related to the EAW but also to other Union instruments which make constant reference to that list, and the inclusion of crimes the seriousness of which is not envisaged in the criminal codes of all Member States and which may not satisfy the proportionality test;
   (v) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests and unjustified and excessive time spent in pre-trial detention and thus to disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons as well as burdens on the resources of Member States;
   (vi) the lack of a definition of the term ‘judicial authority’ in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other mutual recognition instruments which has led to a variation in practice between Member States causing uncertainty, harm to mutual trust, and litigation;
   (vii) the absence of minimum standards to ensure effective judicial oversight of mutual recognition measures which has led to inconsistent Member State practices in regard to legal safeguards and protections against fundamental rights violations, including on compensation for victims of miscarriages of justice such as mistaken identity, contrary to standards laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in the well-established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ);
   (viii) while recognising the necessity of pre-trial detention under certain criteria, the absence of minimum standards on such detention including regular review, its use as a last resort and consideration of alternatives, coupled with the lack of proper assessment of whether the case is trial-ready, can lead to unjustified and excessive periods of suspects and accused persons in pre-trial detention;
   (ix) the unacceptable conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has on the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned, in particular the right to protection against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment pursuant to Article 3 of the ECHR and on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
   (x) a lack of legal representation being provided for those persons sought under an EAW in the issuing Member State as well as the executing Member State;
   (xi) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of deadlines for the transmission of the translated EAWs, leading to variable practices and uncertainty;
   (xii) the lack of a proper definition of criminal offences to which the test of dual criminality no longer applies;
   (xiii) the failure to use other existing Union judicial cooperation and mutual recognition tools;

1.  Keeping in mind the new legal framework from 2014 under the Lisbon Treaty, considers that this resolution should not deal with problems arising solely from the incorrect implementation of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA since such problems can and should be remedied by correct implementation by Member States and enforced through Commission proceedings;

2.  Calls on Member States to implement in a timely and effective manner the whole body of Union criminal justice measures since they are complementary including the European Investigation Order, the European Supervision Order and procedural rights measures, thereby making available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments whilst also ensuring respect for the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings; calls on the Commission to carefully monitor their correct implementation as well as their impact on the functioning of the EAW and the Union area of criminal justice;

3.  Calls on Member States and their judicial authorities to explore all the existing possibilities within Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (such as Recital 12) to safeguard the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; to exhaust all possible alternative mechanisms before issuing an EAW; and to process the case without undue delay once an EAW has led to an arrest in order to keep pre-trial detention to a minimum;

4.  Points out that full recognition and rapid enforcement of judicial measures are a step towards the establishment of a Union area of criminal justice, and emphasises the EAW’s importance as an effective means of combating serious cross-border crime;

5.  Considers that as the problems highlighted in recital F arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice, the legislative solutions need to address both issues through continued work to establish minimum standards on inter alia the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons and a horizontal measure establishing principles applicable to all mutual recognition instruments, or if such a horizontal measure is not feasible or fails to remedy the problems identified in this resolution, amendments to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA;

6.  Considers that the weaknesses identified not only undermine mutual trust but are also costly in social and economic terms to the individuals concerned, their families and society in general;

7.  Therefore requests the Commission to submit, within a year following the adoption of this resolution, on the basis of Article 82 of the TFEU, legislative proposals following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex hereto and providing for:

   (a) a procedure whereby a mutual recognition measure can, if necessary, be validated in the issuing Member State by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor, in order to overcome the differing interpretations of the term “judicial authority”;
   (b) a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on all the relevant factors and circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence, whether the case is trial-ready, the impact on the rights of the requested person, including the protection of private and family life, the cost implications and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure;
   (c) a standardised consultation procedure whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions such as on the assessment of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness;
   (d) a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU and the Charter, notably Article 52(1) thereof with its reference to the principle of proportionality;
   (e) the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter and Article 13 of the ECHR, such as the right to appeal in the executing Member State against the requested execution of a mutual recognition instrument and the right for the requested person to challenge before a tribunal any failure by the issuing Member State to comply with assurances given to the executing Member State;
   (f) a better definition of the crimes where the EAW should apply in order to facilitate the application of the proportionality test;

8.  Calls for a clear and consistent application by all Member States of Union law regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the EAW; including the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest; and the right to information in criminal proceedings;

9.  Calls on the Commission to request from Member States comprehensive data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism and to include such data in its next implementation report with a view to proposing appropriate action if any problems are found;

10.  Calls for a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; also calls for the withdrawal of EAWs and the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts where the EAW has been refused on mandatory grounds, such as on the ground of ne bis in idem or incompatibility with human rights obligations; calls for provision to be made for SIS II and Interpol alerts to be mandatorily updated with information on the grounds for refusing the execution of the EAW corresponding to the alert and for appropriate updating of Europol files;

11.  While stressing the primary importance of correct procedures including appeal rights, calls for Member States, as either an issuing or executing Member State, to provide for legal mechanisms to compensate damage arising from miscarriages of justice relating to the operation of mutual recognition instruments, in accordance with the standards laid down in the ECHR and in the well-established case-law of the ECJ;

12.  Calls on the Council to include in its revised version of the European Handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant (17195/1/10 REV 1) a six day time limit for the transmission of translated EAWs in order to provide greater clarity and certainty;

13.  Calls on Member States and the Commission to cooperate in strengthening contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers to facilitate effective and well-informed EAW proceedings, and to offer relevant training at national and Union level to judicial and legal practitioners in inter alia languages, the proper use of the EAW and the combined use of the different mutual recognition instruments; calls on the Commission to draft a practical Union handbook designed for defence lawyers acting in EAW proceedings and easily accessible throughout the Union taking into account the existing work of the European Criminal Bar Association on this matter and complemented by national handbooks;

14.  Calls on the Commission to facilitate the setting up of a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters and to provide adequate funding to them as well as to the European Judicial Training Network; believes that the Commission can ensure the appropriate funding via the existing programmes in the Union area of criminal justice;

15.  Calls on the Commission to establish and make easily accessible a Union database collecting all national case-law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings to facilitate the work of practitioners and the monitoring and assessment of implementation and any problems arising;

16.  Highlights the link between detention conditions and EAW measures and reminds Member States that Article 3 of the ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Right (ECtHR) impose on the Member States not only negative obligations, by banning them from subjecting prisoners to inhuman and degrading treatment, but also positive obligations, by requiring them to ensure that prison conditions are consistent with human dignity, and that thorough, effective investigations are carried out if such rights are violated; calls on Member States to take particular account of the rights of vulnerable persons and in general thoroughly examine alternatives to detention;

17.  In order to ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework, calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention;

18.  Confirms that the recommendations respect fundamental rights, the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of proportionality;

19.  Considers that any financial implications of the requested proposals for the budget of the Union should be covered by the existing budgetary allocations; stresses that for both Member States and citizens, the adoption and implementation of those proposals would lead to substantial cost and time savings, and will thus be beneficial both in economic and social terms, as clearly pointed out in the European Added Value Assessment of Union measures concerning the review of the EAW;

20.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying detailed recommendations to the Commission and the Council.

ANNEX TO THE RESOLUTION:

RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO SOME ENVISAGED  LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Validation procedure for Union mutual legal recognition instruments:

–  “Issuing authority” in Union criminal legislation shall be defined as:

(i)  a judge, a court, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor competent in the case concerned; or

(ii)  any other competent authority as defined by the issuing Member State, provided that the act to be executed is validated, after examination of its conformity with the conditions for issuing the instrument, by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor in the issuing Member State.

Proportionality check for the issuing of Union mutual recognition legal instruments:

–  When issuing a decision to be executed in another Member State, the competent authority shall carefully assess the need for the requested measure based on all the relevant factors and circumstances, taking into account the rights of the suspected or accused person and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure to achieve the intended objectives, and shall apply the least intrusive available measure. Where the executing authority has reason to believe that the measure is disproportionate, the executing authority can consult the issuing authority on the importance of executing the mutual recognition decision. After such consultation, the issuing authority may decide to withdraw the mutual recognition decision.

Consultation procedure between the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State to be used for Union mutual recognition legal instruments:

–  Without prejudice to the possibility of the competent executing authority to avail itself of the grounds for refusal, a standardised procedure should be available whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information and consult each other with a view to facilitating the smooth and efficient application of the relevant mutual recognition instruments or the protection of the fundamental rights of the person concerned such as the assessment of proportionality, including, with regard to the EAW in order to ascertain trial-readiness.

Fundamental rights refusal ground to be applied to Union mutual recognition legal instruments:

–  There are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter.

Provision on effective legal remedies applicable to Union mutual recognition instruments:

–  Member States shall ensure in accordance with the Charter, the established case-law of the ECJ and the ECtHR, that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated by a decision, action or omission in the application of an instrument of mutual recognition in criminal matters has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. If such a remedy is exercised in the executing Member State and has suspensive effect, the final decision on such a remedy shall be taken within the time limits set by the applicable mutual recognition instrument or, in the absence of explicit time limits, with sufficient promptness to ensure that the purpose of the mutual recognition process is not jeopardised.

(1) OJ L 262, 7.10.2005, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0444.
(4) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 73.
(5) OJ C 168 E, 14.6.2013, p. 82.
(6) OJ C 102 E, 28.4.2004, p. 154.
(7) OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.


EU-Indonesia voluntary partnership agreement on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products to the EU
PDF 214kWORD 53k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Indonesia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products into the European Union (2013/2990(RSP))
P7_TA(2014)0175B7-0187/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Indonesia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products into the European Union(1),

–  having regard to the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Indonesia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products into the European Union(2),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 207(3), first subparagraph, 207(4), first subparagraph, 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), and 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0344/2013),

–  having regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 of 13 September 2007)(3),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market(4),

–  having regard to the World Bank report of 14 March 2012 entitled Justice for forests: Improving criminal justice efforts to combat illegal logging(5),

–  having regard to the Human Rights Watch report of 16 July 2013 entitled The dark side of green growth: Human rights impacts of weak governance in Indonesia’s forestry sector(6),

–  having regard to the Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Indonesia, of the other part, signed on 9 November 2009,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas on 30 September 2013 the Government of Indonesia and the EU signed a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products into the EU (FLEGT), confirming their mutual commitment to ensuring that timber entering the EU is produced, harvested and shipped legally;

B.  whereas VPAs are designed to eradicate illegal logging, improve forest governance and ultimately lead to the sustainable management of forests, as well as supporting worldwide efforts to stop deforestation and forest degradation;

C.  whereas VPAs are intended to foster systemic changes in the forestry sector, rewarding the efforts of diligent operators who acquire timber from legal and reliable sources and protecting them from unfair competition;

D.  whereas Indonesia is home to the world’s third-largest rainforest area after the Amazon and the Congo Basin, but is also a significant emitter of greenhouse gases, mainly as a result of the large-scale conversion of its rainforests and carbon-rich peatlands to other land uses such as the production of palm oil and paper;

E.  whereas Indonesia lost at least 1 240 000 hectares of forest between 2009 and 2011;

F.  whereas only 10 % – by value – of Indonesian timber and timber product exports are currently destined for the EU, while the bulk of exports are directed towards Asian countries, which makes the VPA an important standard-setter for the entire Indonesian timber industry;

G.  whereas there is a high risk of money laundering and tax evasion in Indonesia’s forestry sector, according to Interpol and a 2012 World Bank study;

H.  whereas, according to Human Rights Watch, corruption, tax evasion and money laundering in the forestry sector cost the country as much as USD 7 billion between 2007 and 2011; whereas the Deputy Chair of Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has described the forestry sector as a ‘source of unlimited corruption’(7); whereas Indonesia has, however, made significant progress in recent years regarding the prosecution of financial crimes, as was proven by the Supreme Court conviction of palm oil producer Asian Agri Group for tax evasion in December 2012;

I.  whereas both parties must agree on the Indonesian Timber Legality Assurance System (TLAS) / Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK) so that Indonesian timber and timber products covered by the VPA can enter the EU market as FLEGT-licensed timber, which is automatically considered legal under the terms of the EU Timber Regulation(8);

J.  whereas the Indonesian SVLK is currently undergoing revision to bring it into compliance with the VPA requirements;

K.  whereas the Commission is empowered under Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005 on the establishment of a FLEGT licensing scheme for imports of timber into the European Community(9) to adopt detailed requirements for the granting of FLEGT licences and to amend the list of partner countries and their designated licensing authorities set out in Annex I to that regulation;

L.  whereas on 6 May 2013 Indonesia’s Constitutional Court ruled that the customary forests of indigenous peoples should not be classed as falling within ‘state forest areas’, thereby paving the way for wider recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in the archipelago;

1.  Commends Indonesia’s enormous voluntary effort to resolve rampant illegal logging and associated trade by developing its SVLK through a multi-stakeholder process, and especially the significant progress achieved in recent months; remains concerned, however, about certain problems; recalls that in order to formally issue FLEGT licences the SVLK must be operational with a view to achieving the goals of the VPA;

2.  Welcomes the outcome of the negotiations on the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Indonesia on forest law enforcement, governance and trade in timber products into the EU; reiterates its support for the conclusion of the VPA and its willingness to support the successful implementation thereof;

3.  Notes that the majority of timber sources in question in the country have not yet been SVLK-certified and that large volumes of unverified timber from forest clearance are entering the supply chain;

4.  Underlines the importance of extending the coverage of the SVLK scheme, including auditing, to cover all timber production areas and every stage of the supply chain, ensuring that verified legal timber is separated from unverified timber so that the latter does not enter SVLK supply chains;

5.  Considers the issue of forest conversion to be an ongoing problem in Indonesia’s land‑use governance system; regrets the fact that at present the SVLK is not auditing the process whereby concessions for forest conversion are granted to undertakings, especially as regards the completion of environmental impact assessments (AMDALs) and compliance with restrictions imposed as part of the process for obtaining a forest conversion permit (IPK);

6.  Notes that the current SVLK leads to timber operations being certified as legal even when land-use rights claims by indigenous peoples and local communities have not been settled and/or proper compensation has not been paid, where appropriate; calls on the Commission to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that traditional community rights to forests, the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities, and compensation for lost access to forest lands, where appropriate, are taken into due account in the verification of legality, and that the verification bodies are given a mandate to assess whether undertakings have respected local land‑use rights and whether land has been legally gazetted;

7.  Encourages the Indonesian Government to ensure that the certification process does not discriminate against small and medium-sized enterprises;

8.  Calls on the Commission to urge the Indonesian Government to give assurances that:

   all timber sources and their complete chains of custody are audited, including verification that timber undertakings had the right to harvest in the first place,
   certified and uncertified timber and timber products are kept separate,
   the conversion of natural forests is kept to a minimum and the legal origin of timber from conversion areas is verified, including the existence of an AMDAL, and/or compliance with its stipulations regulating the use of land under concession;

9.  Calls on the Indonesian Government, with a view to enhancing the country’s credibility in issuing FLEGT licences, to complement the legal verification under the SVLK with decisive action to combat financial crimes linked to the forestry sector, such as money laundering and tax fraud;

10.  Calls on the Indonesian Government to follow up on its recent decision to enforce tax laws, and to require documentation showing that companies exporting timber are in full compliance with Indonesia’s tax statutes and the anti-money laundering statute of 2010;

11.  Welcomes the Indonesian Government’s ‘one map’ initiative to increase public access to up-to-date and transparent data and maps, without which good forest governance in Indonesia is hampered by inconsistent and multiple interpretations of laws, and conflicts with local and indigenous communities; underlines the fact that the independent forest monitors need to have access to such basic information in order to perform their role credibly, and that concession maps, harvesting plans and information on permits should be a matter of public record; calls on the Indonesian Government to accelerate the ‘one map’ initiative and publish a first version of it, including relevant information linked to forest licensing and land-use claims;

12.  Calls on the Commission, through its participation in the Joint Implementation Committee, to ensure that the risk of fraud and corruption is substantially addressed, including through the preparation of a risk-based fraud control plan;

13.  Acknowledges that verification of the legality of timber relies almost entirely on the performance of auditors and independent monitoring; commends the SVLK for its official role in respect of independent monitoring by civil society; notes, however, that the capacity of independent monitoring networks is still severely limited in terms of human and financial resources;

14.  Calls on the Commission to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that auditors and verification bodies, along with the independent forest monitors, receive adequate funding and training so that they can carry out regular field monitoring, spot checks and audits;

15.  Welcomes the efforts made by the Indonesian Government to strengthen the role of the designated forestry police; notes, however, that the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry should further improve its policy for monitoring, cataloguing and following up on cases of illegal logging; stresses the utmost importance of reporting companies found to be operating illegally to the law enforcement authorities;

16.  Calls on the Commission to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that independent monitoring reports signalling infringements of relevant legislation are responded to adequately, and that effective and dissuasive enforcement action is taken by the relevant authorities where infringements of the legislation in question are detected;

17.  Underlines the fact that independent monitoring and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities are critical factors lending credibility to the SVLK; stresses, therefore, that it is important that this commitment continue, that transparency vis-à-vis other civil society stakeholders be enhanced, that independent monitoring by civil society take place without violence, threats or any form of abuse, and that the latter be vigorously prosecuted should they occur;

18.  Calls on the Commission to urge the Indonesian Government to ensure that:

   stakeholder involvement in the implementation and operationalisation of the SVLK is continued and enhanced,
   independent monitoring by civil society takes place without violence, threats or any form of abuse, and that the latter are vigorously prosecuted should they occur,
   free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples and local communities is obtained in all cases, and fair compensation paid, where appropriate, for loss of access to forest lands critical to their livelihoods, as a non-negotiable condition of any FLEGT licence,
   the SLVK audit requirements are not static, but are subject to periodic review by Indonesian stakeholders with a view to their continuous improvement;

19.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the findings of the decision of Indonesia’s Constitutional Court of 6 May 2013 are duly taken into account in the revision of the SVLK;

20.  Calls on the Commission to facilitate the efforts requested from the Indonesian Government and to ensure a regional level playing field by meeting the Indonesian Government’s request to include the region of Sarawak in the negotiations for an EU‑Malaysia VPA;

21.  Is aware that certain requests contained in this resolution go beyond the criteria established in Annex 8 to the VPA regarding the approval of the licensing system; calls on the Commission to ensure that progress is made in meeting these additional requests, which Parliament deems important, and to report back to Parliament on that progress before approving the licensing system;

22.  Calls on the Commission to report regularly to Parliament on the progress made in implementing the VPA, and in particular on how the aforementioned issues have been, and will be, addressed;

23.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Government and Parliament of Indonesia.

(1) Council document 11767/1/2013.
(2) Council document 11769/1/2013.
(3) http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
(4) OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23.
(5) World Bank, Justice for forests: Improving criminal justice efforts to combat illegal logging, 2012, pp. 5-10, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTFINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/Illegal_Logging.pdf
(6) Human Rights Watch, The dark side of green growth: Human rights impacts of weak governance in Indonesia’s forestry sector, 2013, http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/indonesia0713webwcover_1.pdf
(7) Reuters Online News, 17 September 2010, ‘Graft could jeopardise Indonesia’s climate deals’, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/17/indonesia-corruption-idUSSGE68G03P20100917
(8) Regulation (EU) No 995/2010.
(9) OJ L 347, 30.12.2005, p. 1.


Situation in Venezuela
PDF 117kWORD 40k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the situation in Venezuela (2014/2600(RSP))
P7_TA(2014)0176RC-B7-0207/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Venezuela, including those of 24 May 2007 on the Radio Caracas TV channel case in Venezuela(1), 23 October 2008 on political disqualifications in Venezuela(2), 7 May 2009 on the case of Manuel Rosales in Venezuela(3), 11 February 2010 on Venezuela(4), 8 July 2010 on Venezuela, in particular the case of Maria Lourdes Afiuni(5), and 24 May 2012 on the possible withdrawal of Venezuela from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(6),

–  having regard to the statement by the spokesperson for Catherine Ashton, Vice‑President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), of 14 February 2014,

–  having regard to the statement by VP/HR Catherine Ashton of 21 February 2014 on unrest in Venezuela,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Venezuela is a party,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  having regard to the seriousness of the current situation in Venezuela; whereas since 12 February 2014 peaceful marches led by students have taken place across Venezuela and have ended in deadly violence, with at least 13 deaths and more than 70 people being injured and hundreds detained; whereas the students’ demands relate to the failure of President Maduro’s government to solve the problems of high inflation, crime and shortages of some staples, as well as to increasing levels of corruption and the intimidation of the media and the democratic opposition; whereas the government has blamed the shortages on ‘saboteurs’ and ‘profit-hungry corrupt businessmen’; whereas Venezuela is the country with the largest energy reserves in Latin America;

B.  whereas in recent days the number of demonstrations has not diminished, but has in fact risen, leading to an increase in the number of people killed, injured and arrested as a result of the suppression of the protest movement by the state authorities and illegal armed groups;

C.  whereas the political tension and polarisation is increasing in Venezuela; whereas the Venezuelan authorities, instead of contributing to the maintenance of peace and calm, have threatened to conduct an ‘armed revolution’;

D.  having regard to the acts of repression against, in particular, students, journalists, opposition leaders and peaceful civil society activists, who have been persecuted and deprived of their freedom;

E.  whereas violent and uncontrolled armed pro-government groups have been acting with impunity in Venezuela for a long time; whereas the opposition has accused these groups of inciting violence during the peaceful demonstrations, causing deaths and several injuries; whereas the Venezuelan Government has not yet clarified the events;

F.  whereas the media are subject to censorship and intimidation, and scores of journalists have been beaten or detained or have had their professional material destroyed;

G.  whereas freedom of expression and the right to take part in peaceful demonstrations are fundamental to democracy, and whereas equality and justice for all are impossible without fundamental freedoms and respect for the rights of all citizens; whereas the Venezuelan Constitution guarantees the peaceful right of assembly and of association and the right to demonstrate peacefully; whereas the state authorities have a duty to safeguard the fundamental rights of Venezuelan citizens and to guarantee their safety and protect their lives without curtailing those rights;

H.  whereas only respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, constructive and respectful dialogue and tolerance can help Venezuela to find a way out of this serious crisis and thus overcome future difficulties;

1.  Condemns all acts of violence and the tragic loss of life during the peaceful demonstrations of 12 February 2014 and the following days, and expresses its sincere condolences to the families of the victims;

2.  Expresses its strong solidarity with the Venezuelan people and its concern at the possibility that new protests may lead to more acts of violence which would only deepen the gulf between the positions of the government and the opposition and polarise to an even greater degree the sensitive political developments that are taking place in Venezuela; calls on the representatives of all parties and sections of Venezuelan society to remain calm in both actions and words;

3.  Reminds the Venezuelan Government that freedom of expression and the right to participate in peaceful demonstrations are fundamental human rights in a democracy, as recognised in the Venezuelan Constitution, and calls on President Maduro to abide by the international treaties to which Venezuela is a party, in particular the Inter-American Democratic Charter;

4.  Reminds the Venezuelan Government of its obligation to ensure the security of all citizens in the country, regardless of their political views and affiliations; expresses deep concern at the arrests of students and opposition leaders and calls for their immediate release;

5.  Recalls that respect for the principle of separation of powers is fundamental in a democracy and that the justice system cannot be used by the authorities as a means of political persecution and repression of the democratic opposition; calls on the Venezuelan authorities to withdraw the unfounded accusations and arrest warrants against opposition leaders;

6.  Calls on the Venezuelan authorities to immediately disarm and dissolve the uncontrolled armed pro-government groups and to put an end to their impunity; calls for clarification regarding the deaths that have occurred so that the perpetrators are held accountable for their actions;

7.  Encourages all parties, in particular the Venezuelan authorities, to pursue peaceful dialogue, reaching out to all segments of Venezuelan society in order to define points of convergence and to allow political actors to discuss the most serious problems facing the country;

8.  Emphasises that respect for freedom of the press, information and opinion and political pluralism are fundamental to democracy; regrets the existence of media and web censorship and the fact that access to some blogs and social networks is limited; condemns the harassment suffered by a number of newspapers and other audiovisual media outlets, such as the television channel NTN24 and Spanish CNN, and regards these practices as contrary to the Venezuelan Constitution and the undertakings given by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;

9.  Calls for an ad hoc European Parliament delegation to be sent to assess the situation in Venezuela as soon as possible;

10.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice‑President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Government and National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary-General of the Organisation of American States.

(1) OJ C 102 E, 24.4.2008, p. 484.
(2) OJ C 15 E, 21.1.2010, p. 85.
(3) OJ C 212 E, 5.8.2010. p. 113.
(4) OJ C 341 E, 16.12.2010, p. 69.
(5) OJ C 351 E, 2.12.2011, p. 130.
(6) OJ C 264 E, 13.9.2013, p. 88.


Future of EU visa policy
PDF 122kWORD 43k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on the future of EU visa policy (2014/2586(RSP))
P7_TA(2014)0177B7-0194/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 77 thereof,

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Implementation and development of the common visa policy to spur growth in the EU’ (COM(2012)0649),

–  having regard to the Commission report on the functioning of Local Schengen Cooperation during the first two years of implementation of the Visa Code (COM(2012)0648),

–  having regard to the Commission’s Seventh report on certain third countries’ maintenance of visa requirements in breach of the principle of reciprocity (COM(2012)0681),

–  having regard to the recent revisions(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement(2),

–  having regard to the recent visa facilitation agreements with Georgia(3), Ukraine(4), Moldova(5), Cape Verde(6), Armenia(7) and Azerbaijan(8),

–  having regard to the question to the Commission on the future of EU visa policy (O‑000028/2014 – B7‑0108/2014),

–  having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the common visa policy constitutes a necessary corollary to the lifting of internal border controls within the Schengen area;

B.  whereas the main elements of the common visa policy are: the common lists of countries whose citizens are subject to the visa requirement and those whose citizens are exempt from it, as annexed to Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, the common rules on the issuing of visas as contained in the Visa Code, the uniform format for visas, the exchange of information through the Visa Information System, and a series of international agreements with third countries on visa exemption and facilitation;

C.  whereas the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the use of the ordinary legislative procedure for all aspects of the common visa policy, and for Parliament’s consent for all international agreements on the matter;

D.  whereas it is important to initiate reflection and interinstitutional discussion on the future of the common EU visa policy, in particular regarding steps towards further harmonisation of visa procedures, including common rules on the issuing of visas;

General visa policy and review of the Visa Code

1.  Welcomes the progress made in the field of the visa acquis, but also calls on the Commission and Member States to improve the implementation of the current visa acquis; calls, especially, for enhanced local Schengen cooperation in order to improve the implementation of the Visa Code in the short term;

2.  Believes that in the future steps should be taken towards further harmonisation of visa procedures, including truly common rules on the issuing of visas;

3.  Considers that in many third countries the current consular coverage is clearly not satisfactory;

4.  Considers that common visa application centres have proven to be a useful tool which could in the future become standard;

5.  Regrets the fact that the Commission has not presented a study on the possibility of establishing ‘a common European issuing mechanism for short term visas’, including an examination of ‘to what degree an assessment of individual risk could supplement the presumption of risk associated with the applicant’s nationality’, as it was invited to do in the Stockholm Programme (point 5.2);

6.  Considers that travel by bona fide and frequent travellers should be further facilitated, in particular through more frequent use of multiple-entry visas with a longer duration;

7.  Calls on the Member States to make use of the current provisions of the Visa Code and the Schengen Borders Code allowing the issuing of humanitarian visas, and to facilitate the provision of temporary shelter for human rights defenders at risk in third countries;

8.  Looks forward to the expected proposal for a review of the Visa Code, but deplores the fact that its adoption has been repeatedly postponed by the Commission;

9.  Regrets the fact that the overall evaluation of the Visa Code has still not been presented by the Commission; deplores the Commission’s intention to present this evaluation together with the proposal for a review of the Visa Code; considers that it would be more appropriate if the Commission presented the evaluation report first and thus allowed the institutions to have a discussion based on it;

Visa facilitation

10.  Calls for the conclusion of further visa facilitation agreements, where appropriate, and for the monitoring and improvement of those already in existence;

11.  Calls for a systematic evaluation of existing visa facilitation agreements in order to assess whether they achieve their intended objective;

Regulation (EC) No 539/2001

12.  Welcomes the recent updates of the lists of third countries whose nationals are or are not subject to a visa requirement, as contained in Regulation (EC) No 539/2001, and in particular the additional exemptions from the visa requirement; recalls the importance of visa-free travel for third countries and in particular their civil societies, but also for the EU’s own interests;

13.  In this context, is of the opinion that a visa-free agreement between the EU and Ukraine is a way to respond to the calls of Ukrainian civil society and the students who demonstrated over the last few days; points out that such an agreement would step up exchanges and people-to-people contacts between the civil societies, thus increasing mutual understanding, and would benefit economic exchanges; calls on the Commission to present a proposal in order to put Ukraine on the list of third countries whose nationals are not subject to a visa requirement; also calls on the Member States to fully implement the current visa facilitation agreement in order to facilitate access to the EU, in particular for students and scientists;

14.  Welcomes the updating of the visa exemption criteria to include considerations of fundamental rights but also economic benefits, in particular in terms of tourism and foreign trade, and their inclusion in an article of the regulation;

15.  Stresses that further visa liberalisation requires more knowledge about the application of the current visa waivers, including through the EU Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (EU-ESTA); calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that Parliament is more fully informed regarding the situation of third countries under discussion, so as to allow proper democratic scrutiny;

16.  Invites the Commission to reflect on how, in the future, changes to the annexes to the regulation and bilateral visa waiver agreements, where considered necessary, could be ensured in parallel, so as to avoid the risk that a modification of the annexes is not followed immediately by the necessary visa waiver agreement;

17.  Takes note of the agreement on the suspension mechanism; expects the Member States to trigger this mechanism in good faith and only as a last resort in an emergency situation, where an urgent response is needed in order to resolve the difficulties faced by the Union as a whole, and when the relevant criteria are fulfilled;

18.  Considers that full visa reciprocity is an objective which the Union should pursue in a proactive manner in its relations with third countries, thus helping to improve the credibility and consistency of the Union’s external policy at international level;

19.  Calls for a debate on the link between further visa liberalisation and the calls being made by certain Member States for increased security measures and stricter border controls for travellers exempt from the visa requirement;

Visa Information System (VIS)

20.  Calls on eu-LISA to present the expected VIS evaluation report as soon as possible;

Involvement of the European Parliament

21.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to improve the flow of information to Parliament as regards negotiations for international agreements in the visa field, in accordance with Article 218(10) TFEU and the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission;

22.  Announces its intention to set up a contact group on visa policy within the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs; invites the Council Presidency and the Member States, along with the Commission, to participate in the meetings of this contact group;

o
o   o

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

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1091/2010 (OJ L 329, 14.12.2010, p. 1); Regulation (EU) No 1211/2010 (OJ L 339, 22.12.2010, p. 6); Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 74); COM(2012)0650; COM(2013)0853.
(2) OJ L 81, 21.3.2001, p. 1.
(3) Council Decision 2011/117/EU (OJ L 52, 25.2.2011, p. 33).
(4) Council Decision 2013/297/EU (OJ L 168, 20.6.2013, p. 10).
(5) Council Decision 2013/296/EU (OJ L 168, 20.6.2013, p. 1).
(6) Council Decision 2013/521/EU (OJ L 282, 24.10.2013, p. 1).
(7) Council Decision 2013/628/EU (OJ L 289, 31.10.2013, p. 1).
(8) COM(2013)0742.


Specific actions in the Common Fisheries Policy for developing the role of women
PDF 151kWORD 58k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on specific actions in the Common Fisheries Policy for developing the role of women (2013/2150(INI))
P7_TA(2014)0178A7-0070/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the legislation applicable to the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), in particular Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 laying down the rules and agreements in relation to Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector,

–  having regard to Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC(1),

–  having regard to its position of 6 February 2013 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy(2),

–  having regard to its position of 12 September 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products(3),

–  having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission and the positions adopted by Parliament and the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (COM(2011)0804),

–  having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission and the positions adopted by Parliament and the Council on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for the participation and dissemination in Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) (COM(2011)0810),

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015 (COM(2010)0491),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2005 on women’s networks: fishing, farming and diversification(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on the external dimension of the common fisheries policy(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2012 on ‘The reform of the common fisheries policy – Overarching Communication’(7),

–  having regard to the hearing on women and the sustainable development of fisheries areas held by the Committee on Fisheries on 1 December 2010,

–  having regard to the hearing on developing the role of women in European fisheries and aquaculture held in the European Parliament by the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality on 14 October 2013,

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality under Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0070/2014),

A.  whereas the work carried out by women in fisheries and aquaculture is not recognised and generally remains invisible, even though it represents considerable economic added value and contributes to the social, economic and environmental sustainability of a large number of communities and regions in Europe, particularly in areas that depend on fishing;

B.  whereas more than 100 000 women work in the fisheries sector in the Member States, 4 % of them in the extractive sector and with jobs linked to the activities of fishing boats, as net-makers, port workers or packers, 30 % in aquaculture, chiefly shellfish gathering on foot, and around 60 % in the processing industry;

C.  whereas the work traditionally carried out by women in the fisheries and aquaculture sector is arduous: shellfish gathering on foot, traditional selling of fish in the form of mobile sales, on stalls or in shops, the manufacture and repair of fishing nets (net-makers), unloading and classification of the catch, and packaging work in particularly harsh climate conditions;

D.  whereas the statistics grossly underestimate the reality of female work in some of these sectors, and the widespread economic crisis and high unemployment in some Member States has helped to further increase these figures and has led to a growing number of women engaging in activities in the fishing sector, particularly land-based shellfish gathering, as a means of complementing or even ensuring their family income;

E.  recognising women’s contribution in activities related to fisheries and aquaculture, in particular those connected with making and mending fishing nets, unloading and classifying the catch, managing on-board supplies, fish processing, packaging and marketing and the management of fishing businesses;

F.  whereas in paragraph 30 of its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy, Parliament called on the Member States to take account of the importance of the economic, social and cultural roles of women in the fishing industry, so that women can have access to social benefits, and emphasised that the active participation of women in fishing-related activities helps preserve and ensure, firstly the survival of the fishing sector, and secondly that of traditions and specific practices, and also helps safeguard the cultural diversity of the different regions;

G.  whereas in its position of 12 September 2012 Parliament called for action to be taken to foster women’s participation in producer organisations in the fisheries and aquaculture sector;

H.  whereas in paragraph 31 of its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy Parliament called for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) to provide funding to foster women’s participation in the fisheries sector, support women’s associations, promote vocational training and enhance women’s role in fishing, by granting support for both activities carried out on land and those associated with fishing, both upstream and downstream;

I.  whereas in paragraph 39 of its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to take steps to ensure that women benefit from equal pay and other labour, social and economic rights, including insurance covering the risks and measures for applying early retirement weightings to compensate for the arduous nature of the work (night working, danger, working hours decided by the pace of production and fishing opportunities) to which they are exposed by working in the fisheries sector, as well as recognition of their specific disorders as occupational diseases;

J.  whereas statistical data on the labour force, and in particular on gender distribution in certain activities and on artisanal or small-scale fishing, extensive aquaculture and related activities, are given low priority by comparison with data on catches, landings, tonnage, etc;

K.  whereas the statistical data for the EU and the Member States concerning the workforce in the fisheries, aquaculture and related sectors are not complete, harmonised or broken down into indicators that would make it possible to estimate women’s contribution in these sectors;

L.  whereas, in spite of the work carried out by women in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and their key economic contribution, women do not benefit from proper social and labour protection or appropriate professional and labour status;

M.  whereas women suffer economic discrimination in the fisheries sector and are paid less than men for the same work;

N.  whereas in many cases women’s work in the fisheries sector has no legal recognition and no access to social protection to match the specific risks and health effects linked to these activities;

O.  whereas in paragraph 42 of its resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States to take steps to achieve greater recognition, both legal and social, for the work of women in the fisheries sector, and to ensure that women who work full- or part-time for family undertakings or assist their spouses, thereby contributing to their own economic sustainability and that of their families, are given legal recognition or social benefits equivalent to those enjoyed by people with self-employed status, in particular by applying Directive 2010/41/EU, and that their social and economic rights are guaranteed, including equal wages, unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs (temporarily or permanently), the right to a pension, work-life balance, access to maternity leave, access to social security and free health care, workplace health and safety, and insurance covering risks at sea;

P.  whereas in its resolution of 12 September 2012 Parliament referred to the need to give greater legal and social recognition and recompense to women’s role in the fisheries sector, to give women rights equal to those of men, and to give the spouses and life partners of fishermen supporting the family undertaking a legal status and social benefits equivalent to those enjoyed by people with self-employed status;

1.  Urges the Commission to launch a specific statistical programme for regions that depend on fishing, paying particular attention to artisanal and coastal fishing, traditional fishing methods and specific marketing channels, and to the work and social and labour conditions of women shellfish gatherers, net-makers and artisanal workers in fisheries and related activities, with the aim of assessing the specific needs associated with women’s activity and enhancing the social recognition given to these extremely arduous occupations;

2.  Considers it necessary to improve the collection and analysis of statistical data on employment in the fisheries sector, broken down by gender, type of activity and type of employment (self-employed, employed, part-time, full-time, occasional), so as to make it possible to arrive at an estimate of women’s contribution in the fisheries and aquaculture sector;

3.  Urges the Commission to ensure that the collection of gender-disaggregated data also covers the catch sector and that new indicators are introduced, such as age, education and training levels, and activity of spouse or partner;

4.  Considers it necessary to establish clear definitions regarding the statistical indicators used for the collection of workforce employment data in fisheries, aquaculture and related sectors; also considers it necessary to draw up a harmonised set of statistical indicators at EU level, and calls on the Member States to provide, in due time, full data in accordance with those indicators;

5.  Urges the Commission and Council to grant legal and social recognition to the role played by women in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and in the sustainable development of areas that depend on fishing, with the aim of removing all economic, administrative and social barriers that stand in the way of their participation on equal terms;

6.  Urges the Commission and Council to encourage the Member States to regulate and recognise as occupational diseases injuries to joints, back injuries and rheumatic diseases caused by the harsh weather conditions in which women shellfish gatherers, net-makers, processing workers, fishers and sellers have to work, as well as injuries caused by lifting excessive weights;

7.  Urges the Commission to recognise that the work carried out by women helps to improve the traceability of fishery products, which in turn contributes to consumer knowledge and ensures higher standards of quality and safety of fishery and aquaculture products, thus increasing the economic, gastronomic and tourist opportunities available to fishing areas;

8.  Calls for the creation (under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and/or other instruments) of specific support mechanisms that can be activated in emergencies (natural disasters), as well as of financial compensation mechanisms to assist fishermen, fisherwomen and their families during temporary fishing bans, especially in areas where fishing is the sole source of earnings;

9.  Considers it necessary to foster and provide financial support for the establishment of women’s associations through national and European women’s networks, in order to increase the visibility of women in the fishing sector, create social awareness of women’s contribution to fishing activity, facilitate the exchange of experience, and communicate women’s needs and demands, from local government level up to European bodies;

10.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to facilitate access to funding for women’s organisations in fisheries, aquaculture and related sectors, enabling them to implement their initiatives, consolidate their organisations and contact other women’s organisations for exchanges of experience and good practice;

11.  Considers it necessary to promote and strengthen women’s effective participation in consultative bodies, advisory councils and decision-making, representative, regional and professional bodies, guaranteeing their participation in decision-making in both public and private sectors on equal terms with men;

The European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 2013-2020

12.  Notes that only one Member State has made use of the opportunities offered by axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund to finance projects whose beneficiaries are women, and urges the Member States to seize the opportunities offered by the EMFF in order to:

   apply the principle of equal opportunities, both when drawing up and when developing or implementing operational programmes;
   make the fisheries sector more women-friendly by redesigning the sector and providing suitable facilities (such as changing-rooms on vessels and in ports);
   support associations of women and their organisation in networks (e.g. net-makers, port workers, packers);
   support projects to mitigate the problems arising from the working conditions of women harvesting shellfish on foot, including measures to balance work and family life;
   support projects to promote, diversify and raise the profile of the role played by women in fisheries and aquaculture;
   offer women and girls easier access to training by financing specific training and vocational education and professional recognition of their activity; Member States should, for this purpose, launch processes for obtaining officially recognised skills certificates and set up training centres for the professional activities traditionally carried out by women in the various communities;
   offer girls improved employment opportunities and support continuity between generations, in particular by developing activities that are sustainable for the marine environment;
   boost vocational training, in particular for women working in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, with a view to increasing their opportunities for accessing management posts and skilled technical and managerial jobs related to fisheries, on the basis of equal pay;
   enhancing women’s role in fishing, in particular by granting support for activities carried out on land and activities associated with fishing, both in production and in processing, marketing and sales;
   promote business initiatives launched by women, including, where appropriate, the economic diversification of certain activities related to the fisheries sector, among them activities such as museology, cultural traditions, crafts, gastronomy and the restaurant industry;
   promote business initiatives in areas of activity unrelated to fishing in coastal areas where jobs have been lost as a result of implementation of the fisheries reform;

13.  Urges the Member States to facilitate soft loan channels that will make it possible to avoid the specific difficulties faced by women in relation to financing projects eligible for inclusion in national programmes under the EMFF;

14.  Calls on the Member States to support women’s business initiatives by facilitating a favourable microcredit system and providing adequate information regarding funding opportunities;

15.  Urges the Member States to take measures to develop and modernise local infrastructure, diversify economic activities and improve the quality of life in fisheries areas, particularly areas entirely dependent on fishing, so as to ensure their sustainable development, while combating poverty in general, and particularly where it affects women and children, and seeking to prevent violence against women and domestic violence;

16.  Reiterates the positions taken in the context of the procedure relating to Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020), as regards boosting women’s participation in all areas of research, projects and scientific disciplines, in particular the participation of women who dedicate their working life to research into the marine environment;

17.  Calls on the Member States to:

   grant legal recognition to the work carried out by women who make an economic contribution to the family or who contribute through their work, even where they are not paid;
   guarantee support for women, granting them unemployment benefits where they are forced to stop working (temporarily or permanently), the right to a pension, work-life balance, access to maternity leave (whatever their marital or civil union status within the couple), access to social security and free healthcare, and protection against risks arising from their work in the maritime and fisheries sector;

18.  Notes that in paragraph 28 of its resolution of 22 November 2012 on the external dimension of the common fisheries policy Parliament calls for the EU, through the WTO, to work towards penalising countries that discriminate against women, and that in paragraph 45 of the same resolution it urges the Commission, during the negotiations on fisheries agreements, to ensure that the coastal state dedicates a substantial part of the sectoral support for development to the recognition, promotion and diversification of women’s role in the fisheries sector, ensuring the application of the principle of equal treatment and opportunities for women and men, with regard in particular to training and access to funding and loans;

19.  Urges the Commission to ensure that the European gender dimension is embodied and guaranteed in economic partnership agreements involving the fisheries sector;

Basic regulation on the common fisheries policy

20.  Urges the Member States to ensure compliance with the objectives of the new common fisheries policy in relation to access to fishery resources based on transparent environmental, social and economic criteria, incorporating the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunities for women and men;

21.  Urges the Member States to recognise the occupational status of women in the event of temporary cessations of activity, including biological rest periods;

22.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure compliance with Directive 2010/41/EU, so that women working full- or part-time in family businesses in the fisheries sector or supporting their spouses or partners, thereby contributing to their own economic sustainability and that of their families, as well as women who make their livelihood from such activity without belonging to a family unit, are given legal recognition and social benefits equivalent to those enjoyed by people with self-employed status;

o
o   o

23.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 180, 15.7.2010, p. 1.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2013)0040.
(3) OJ C 353 E, 3.12.2013, p. 212.
(4) OJ C 286 E, 23.11.2006, p. 519.
(5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0460.
(6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0461.
(7) OJ C 353 E, 3.12.2013, p. 104.


Private copying levies
PDF 137kWORD 52k
European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 on private copying levies (2013/2114(INI))
P7_TA(2014)0179A7-0114/2014

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society(1),

–  having regard to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market (COM(2012)0372), and to the accompanying impact assessment,

–  having regard to Articles 4, 6, 114 and 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly of 21 October 2010 in Case C‑467/08, Padawan v SGAE [2010] ECR I-10055, of 16 June 2011 in Case C-462/09, Stichting de Thuiskopie v Opus Supplies Deutschland GmbH and others [2011] ECR I-05331, of 9 February 2010 in Case C-277/10, Martin Luksan v Petrus van der Let (not yet reported), of 27 June 2013 in Joined Cases C-457/11 to C‑460/11, VG Wort v Kyocera Mita and others (not yet reported), and of 11 July 2013 in Case C-521/11, Austro Mechana v Amazon (not yet reported),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 May 2011 entitled ‘A Single Market for Intellectual Property Rights: Boosting creativity and innovation to provide economic growth, high quality jobs and first class products and services in Europe’ (COM(2011)0287),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 December 2012 ‘On Content in the Digital Single Market’ (COM(2012)0789),

–  having regard to António Vitorino’s recommendations of 31 January 2013 resulting from the mediation process on private copying and reprography levies,

–  having regard to the Committee on Legal Affairs working document entitled ‘Copyright in the music and audiovisual sectors’, approved on 29 June 2011,

–  having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0114/2014),

A.  whereas culture and artistic creation form the bedrock of the European identity past and present, and will play a vital role in the economic and social development of the European Union in the future;

B.  whereas culture and artistic creation are integral to the digital economy, whereas expression of both high-end and mundane cultural content relies on equal access to Europe’s digital growth, and whereas it has emerged from consultations that the European digital market has still not delivered on the promises of effective distribution, fair remuneration for creators and fair and effective distribution of income within the cultural sector in general, and that EU-level action is needed to resolve these problems;

C.  whereas digitisation is having a huge impact on the way in which cultural identities are expressed, distributed and developed, and whereas lower barriers to participation and the emergence of new distribution channels are facilitating access to creative works and culture, improving the circulation, discovery and rediscovery of culture and artistic creation around the world and providing opportunities for creators and artists; whereas the market opportunities for new services and businesses have increased enormously as a result;

D.  whereas authors’ claim to protection of their creative work, and their right to equitable remuneration for that work, must also exist in the digital age;

E.  whereas digital private copying has taken on major economic importance as a result of technological progress and the shift to the internet and cloud computing, and whereas the existing system of private copying levies does not take sufficient account of developments in the digital age; whereas there is currently no alternative approach in this area that would ensure appropriate remuneration for the rightholder and at the same time make private copying possible; whereas a discussion nevertheless needs to be conducted with a view to updating the private copying mechanism, making it more efficient and taking greater account of technological progress;

F.  whereas the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market, which was adopted by Parliament and the Council on 4 February 2014, reinforces the fact that the management of copyright requires particular emphasis on the transparency of the flows of remuneration collected, distributed and paid to rightholders by collecting societies, including for private copying;

G.  whereas under Directive 2001/29/EC Member States may provide for an exception to, or limitation on, the reproduction right for certain types of reproduction of audio, visual and audio‑visual material for private use, accompanied by fair remuneration, and may allow consumers in countries having introduced such a limitation to copy their music and audio‑visual collections from one medium or type of multimedia material to another freely and as frequently as they wish, without seeking authorisation from the rightholders, provided that this is for their private use; whereas any levies should be calculated on the basis of the possible harm to the rightholders resulting from the private copying act in question;

H.  whereas the sum total of private copying levies collected in 23 of the 28 Member States has more than tripled since Directive 2001/29/EC came into force and, according to the Commission’s estimates, now stands at over EUR 600 million, and whereas this represents a considerable amount for the artists;

I.  whereas these levies only constitute a minute proportion of the turnover – estimated to total more than EUR 1 000 billion – of manufacturers and importers of traditional and digital recording media and material;

J.  whereas many mobile terminals allow copying for private purposes in theory but are in fact not used for this purpose; calls, consequently, for long-term discussions to be conducted with a view to developing a more efficient and up-to-date approach that may not necessarily be based on a flat-rate levy on equipment;

K.  whereas when the prices at which material sells in a country that charges the levy are compared with those in one that does not, it becomes clear that the private copying levy has no appreciable impact on product prices;

L.  whereas manufacturers and importers of traditional and digital recording media and material have brought numerous legal actions since the entry into force of Directive 2001/29/EC, at both national and European level;

M.  whereas Directive 2001/29/EC and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union do not require Member States to see that rightholders receive direct payment of the full levy collected for private copying, and whereas the Member States have broad powers of discretion to establish that part of this remuneration should be paid indirectly;

N.  whereas the private copying levy is paid by consumers when purchasing recording or storage media or services, and whereas they are therefore entitled to know of its existence and amount; whereas the amount of the private copying levy should reflect the actual use of such equipment and services for the purpose of private copying of audio, visual and audio-visual material;

O.  whereas media and material prices do not vary according to the different rates of private copying levy applied across the Union, and whereas the abolition of private copying levies in Spain in 2012 has had no impact on media and material prices;

P.  whereas disparities exist between the various models and collection rates for private copying levies, including as regards their impact on consumers and the single market; whereas a European framework needs to be laid down in order to afford a high degree of transparency for rightholders, manufacturers and importers of equipment, consumers and service providers across the Union and whereas, to preserve the underlying stability of the system in the digital age in these days of the single market, the royalty arrangements in many Member States should be modernised and a European framework created in order to guarantee the application of equivalent conditions to rightholders, consumers, manufacturers and importers of equipment and service providers across the Union;

Q.  whereas the exemption and reimbursement arrangements for professional uses which have been introduced in the Member States have to be effective; whereas in some Member States these arrangements are necessary and whereas the judicial decisions adopted in some Member States have not always been applied;

R.  whereas in the case of online works, in terms of both access and sales, licence‑granting practices are complementary to the system of private copying levies;

S.  whereas in the digital field in particular, the classic copying process is being replaced by streaming systems in which no copy of the copyrighted works is placed on the user’s terminal, and whereas preference should therefore be given to licensing models in these cases;

A virtuous system in need of modernisation and harmonisation

1.  Points out that the cultural sector provides 5 million jobs in the EU and 2,6 % of its GDP, is one of the main drivers of growth in Europe and a wellspring of new and non‑relocatable jobs, stimulates innovation and offers an effective means of combating the current recession;

2.  Recalls that copyright law should balance the interests of, inter alia, creators and consumers; considers, in this connection, that all European consumers should have the right to make private copies of legally acquired content;

3.  Calls on the Commission, therefore, to present a legislative proposal to review Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, including a provision on the full harmonisation of exceptions and limitations, inter alia with regard to private copying;

4.  Emphasises that the current fragmented copyright regime needs to be reformed in order to facilitate access to, and increase (global) circulation of, cultural and creative content, in such a way as to enable artists, creators, consumers, businesses and audiences to benefit from digital developments, new distribution channels, new business models and other opportunities, especially in times of budget austerity;

5.  Notes that private copying levies currently constitute a source of income which is of varying importance for different categories of rightholder, and that its importance varies significantly between Member States;

6.  Believes that the private copying system is a virtuous system that balances the exception for copying for private use with the right to fair remuneration for rightholders, and that it is worth preserving, especially in cases where rightholders are not in a position to license directly the right of reproduction on multiple devices; considers that there is no alternative to this balanced system in the short term; stresses, however, that discussions need to be held in the long term with a view to continually assessing the private copying system in the light of digital and market developments and consumer behaviour and, if possible, exploring potential alternatives that would fulfil the objective of striking a balance between the exception for copying by consumers and the compensation of creators;

7.  Emphasises that the major disparities between national systems for the collection of levies, especially as regards the types of product subject to the levy and the rates of levy, can distort competition and give rise to ‘forum shopping’ within the internal market;

8.  Invites the Member States and the Commission to conduct a study on the essential elements of private copying, in particular a common definition, the concept of ‘fair compensation’ – which at present is not explicitly regulated by Directive 2001/29/EC – and the concept of ‘harm’ to an author resulting from unauthorised reproduction of a rightholder’s work for private use; calls on the Commission to look for common ground as regards which products should be subject to the levy and to establish common criteria for the negotiating arrangement for the rates applicable to private copying, with a view to enforcing a system that is transparent, equitable and uniform for consumers and creators;

Single collection procedure, clearer consumer information and more efficient reimbursement procedures

9.   Considers that the private copying levy should apply to all material and media used for private recording and storage capacity where private copying acts cause harm to creators;

10.  Stresses that the concept of private copies should be clearly defined for all materials and that the user should be able to access copyright content on all media on the basis of a single payment; calls for arrangements already in force in Member States, such as exceptions and levy exemptions, to be respected and for it to be possible for them to apply in parallel on the market;

11.  Considers that private copying levies should be payable by manufacturers or importers; notes that if the levy were transferred to retailers, this would result in an excessive administrative burden for small and medium-sized distribution companies and collective rights management organisations;

12.  Recommends, in the case of cross-border transactions, that private copying levies be collected in the Member State in which the end user having purchased the product resides, in line with the judgment in Case C-462/09 (Opus), cited above;

13.  Takes the view, therefore, that in order to preclude any double payment in the event of cross-border transactions, private copying levies for the same product should only be able to be collected once by a collective management organisation of a Member State, and that levies unduly paid in a Member State other than that of the end user should be reimbursed;

14.  Takes the view that Member States in which levies are currently charged or collected should simplify and harmonise their levy rates;

15.  Calls on the Member States, in consultation with all stakeholders, to simplify procedures for setting the levies in such a way as to ensure fairness and objectivity;

16.  Stresses the need to make clear to consumers the role of the private copying system with regard to remuneration of artists and cultural dissemination; urges the Member States and rightholders to launch ‘positive’ campaigns highlighting the benefits of private copying levies;

17.  Takes the view that consumers must be informed of the amount, purpose and use of the levy they pay; urges the Commission and the Member States, therefore, in consultation with manufacturers, importers, retailers and consumer associations, to ensure that this information is clearly available to consumers;

18.  Urges the Member States to adopt transparent exemption rules for professional uses in order to ensure that they are exempt, including in practice, from private copy levies in compliance with the case law of the Court of Justice;

19.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that private copy levies never have to be paid where the media in question are used for professional purposes, and that various arrangements for the reimbursement of levies paid for professional users are replaced with systems which guarantee that these users are not liable to pay the levy in the first place;

Transparency regarding allocation of revenue

20.  Welcomes the directive on collective management of copyright and related rights recently adopted by Parliament and the Council which calls for greater transparency with regard to the flow of remuneration collected, allocated and paid to rightholders by collective management organisations, for example through the publication of an annual transparency report including a special section on the use of amounts deducted for social and cultural purposes;

21.  Urges the Member States to ensure greater transparency regarding the allocation of proceeds from private copying levies;

22.  Calls on the Member States to earmark at least 25 % of revenue from private copying levies to promote the creative and performance arts and their production;

23.  Calls on the Member States to publish reports on the allocation of proceeds in open source format with interpretable data;

24.  Urges the organisers of cultural events and performances receiving funding from private copying levies to make their target audience more aware of this by means of additional publicity;

Technical protection measures

25.  Points out that the private copying exemption gives citizens the right to copy freely their musical and audio-visual material from one medium or type of multimedia material to another without the need to seek the authorisation of rightholders, provided that this is for private use;

26.  Stresses that, particularly in the digital age, it is necessary to authorise the deployment of technical protection measures in order to restore the balance between freedom to make copies for private use and exclusive copying rights;

27.  Stresses that technical protection measures should not prevent consumers from making copies or rightholders from being fairly remunerated for private copying;

Licences

28.  Observes that, despite some streaming access to works, downloading, storage and private copying continue; takes the view that a private copying levy system is therefore still relevant in the online environment; stresses, however, that preference should always be given to licensing models benefiting all rightholders if no copies of the copyright work are permitted on media and devices;

29.  Stresses that private copying exception arrangements should apply to certain online services, including certain cloud computing services;

New business models in the digital environment

30.  Calls on the Commission to assess the impact on the private copying system of the use of cloud computing technology for the private recording and storage of protected works, so as to determine whether these private copies of protected works should be taken into account by the private copying compensation mechanisms and, if so, how this should be done;

o
o   o

31.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10.

Legal notice - Privacy policy