Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad:

- pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Rady przez Pavla Svobodę w imieniu Komisji Prawnej i Cecilię Wikström w imieniu Komisji Petycji w sprawie transgranicznej ochrony dobra dziecka w Europie (000027/2016 – B8-0359/2016) (2016/2665(RSP)).

- pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Komisji przez Pavla Svobodę w imieniu Komisji Prawnej i Cecilię Wikström w imieniu Komisji Petycji w sprawie transgranicznej ochrony dobra dziecka w Europie (000028/2016 – B8-0360/2016) (2016/2665(RSP)).

  Pavel Svoboda, author. – Mr President, the Brussels IIa Regulation has undoubtedly been a successful Union instrument that has benefited EU citizens through the creation of a wide—ranging scheme of jurisdictional recognition and enforcement rules in matrimonial and parental responsibility cases.

That being said, we are all aware of its shortcomings when it comes to child abduction cases. In this respect it appears that the regulation has been overtaken by events – that is to say, the growing number of transnational family dissolution proceedings, which has been aggravated by the increasing divergences between the legal rules applicable to family dissolutions.

On top of this, family law, which is a competence of the Member States, has been fragmented into different types of family models: marriage; registered partnership; simple cohabitation. As a result, it appears that society has moved on, and that the regulation has been left behind. Members of the European Parliament are confronted with the shortcomings of Brussels IIa on a regular basis, not only in the Committee on Petitions, but also in correspondence and contacts with citizens who are at the end of their tether.

We are all aware that the law is a blunt instrument when it comes to family questions, that judges and lawyers are not necessarily the persons best equipped to deal with such questions and that the courts are not necessarily the best or most cost—effective forum. We need to reflect on this and try to identify ways to help our citizens in these painful moments of their lives, while safeguarding and promoting the best interests of the child.

The continuing success of the regulation will depend on its successful and targeted revision. Now that the main areas of complexity and malfunction have been identified, it is a high time that appropriate action is taken to tackle the last remaining insufficiencies.

  Cecilia Wikström, author. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleagues, both in my committee, the Committee on Petitions, and in the Committee on Legal Affairs, for their cooperation on this issue. It is our aim in my committee to improve our cooperation with the legislative committees to ensure that the citizens’ concerns and experiences are better taken into consideration in the legislative process. In addition to the testimonies of the direct experiences and problems related to EU law, the petitions that we receive also have an important role in helping to identify problems with the national implementation of EU law in the Member States. This is important when we discuss how best to protect the best interest of children across borders in Europe.

In connection with the upcoming review of the Brussels IIA Regulation and also in light of the increasing number of petitions addressed to Parliament, I am happy that this debate is taking place here tonight. It is an issue of great importance because our committee has received a large number of petitions related to children’s welfare issues and their treatment by either judicial or administrative bodies in the Member States. This is definitely a testimony for more cooperation in family matters with trans—border aspects. There is not only an urgent need to review the legal instruments, but also to try to find a way to avoid the harmful situations described in the petitions that we have received.

We have ensured freedom of movement, but it is also our duty to take into deep consideration the consequences that citizens from different nationalities meet and decide to build a family, but as we know, couples can face problems and finally separate. That is why we must make all possible efforts to put instruments in place to handle the situation in the best way possible and, above all, with the best interests of the child as the paramount objective in all decisions. These two oral questions tonight have been raised in order to draw attention to the concrete problems that citizens are facing.

Finally, on a more personal note, I am happy to see that my dear colleague, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, is here representing the Council tonight. I am sure that you will provide us, as always, with clear and fruitful answers to the question raised, and the same goes, of course, for Commissioner Věra Jourová. Thank you very much for your deep consideration on these important matters.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, honourable Members, many thanks to Cecilia Wikström for the very kind words. I would like to recall the importance the Presidency attaches to the work on civil law, in particular on family matters and e-Justice solutions, and I take this opportunity to thank the Chairs of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Petitions, Svoboda Pavel, and of course my former colleague Cecilia Wikström. I thank them for coming with these questions and ideas to complement the EU message already in place to protect the best interests of the child in cross-border situations.

On adoption: as you know the issue of adoption of children is a matter which is not regulated at EU level but by national laws and by some international conventions, particularly the Hague Convention of 1993, to which all EU Member States are parties. This Convention aims at protecting adopted children in their countries, if possible by offering them a home in those countries. It provides for cooperation between the authorities of the different States. The Council may adopt measures concerning family law with cross-border implications following Article 81.3 of the Treaty, including in the field of adoption – but only on the basis of a proposal from the Commission.

On welfare and child poverty: concerning the issue of the welfare of children, I would like to say a few words on the fight against poverty, which is a complex reality affecting many children unfortunately. The fight against poverty is one of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and it is also one of the Presidency’s priorities. Working closely with the Social Protection Committee, the Presidency has therefore tabled Council Conclusions on an integrated approach for combating poverty and social inclusion. In this document, which is to be adopted in June, the Council encourages Member States to address child poverty and promote children’s wellbeing through integrated strategies in accordance with the Commission recommendation ‘Investing in children’. The Council also invites Member States to intensify the exchange of knowledge, experiences and best practices in this field. Let me mention in particular the Roma children because, yes, we must also continue to address other longstanding challenges in addition to the situation faced by Roma children, and I thank the European Parliament for keeping this issue on the EU agenda, including on International Roma Day earlier this month, on 8 April to be precise.

As regards mediation, the EU has put in place the 2008 Mediation Directive, which aims at facilitating access to alternative dispute resolution. It promotes the amicable settlement of disputes by encouraging the use of mediation and by ensuring a balanced relationship between mediation and judicial proceedings. Moreover, the Brussels IIa Regulation foresees mediation as one of the functions of cooperation between central authorities in matters of parental responsibility. There is common understanding in Council that the revision of Brussels IIa is a topic of great importance and, to be honest, it is about time.

On e-Justice, on improving access to information in the justice field: you know that the e-Justice Portal was launched in 2010 in collaboration with the Commission and the Member States. The Council’s Second Action Plan on e-Justice stresses that information relating to minors should be included in the e-Justice Portal. A specific expert group is now examining the ways to expand information on minors already available on the Portal, and your specific question relating to adoption procedures could indeed be considered in this context.

In closing, I wish to say that the Council awaits with great interest the Commission proposal amending the Brussels IIa Regulation, as this is the cornerstone of EU judicial cooperation in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility.

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) and the Committee on Petitions (PETI) for organising this debate which I very much welcome. As has been said several times already, the Brussels IIa Regulation is an extremely important piece of legislation for many families in Europe. It has been applied for ten years and has proved to be very useful, but the time has come to review it. The Commission intends to come forward with a proposal late June this year.

Our assessment is that the Brussels IIa Regulation works overall well with regard to matrimonial matters. We do not envisage, at this stage, the need to revise it in this respect. On the other hand, there is clear evidence for the urgent need to revise the regulation as regards parental responsibility aspects. Parliament, better than anyone, is aware of numerous cross-border cases in which the judicial cooperation based on this regulation is not fast enough, to say the least. Children end up being hostage of lengthy legal disputes. The mechanisms put in place by the Brussels IIa Regulation have helped in determining parental responsibility or settling child abduction cases, but we have to take additional steps.

I intend to further clarify the rules on parental responsibility, to improve the enforcement of judicial decisions, to speed up the procedures and make sure that the best interests of the child are of primary consideration and effectively protected. More concretely we are considering measures on the following aspects. Firstly, to speed up the return procedure. There are still far too many child abduction cases in which parents with an enforceable return order are stuck in lengthy proceedings. Abducted children must be returned swiftly as passing of time can have irreversible consequences for the relationship with their parents. Evidence shows that in those Member States with specialised courts the return procedure can be much smoother and quicker.

Secondly, to see whether the existing exequatur procedure is still needed and to define the grounds for refusal of the enforcement of judgements. It is unacceptable that currently a parent can be left without any possibility to see his or her child for years due to delays in the enforcement of judgments.

Thirdly, to increase judicial cooperation and mutual trust between Member States, for example when it comes to the specificity of family proceedings.

Fourthly, to smoothen the differences in national rules governing the hearing of the child. Too often these rules are invoked to refuse a judgement from another Member State. I am convinced that while acknowledging different legal traditions we can – and must – do better to respect the child’s right to be heard. Finally, to improve the cooperation between national authorities with responsibility for child protection or parental responsibility matters. We need a strong network of these authorities to help parents in enforcing their parental rights abroad.

Besides these key changes to the Brussels IIa Regulation, we will also continue our awareness raising activities, targeting also child welfare and consular authorities. This is duly reflected in our funding priorities and calls for proposals.

To conclude, let me refer to the aspects related to adoptions. The Brussels IIa Regulation does not cover these aspects. The functioning of child protection and welfare services is governed by national law. The Commission has thoroughly examined the numerous petitions concerning adoptions without parental consent that you have recently received. None of them fall into the remit of EU law. However, the Commission is contributing to the elaboration of a common understanding of how the rights of the child can best be protected and promoted. For instance, let me point to the Ten Principles on integrated child protection systems, which were debated in the last European Forum on the Rights of the Child and which are also mentioned in your draft resolution.

We will continue to support Member States in implementing a child rights—based approach and I know that you also, through dialogue and awareness raising, can have a real impact on improving the situation on this very important matter. I am looking forward to our close cooperation on these files, in the best interest of children and for the benefit of families in Europe.

  Roberta Metsola, f’isem il-grupp PPE. – Bħalissa qegħdin ngħixu fi żmien fejn aktar u aktar familji jikkonsistu minn nies li twieldu f'pajjiżi differenti. Fl-Unjoni Ewropea qed nitkellmu fuq mijiet ta' eluf ta' familji bħal dawn, li għandhom jingħataw appoġġ anke meta r-relazzjonijiet tagħhom jintemmu.

Dawn il-familji jaraw il-Kumitat tal-Petizzjonijiet bħala opportunità biex isemmgħu leħinhom. Għalhekk nixtieq ningħaqad ma' Cecilia biex nenfasizza r-rwol importanti li għandu l-Kumitat tal-Petizzjonijiet fuq id-drittijiet tat-tfal.

Bħalma qalu l-Kummissarju u l-Ministru, m'għandna qatt nagħtu tamiet foloz li aħna nistgħu nindirizzaw kull problema li tiġi quddiemna. Ma ninsewx li fil-maġġorparti tagħha din hija kompetenza tal-Istati Membri, u mhux tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Però hemm numru ta' każijiet bejn il-fruntieri li iva, hemmhekk aħna nistgħu nagħmlu aktar sabiex niżguraw li, fost oħrajn, d-drittijiet tat-tfal jiġu msaħħa u protetti. Dan l-għan għandu jkun fil-quċċata tal-ħidmiet politiċi tagħna.

U għalhekk, minn inizjattiva personali tiegħi u ta' numru ta' kollegi oħra, ridna niftħuha għal kemm jista' jkun Membri possibbli. Aħna lkoll ingħaqadna flimkien sabiex nistaqsu lill-Kunsill u lill-Kummissjoni fuq il-ħidma li qed issir f’dan il-qasam.

Għalhekk ukoll, bħala Kumitat tal-Petizzjonijiet, poġġejna bilqiegħda sabiex nippreżentaw riżoluzzjoni mill-Gruppi kollha fuq numru ta' punti dwar il-ħarsien tat-tfal fl-Ewropa. Dan hu mezz ieħor fejn il-Kumitat qed jagħti vuċi lil dawk li ssottomettew petizzjonijiet lill-Parlament Ewropew.

Jiena nappella, u nikkonkludi Sur President, lill-Membri kollha ta' din il-Kamra sabiex inneħħu l-kappell politiku tagħna u nidħlu fir-realtà li għandna quddiemna. Fejn jidħlu t-tfal m'hemmx kompromessi. Il-prijorità ewlenija tagħna għandha tkun li nipproteġu l-aħjar interess tat-tfal.

  Josef Weidenholzer, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Es ist wichtig, dass die aus dem Jahr 2003 stammende Brüssel-II-Verordnung endlich überarbeitet wird, vor allem auch, weil sie auf die Beziehung zwischen zwei Staaten abzielt, und das ist oft zu wenig. Grenzüberschreitende Fälle lassen sich eben nicht nur auf zwei Staaten beschränken, sondern können oft auch mehrere Staaten umfassen. Dadurch entstehen viele juristische Probleme. Ich habe zum Beispiel einen Fall, wo sich eine Ungarin, die in Belgien gearbeitet hat, von einem Franzosen getrennt hat und der Sorgerechtsstreit nun in Belgien ausgetragen wird, obwohl niemand mehr in Belgien lebt. Solche Fälle, in denen mehr als zwei Staaten involviert sind, gibt es viele. Und die Überarbeitung der Verordnung muss das im Besonderen berücksichtigen.

Bei rechtlicher Unklarheit und langer Verfahrensdauer sind es meistens die Kinder, die daran leiden. Aus Erfahrung weiß ich, dass in den meisten Verfahren das Wohl des Kindes zu kurz kommt.

Eine ganz wesentliche Forderung ist daher, dass die Kinderrechte in der Verordnung so gestärkt werden, dass Kinder auch getrennt von ihren Eltern befragt werden können und dass die Verfahrensdauer möglichst kurz ist. Jedes Kind hat ein Recht darauf, dass der Gesetzgeber eindeutige, klare Gesetze erarbeitet, die dann auch klar sicherstellen können, was die Zukunft eines Kindes bedeutet. Das ist in diesem Zusammenhang meistens sehr entscheidend für den weiteren Verlauf des Lebens.

  Rikke Karlsson, for ECR-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Mennesker mødes i Europa, og når mennesker mødes, så bliver de ofte forelskede, de får ofte børn, og det er alt sammen smukt og dejligt. Men det er også et faktum, at lykken i mange tilfælde ikke varer evigt. Man beslutter sig for at forlade hinanden igen og dele børnene, og under denne proces opstår der ofte lidt mere knas i maskineriet. Hvis forældrene ydermere kommer fra hvert sit land, så bliver løsningerne på problemerne ofte langt mere komplekse. I udvalget for borgerklager ser vi desværre alt for ofte sager, hvor de enkelte medlemsstaters domstole er uenige om vurderingen af disse sager, og noget tyder på, at de enkelte medlemsstaters domstole i mange tilfælde varetager deres egne borgeres interesser. Her bliver børnene taget som gidsler i et åbenlyst tovtrækkeri imellem to landes forskellige interesser. Dette forslag handler ikke om at tvinge landene til noget som helst. Det er et forsøg på at lave nogle ordentlige aftaler landene imellem, som kan sikre, at børn af forældre af forskellig nationalitet får en fair behandling, og det må være i alles interesse.

  António Marinho e Pinto, em nome do Grupo ALDE. – Este debate alerta para os problemas concretos enfrentados pelos cidadãos da União Europeia em matéria de direitos das crianças, que envolvem jurisdição de dois ou mais Estados-Membros.

O aumento da mobilidade dentro da União acarreta, inevitavelmente, um aumento de litígios transfronteiriços envolvendo crianças. Torna-se assim urgente intensificar a cooperação judiciária entre os Estados-Membros ao nível da formação e do intercâmbio de boas práticas entre os serviços sociais e os tribunais, relativamente aos casos transfronteiriços de adoção, de raptos de crianças e, em geral, de regulação da parentalidade.

Dada a particular sensibilidade e alarme social de tais casos, devem as autoridades da União incentivar os Estados-Membros a criar tribunais especializados com competência exclusiva sobre tais situações. Este é um domínio onde não pode haver hesitações ou tergiversações, pois o que está em causa é o superior interesse da criança. A questão não é impor uma visão única para lidar com os conflitos familiares e com o bem-estar das crianças, mas sim transformar o território da União num espaço de livre circulação de pessoas e não só de bens, de serviços e de capitais.

  Κωνσταντίνα Κούνεβα, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κάτι σάπιο υπάρχει στο βασίλειο της Δανίας, γύρω από την προστασία των παιδιών. Οι καταγγελίες στην Επιτροπή Αναφορών για την προστασία των συμφερόντων των παιδιών, στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο, στη Δανία, στη Γερμανία, μοιάζουν με καταιγίδα, είτε αφορούν τις κοινωνικές υπηρεσίες ανηλίκων, είτε τις υιοθεσίες ή τις αναδοχές παιδιών, τις επιμέλειες και τα δικαιώματα επισκέψεων σε γονείς που έχουν κατηγορηθεί ακόμη και για σεξουαλική κακοποίηση, και είναι καταγγελίες που μας σοκάρουν.

Πολλές αναφορές αγγίζουν την κρίση της οικογένειας στο Βορρά, ενώ αδυνατούμε να απαντήσουμε τι έγιναν οι 10.000 ασυνόδευτοι ανήλικοι πρόσφυγες που στη συνέχεια χάθηκαν, όπως μας καταγγέλλει η Εuropol. Σας ζητώ να δεσμευτούμε σε μια ολόπλευρη υποστήριξη των δικαιωμάτων των παιδιών, με αποφάσεις που δεν αφορούν μόνο την κρίση της οικογένειας, αλλά και την ανθρωπιστική κρίση η οποία μαστίζει τον Νότο και την προσφυγιά. Κι αυτό δεν είναι πολιτική, είναι ηθική υποχρέωσή μας.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Minister Hennis-Plasschaert, a former colleague, and Commissioner Jourová for their statements. I hope the Council and Commission will take on board our resolution, which was prepared just from studying the desperate calls for help addressed to our Committee on Petitions.

It is evident that, following the significant level of movement of workers between Member States and the increasing number of mixed couples, the number of cross—border child protection issues involving custody removal is growing as well. I will give only one number, showing how real this problem is for my country, Latvia. During only the first two months of this year, eleven children were removed from the families of Latvian citizens working in Britain and placed in British care families. Cross-border mechanisms are to be put in place when it involves determining the custody of children. We need to input the receiving state’s duty to inform the consular authorities of the state of which the child is a national. A clear, urgent, detailed and developed definition of the term ‘habitual residence of the child’ in the revised Brussels IIa regulation is needed.

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

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Vážená paní poslankyně, zmínila jste tady případ, že vašim občanům byly odebrány děti v členské zemi, a tou je Velká Británie. Ale vašim občanům jsou stále více odebírány děti také v nečlenské zemi Evropské unie, a tou je Norsko. Myslíte si, že Evropská unie dostatečně hájí zájmy občanů a dětí Evropské unie, které jsou odebírány mimo členské státy Evropské unie?

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – Also, Norway is not an EU Member State. We as the Committee of Petitions were hearing these cases in Nordic councils just last week. They are also giving a lot of attention to this – alongside the Swedish, Finnish and Danish cases, also the Norwegian situation. But the United Kingdom is only one state where adoption without consent is working, and that is the biggest problem now for EU Member States.

  Eleonora Evi, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è fondamentale migliorare la cooperazione giudiziaria tra Stati membri nei casi transfrontalieri che coinvolgono i minori. Dobbiamo garantire il riconoscimento e il rispetto delle sentenze tra i diversi Stati membri e il loro monitoraggio nel tempo per garantire, ad esempio, i diritti di visita dei genitori e che vengano rispettati o ancora l'introduzione di norme minime per l'audizione dei minori nei procedimenti civili nazionali e la formazione degli operatori giuridici e sociali.

Non posso non menzionare, tra le decine di petizioni ricevute, quelle che riguardano e segnalano i casi di abusi dello Jugendamt tedesco. In un caso recentissimo si parla addirittura di estorsione ai danni della madre di due figli da parte del padre tedesco! Chiaramente, queste sono cose inaccettabili. Il concetto di interesse superiore del bambino rimane un concetto vago, che si applica in base a valutazioni troppo spesso superficiali, se non addirittura strumentali.

Questa Europa, così impeccabile e rigorosa nell'applicare le regole a tutela del mercato e della concorrenza, delle banche e della finanza, crolla miseramente quando si tratta di tutelare i diritti delle persone e dei bambini.

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO
Vicepresidente

  Gilles Lebreton, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, les questions posées par le Parlement européen soulèvent, à mes yeux, deux difficultés.

Primo, je suis hostile à la reconnaissance automatique des adoptions faites dans d'autres États membres. En effet, une telle reconnaissance automatique s'étendrait fatalement, d'une part, aux adoptions faites par des couples de même sexe et, d'autre part, aux adoptions pratiquées sur les enfants issus d'une gestation pour autrui (GPA). Or, je n'admets ni les GPA ni les adoptions par des couples de même sexe.

Secundo, je me méfie du concept de l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant, qui est instrumentalisé pour déconstruire la famille traditionnelle.

De même que le "vivre ensemble" vise à légitimer le communautarisme, l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant vise à arracher l'enfant à son substrat naturel.

Or, j'ai la conviction que le véritable intérêt de l'enfant est de grandir au sein d'une famille composée d'un père et d'une mère.

  Julia Pitera (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Każdego roku do Komisji Petycji wpływa wiele skarg w sprawach dzieci. Skala problemu nakazuje pilne dostarczenie narzędzi do rozwiązywania spraw o zasięgu transgranicznym, a zidentyfikowane problemy dotyczą wielu obszarów. Jednym z nich jest niedostateczne wdrażanie rozporządzenia Bruksela 2, innym – brak koordynacji przekazywania informacji dotyczących ochrony dzieci między państwami członkowskimi w sprawach transgranicznych. Zdarzają się też skargi na nieuznawanie i niewykonywanie orzeczeń sądowych w innym państwie członkowskim.

Zbudowany system musi działać wielokierunkowo, musi sięgać po różne narzędzia. Z polskich doświadczeń wiem, że wiele problemów wynika na przykład z trudnego dostępu do informacji oraz pomocy prawnej. Dlatego trzeba stworzyć system finansowania i wspierania organizacji służących informacją i pomocą w sprawach rodzinnych. Ważnym elementem tego systemu byłby jednolity europejski numer interwencyjny. Jak najszybciej powinien powstać prosty i powszechnie dostępny przewodnik po systemach funkcjonujących w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich i przysługujących prawach. Wiele konfliktów przecież ma swoje źródło w nieznajomości systemów i przepisów prawa. Te, ale jeszcze inne działania powinny zostać pilnie podjęte, jeśli deklaracje polityków, że dobro dziecka jest sprawą nadrzędną, nie są wyłącznie w sferze haseł.

  Edouard Martin (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Ministre, Madame la Commissaire, vous êtes, j'en suis sûr, convaincus du bien-fondé de l'Europe. L'Europe, où tout circule librement: les biens, les personnes, les capitaux et... l'amour. Eh oui, l'amour!

Erasmus, c'est aussi l'Europe de l'amour, celle qui a permis à plus deux millions d'étudiants de découvrir un nouveau pays et qui, si j'en crois une étude de la Commission, aurait contribué à la naissance d'environ un million de bébés Erasmus. Rien que pour ça, je veux dire "vive l'Europe, vive l'amour"!

Mais voyez-vous, parfois, l'amour ne dure qu'un temps, et parfois les parents se déchirent autour du lieu de vie de l'enfant, chaque partie plaidant évidemment pour l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant.

L'Europe, ce n'est pas que l'amour, hélas! Ce sont aussi les problèmes sociaux, les accidents de la vie qui frappent les familles, et notamment les plus fragiles. Là aussi, nous nous heurtons à la force des lois nationales, à une justice qui ne coopère pas toujours avec les pays tiers lorsqu'il s'agit de familles étrangères. Toutes ces situations provoquent la souffrance des familles et, surtout, celle des enfants.

Bien sûr, personne ne prétend que les différentes décisions prises ici ou là vont à l'encontre de l'enfant, mais on peut se tromper en toute bonne foi. Partant du principe qu'il y en a plus dans plusieurs têtes que dans une seule, nous devons tout faire pour que les États membres collaborent et coopèrent en étudiant les meilleures possibilités, toutes les possibilités, sans tabou ni parti pris.

C'est le sens de cette résolution, qui se veut humble et ne prétend pas être la clé absolue de tous les problèmes rencontrés en Europe, mais qui veut envoyer un message clair à la Commission, au Conseil et aux États membres: pas de frontières pour les droits de l'enfant!

  Jana Žitňanská (ECR) – Napriek tomu, že vo všeobecnosti platí, že pre dieťa je najlepšie vyrastať v biologickej rodine, nie je to vždy tak. Deti zažívajú násilie, zneužívanie, sú zanedbávané a vtedy je dôležité, aby kompetentné sociálne úrady zasiahli. V krajinách Európskej únie sa však často stávajú prípady, keď sú deti rodičom odobraté, hoci k skutočnému zlyhaniu nedošlo a s trochou pomoci by tieto rodiny mohli byť funkčné. Namiesto toho, aby bola daná možnosť najbližšej rodine sa o deti postarať, tieto putujú do pestúnskej starostlivosti, inštitúcií, sú dané na adopciu cudzím ľuďom, pričom je im znemožnené udržiavať kontakt so svojimi rodičmi a súrodencami. Keďže platí, že nie každému pestúnovi ide v prvom rade o šťastie dieťaťa, ale mnohých zaujímajú viacej finančné benefity, ktoré s nimi prichádzajú, je ťažké tu hovoriť o riešení v záujme dieťaťa. Vítam preto túto rezolúciu, ktorá má za cieľ zabezpečiť najlepší záujem detí v krajinách Európskej únie nielen v prípadoch násilného odoberania a adopcie, ale aj pri rozvodoch zmiešaných manželských párov. Posilnenie odbornosti sociálnych pracovníkov, poskytnutie tlmočníkov a právnych poradcov, lepšie využívanie mediátorov, ako aj lepšia spolupráca medzi členskými krajinami môže skutočne priniesť to, po čom voláme v tejto rezolúcii – zohľadňovanie najlepšieho záujmu dieťaťa.

  Mireille D'Ornano (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, voici aujourd'hui un exemple de manipulation pernicieuse du droit: les droits de l'enfant et la question transfrontalière.

Sous prétexte qu'il existerait des situations, que je reconnais complexes, de reconnaissance et d'adoption d'enfants, dans ce contexte particulier, l'Union européenne s'arroge le droit de décider pour les États.

Je dirai non trois fois: non, l'Union n'a pas à traiter des questions qui relèvent du droit de la famille; non, l'Union européenne n'est pas la seule gardienne des droits, surtout quand on se permet ici de juger des problèmes nationaux au regard de la charte européenne des droits fondamentaux, alors qu'il n'y a pas de violation manifeste de ses principes, mais seulement une tension juridique entre États; non, l'intérêt supérieur de l'enfant n'est pas d'ouvrir la porte, comme certains entendent le faire ici, à des recommandations européennes favorables à la reconnaissance et à l'autorisation de techniques médicales de procréation douteuses et à la destruction de notre modèle familial naturel.

Nous veillons, et nous ne lâcherons rien.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, after that last intervention, let me just bring the debate back to its core this evening, which is about children in cross-border situations. I have to say, even though it is rather late in the evening, I have been very impressed by the contributions from Council and Commission. Very often you get criticised, but I thought you were very honest and open on this very sensitive issue.

In my role as children’s rights mediator on this issue in Parliament and in the Committee on Petitions we come across the saddest of cases, and we try in my office to bring about mediation. We do it very rarely, because usually people come to us at the very end stage, and I would appeal to the Commission – and you have mentioned mediation – to do as many Member States are trying to do: bring mediation in early, so that it can fix problems without that tension and adversarial system that is the courts. I think if Member States do that and we look at it at a European level, it can be very helpful.

Clearly, in the Brussels II review you have mentioned some important points that have got to be looked at. It is about timeliness: a child removed by one parent from the other needs to be returned to its home in a timely manner, and we have several examples of Member States who are not doing that.

Lastly, as time is short: we need judicial cooperation to be enhanced. We need to have informal networks for this to work properly. It is a problem that will not go away, and it needs our eyes watching very carefully. But I have been pleased that this evening there is some talk of progress at least.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario ha sentito come le interrogazioni, delle quali stiamo discutendo, abbiamo riassunto il senso delle tantissime petizioni che sono arrivate al Parlamento nel corso degli ultimi tempi. Esse riguardano sostanzialmente tre blocchi di problemi, come è stato più volte ricordato dai miei colleghi.

Il primo è rappresentato dagli effetti negativi di un diritto matrimoniale frantumato: questi effetti vengono accentuati dall'aumento della mobilità tra paese e paese. Il tutto ricade sui diritti dei bambini e sulla loro protezione perché sono il soggetto debole del nucleo famigliare, a tal punto da trasformare spesso l'affido in una sorta di contesa che li penalizza al di là di ogni immaginazione.

Il secondo riguarda il tema delle adozioni: serve un quadro legislativo con protezioni sociali. Non si tratta semplicemente di affidare a qualcuno – sperabilmente un nucleo familiare solido – delle piccole persone ma anche di garantire loro le adeguate protezioni che servono per vivere dignitosamente.

Il terzo tema è quello della lotta alla povertà: la povertà è aumentata in tutti i paesi europei, anche nei più ricchi, perché si è creata una divaricazione tra la parte più solida della società, quella che ha redditi più elevati, e i più poveri; i soggetti che pagano questa divaricazione in primo luogo sono proprio i bambini. Io credo che qualunque politica di protezione e dunque di lotta alla povertà deve essere tale da considerare i bambini la priorità assoluta. È da lì che bisogna partire.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Vážená paní komisařko, jsem velmi ráda, že se shodujeme na tom, co je nejlepším zájmem dítěte. Tím je bezesporu život s jeho rodiči, v případě, že to není možné, pak svěření do péče širší biologické rodiny a pak teprve náhradní rodinné péče, případně institucionální péče.

Evropská unie umožňuje stále větší prostor pro mobilitu jednotlivců i rodin. Je tedy nezbytné, aby také soudní rozhodování o dětech bylo na evropské úrovni řešeno, koordinováno, případně, aby byly stanoveny minimální standardy pro rozhodování. Proto tedy velmi podporuji návrh paní zpravodajky Wikströmové, považuji ho za velmi pozitivní. Požadujeme zde zlepšení justiční spolupráce mezi jednotlivými členskými státy. Vyzýváme k vytvoření platformy pro poskytování pomoci občanům Evropské unie při řešení přeshraničních rodinných otázek.

Za zásadní považuji prevenci, a proto také žádáme zlepšení práce sociálně-právní ochrany a sociálních služeb. Jsme si vědomi zásadní role členských států, a proto je vyzýváme k řadě opatření, jako jsou specializované senáty, které mají zlepšit průběh soudního jednání. V případě svěřování do pěstounské péče je samozřejmě potřeba upřednostnit sourozenecké vztahy. Naše otázka se nepřímo vztahuje i na ochranu nejlepších zájmů dětí, jejichž rodiče, občané Evropské unie, jsou mimo území Evropské unie zbaveni rodičovských práv a o jejich dětech se rozhoduje v rozporu s Úmluvou o právech dítěte. Věřím, že i tento stav se podaří zvrátit a napravit.

  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, as a member of the Committee on Petitions, we have received hundreds of petitions, mostly from parents, about child welfare questions. We have heard first hand of the problems faced in securing the best interests of the child in cross-border cases from some very desperate parents. There are estimated to be up to two million British people living around the rest of the EU and an equal number of EU nationals living in the UK. Freedom of movement has brought our citizens unprecedented opportunities, but now we must ensure that our legal systems and judicial cooperation develop at a similar pace, especially when families find themselves in a difficult situation.

The concerns raised by citizens demonstrate the clear need to enhance and develop cooperation and information exchange across borders. We have heard calls for a more common understanding on the best interests of the child in line with the UN Convention on the rights of the child, which must always be paramount, and I would like to hear from the Commission what is intended in this respect. Family law is a national competence, and Member States therefore have a strong responsibility to ensure that they address the increasing pressure on social workers and social services by ensuring that family courts and social services are fully supported and well resourced and that parents and children receive the support needed to understand the legal proceedings they are engaged in, and their rights. Finally, we need to stay at the table to negotiate, to ensure the rights of British children and other children in Britain, and that means we need to remain inside the EU.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, investiția în copii este, de fapt, o investiție în viitorul societății noastre, iar creșterea și educarea acestora, în condiții decente și sigure, trebuie să fie permanent în atenția tuturor, indiferent unde se află. Comisia și Consiliul trebuie să găsească pârghiile necesare prin care să asigure existența unor garanții suficiente că interesul copilului este protejat în cazul unei adopții transfrontaliere. Este extrem de important ca, în astfel de situații, copiii să aibă posibilitatea de a menține legătura cu fundalul cultural, de a învăța și de a folosi limba maternă. Autoritățile implicate în procedurile de îngrijire a copiilor trebuie să depună toate eforturile posibile pentru a evita ca frații să fie separați. Dar Comisia și Consiliul trebuie să identifice mecanisme care să garanteze protejarea intereselor copiilor, cetățeni europeni, și subliniez, cetățeni europeni, și atunci când aceștia trăiesc în afara spațiului Uniunii Europene. Vorbim în special de țări terțe, dar care sunt beneficiare ale unor acorduri economice și comerciale cu Uniunea Europeană, cum ar fi, de exemplu, Norvegia. Această țară încalcă în mod flagrant valorile morale și sociale ale Uniunii Europene privind familia. Astfel, un copil de numai trei luni, aflat în perioada de alăptare, poate fi separat de familia sa biologică și dat în îngrijirea unei alte familii fără o decizie judecătorească și doar în baza unei decizii administrative pentru motive, de cele mai multe ori nefondate, ceea ce, desigur, este inadmisibil.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, колеги, има много проблеми, които възникват при прилагане на Регламента „Брюксел IIА“. Много проблеми, които засягат множество семейства и интересите на техните деца. Аз ще се спра на три от тях.

Първо и най-важното, призовавам Европейската комисия да предприеме необходимите мерки за спиране на порочните практики на осиновяване на деца без разрешението на биологичните им родители в Европейския съюз. Имаме много такива случаи във Великобритания, които направо са се превърнали в бизнес.

Второ, трябва да насърчим сътрудничеството и обмяната на информация както между съдилищата, които се занимават с осиновявания, така и между социалните служби и националните администрации на държавите членки.

На последно място, искам да акцентирам върху нуждата от зачитане на културните и социални традиции на различните държави членки, защото в най-добър интерес на детето е то да остане в кръга на своето семейство, дори и това да не е в обичайното местопребиваване на детето. Това е особено важно за малките деца, които не могат да изразят своята позиция и за които понятието „обичайно местопребиваване“ е относително.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señor Presidente, efectivamente, en la Comisión de Peticiones hemos recibido muchas peticiones en torno a problemas que surgen cuando se produce una separación en una familia internacional. Eso se produce lógicamente porque hay más movilidad y porque hay un creciente número de familias de distintos países. Efectivamente lo que prima es el interés del menor.

Hay un Reglamento, que es el Reglamento del año 2003, el Bruselas II bis ―lo ha dicho la Comisión. Después de unos años en funcionamiento, se han podido detectar sus lagunas y, de alguna manera, de qué adolece. Y, por eso, es muy bueno este debate para una revisión de este Reglamento.

Y básicamente parece que tenemos que garantizar, primero, cuáles son la autoridad y la norma para que nadie quede sin un referente y haya seguridad jurídica; segundo, la libre circulación de las resoluciones judiciales porque, a veces, una resolución judicial de un país no se aplica con la rapidez que toca en otro país; tercero, que las ejecuciones de las resoluciones judiciales sean reales, porque ahora hay también mucho retraso y, en algunos casos, hay recursos de apelación ―en otros no―, que retrasan el procedimiento; cuarto, que en el caso de sustracción de menores haya agilidad ―serán seis semanas, pero debería cumplirse de verdad este plazo―; y, quinto, que el retorno sea eficaz y rápido.

En definitiva, yo tengo plena confianza, como ha dicho la señora McGuinness, en la Comisión, que ha dado en el clavo de lo que tenemos que hacer, de lo que hay que hacer con celeridad, porque aquí nos jugamos el futuro.

Una observación: algunos compañeros han utilizado este debate para atacar a las parejas del mismo sexo y quiero hacer una reivindicación para que no se produzca nunca esta discriminación.

  Therese Comodini Cachia (PPE). – Għal ħafna familji maqbuda f'tilwimiet familjari, l-aħjar interess tat-tfal jidher qisu xi leġġenda. Il-protezzjoni qiegħda hemm imma donnu ħadd mhu ċert x'inhi. Xi ftit minn din l-inċertezza tirriżulta miċ-ċirkostanzi differenti li jirrigwardaw kull tilwima familjari, u ċertament minħabba li kull tifel u tifla għandhom interess li huwa partikolari għalih jew għaliha.

Bħala membru tal-Kumitat għall-Affarijiet Legali, ninsab serjament imħassba però dwar il-falliment fl-attentati tal-Unjoni Ewropea biex ikun hemm ċarezza u ċertezza fil-proċeduri li jiddeterminaw l-aħjar interess tat-tfal. Iżda, ħafna drabi, id-diffikultajiet jinqalgħu min-nuqqas ta' awtoritajiet involuti direttament f'każijiet bħal dawk li jieħdu u li jadottaw għarfien komuni, ibbażat fuq standards komuni.

Aspett li għandu jkun prijorità huwa li nintegraw f'kull proċess miżuri li suffiċjentement jipproteġu lit-tfal mill-ħsara li ċ-ċirkostanzi tal-familja jikkawżawlhom, inkluża l-ħsara tal-aljenazzjoni mill-ġenituri, u l-fatt li jkunu mċaħħda mill-opportunità effettiva li jiżviluppaw relazzjoni mal-membri tal-familja tagħhom stess.

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Vážená paní komisařko, když jsem studoval v Římě, tak jsem dostal od jednoho chicagského biskupa kartičku, na které bylo napsáno: „Každé dítě, které se narodí, je dobrá zpráva od Boha, že jsme ho nepřestali ještě bavit.“ A myslím si, že je na tom kus pravdy.

Tady bylo zmíněno hodně kauz. Já chci zmínit kauzu jedinou. Je to kauza Evy Michalákové, která se řeší v Norsku pět let. Před pěti lety v Norsku odebrali dítě matce a otci na základě podezření ze zneužívání. Toto podezření se, paní komisařko, neprokázalo. Nikdy se neprokázalo! A dítě do dnes nebylo vráceno. Eva Michaláková a její děti jsou občany Evropské unie. A co udělala Evropská unie pro to, aby se tyto děti vrátily k jejich matce? Proč Evropská unie přihlíží tomu, že děti mají být v Norsku adoptovány? Myslím si, že toto jsou zločiny, které nám naše děti nezapomenou, a zločiny, které my musíme okamžitě řešit.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la tutela dei minori, rappresenta una delle grandi sfide che la società contemporanea rivolge alla regolazione giuridica. Le solenni dichiarazioni internazionali stipulate negli ultimi decenni riconoscono ai minori una particolare titolarità di diritti e di interessi, soprattutto in considerazione della loro condizione di soggetti in formazione. È necessario però rafforzare la cooperazione transfrontaliera sulle questioni concernenti i minori, promuovendo misure quali la mediazione e la conciliazione prima che un bambino sia dato in adozione e sempre tenendo conto dei suoi interessi superiori. Politiche a sostegno delle famiglie, al fine di ridurre il numero dei minori affidati ai servizi di assistenza o dato in adozione, sono urgenti e non più procrastinabili. È fondamentale che l'Europa lavori per garantire la protezione e la tutela effettiva dei diritti e degli interessi di coloro che si affacciano alla vita. Questo costituisce, ora più che mai, una priorità assoluta da cui nessuno può sentirsi esonerato.

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to ask the Commissioner and the relevant authorities to make particular efforts to involve children and young people more fully in decisions affecting them. Participation is also a children’s right, but it is frequently infringed and poorly promoted. Working with organisations experienced in child participation is, in my view, a good way to develop institutional practice that would better protect the best interests of the child.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ως μέλος της Επιτροπής Αναφορών, έχω ασχοληθεί με εκατοντάδες αναφορές σε σχέση με την προστασία των συμφερόντων των παιδιών. Αρχικά, στον τομέα των διακρατικών υιοθεσιών, είναι αναγκαίο να διασφαλίζεται ασφάλεια δικαίου, ώστε να προστατεύονται τα δικαιώματα των γονέων και των παιδιών και να τηρούνται οι νομοθετικές διατάξεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης σχετικά με την ιθαγένεια της Ένωσης. Άλλωστε, πολλοί πολίτες έχουν εκφράσει ανησυχίες σχετικά με τις πρακτικές υιοθεσίας που ακολουθούν συγκεκριμένα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης, με επιπτώσεις στα παιδιά και τις οικογένειές τους όταν μετακινούνται στις εν λόγω χώρες. Παράλληλα, θα πρέπει κάθε κράτος μέλος της Ένωσης να καταργήσει τα διαδικαστικά και γραφειοκρατικά εμπόδια στις διαδικασίες επιμέλειας των παιδιών, προκειμένου να διασφαλίζεται η ορθή εφαρμογή της Συνθήκης της Χάγης του 1993.

Τέλος, θα πρέπει η Επιτροπή να ενισχύσει τον διάλογο και την ανταλλαγή των βέλτιστων πρακτικών μεταξύ των διαφόρων εμπλεκομένων μερών, καθώς και να ορίσει ειδικευμένα δικαστήρια που θα ασχολούνται με υποθέσεις απαγωγών παιδιών, με διασυνοριακά στοιχεία και να φροντίσει να είναι αποτελεσματική η διαδικασία επιστροφής τους.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, u konfliktnoj situaciji kada dođe do problema među bračnim parovima, roditeljima, u pravilu stradavaju djeca. U pravilu su roditelji sebični i jednostavno često štite samo svoj osobni interes ili svoju ljubav prema djetetu, ali ona često ne mora biti i pravedna.

Zato je ono što mi najmanje trebamo učiniti kada već imamo mobilnost i kada već imamo život različitih familija iz različitih država ili kad se radi o raznim državama i kad imamo našu mobilnost, mi moramo zaista učiniti sve da imamo i pravu zakonsku regulativu na europskom nivou.

Tu želim naglasiti još jedan detalj. Ima puno situacija na području s kojeg ja dolazim, na području Balkana. Premreženost ljudi koji žive u zemljama koje su zemlje kandidatkinje sa zemljama članicama je dodatni problem i molim da se uzme u obzir u budućim pregovorima sa zemljama kandidatkinjama i ova regulativa.

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

  Věra Jourová, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I wish to thank Members very much for this debate which, as I expected, brought here many sad and serious true stories which we see in Europe and where, as has been said, the children suffer. It is our duty to address the situation with the proper legislative act.

Several of you mentioned adoptions without parental consent. Let me repeat that adoptions are regulated at national and not EU level. Adoptions are therefore not also in the scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation. But it can be generally noted that Article 21 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child imposes on participating countries to ensure that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration with regard to adoption. But the Convention does not preclude adoption without parental consent.

On Norway – and yes, I expected to be asked about the situation and about the position of the European Union – I can only repeat that due to the fact that Norway is not a Member State of the European Union and moreover, as I said already before, the functioning of child welfare services is not governed by EU law, but by national law, the Commission does not have any competence to intervene with the Member States and it is even more difficult in the case in Norway, when it comes to the functioning of child protection and welfare services. This is the dry answer. From the legal point of view, I can only assure you that I try every time when I am contact with the regional authorities to raise this problem informally, and the answer is always the same that everything is happening according to Norwegian legislation.

In cases where the right to family life or the rights of the children involved are allegedly violated by the Norwegian child welfare services, it is for Norway – including its judicial authorities – to ensure that fundamental rights and especially the rights of the child are effectively respected and protected in accordance with their national legislation. The parents concerned can seek redress at the national level only, through the competent national authorities, such as through an ombudsman or through the courts – and at the European Court of Human Rights, once they have exhausted domestic remedies.

Just a short note on what Mrs Ward said on the need to cooperate with children’s organisations. I can assure you that we are now in very intensive contact and cooperation with them in trying to ease the situation for children in migration, where we, together with UNICEF and others, have prepared comprehensive material which addresses the problems from various angles.

Thank you very much again for this debate. We all agree that the best interest of the child belongs among our highest priorities, and that the Brussels IIa Regulation tries to tackle the situation of cross—border disputes and the cross-border scope and character of the problems, which fully authorises the European Union to take further action and well-targeted legislative solutions, as well as other actions like improving the functioning of the judicial systems in the EU Member States so as to increase also the trust between the Member States and the judiciary.

I am convinced that the proposal which we are preparing, and which I will soon submit, on the amendment of the Brussels IIa Regulation provides such a well-targeted solution, which will improve the situation.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, let me underline once more tonight that it is important to stay true to our founding values. It is our duty to protect those most vulnerable, including adopted children. At the same time – and I repeat – it is important to understand that the issue of the adoption of children is a matter which is not regulated at EU level but by national laws and by some international conventions. As I said earlier, the Council awaits with great interest the Commission proposal amending the Brussels IIa Regulation. I am convinced that the amendment will further improve the functioning of this regulation, particularly with regard to the rules on parental responsibility.

Clearly we share the same goal: strengthening the rights of the child in the EU. This is an investment not only in their future but also in the foundations of the Union. A reference was made to unaccompanied minors disappearing upon arrival in Europe, and I think it is important to stress that as well. First of all, it is important that we get the facts and figures straight and that these things are further investigated, but clearly the thought alone sickens me already. Unaccompanied children are among those most vulnerable, and it is deeply troubling that professional gangs might exploit them.

The question is: what is the EU doing? I will give you just a few examples. More than EUR 200 million is being earmarked to target the protection of children. Europol and Eurojust are active in helping to dismantle networks involving the smuggling of children. The European Asylum Support Office works on best practice guidance on the assessment of the best interests of the child. The EU helps Member States to be better equipped to deal with the specific needs of child victims of trafficking. Outside the EU, we earmarked EUR 120 million for protection programmes for vulnerable Syrian refugee children, working with NGOs in, for example, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.

To conclude, it is important that EU Member States work together to prevent children falling into the hands of criminals. Overall there is, I believe, ample opportunity to improve the sharing of information between Member States. This is one of the focal points of the Netherlands Presidency.

  El Presidente. – Se cierra el debate.

He recibido una propuesta de resolución presentada de conformidad con el artículo 128, apartado 5, del Reglamento para cerrar el debate.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 162)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Privalome apsaugoti vaikų teises ir interesus visoje Europos Sąjungoje. Vaiko interesai turi būti laikomi svarbiausiais visuose sprendimuose vaikų priežiūros klausimais. Reikia pabrėžti, kad dėl išaugusios migracijos Europos Sąjungoje padaugėjo tarpvalstybinio pobūdžio vaikų apsaugos problemų, įskaitant globos panaikinimą. Pirmiausia, turime kalbėti apie socialinių tarnybų vaidmenį vaikų teisių apsaugos srityje ir turime paraginti valstybes nares suteikti tinkamą paramą šeimoms, kadangi jos yra pirminės globėjos, visų pirma pažeidžiamose bendruomenėse, kuriose kyla socialinės atskirties grėsmė. Taip pat reikėtų raginti valstybes nares netaikyti griežtų taupymo priemonių biudžetui, skirtam socialinių tarnybų paslaugų kokybei gerinti. Be to, labai svarbu, kad socialiniai darbuotojai ir visi kiti specialistai, dirbantys su tarpvalstybinėmis bylomis, susijusiomis su vaikais, gautų specializuotus mokymus ir išsilavinimą. Per teismo procesus, susijusius su vaikais, būtina, kad valstybės narės nuo pat pradžių ir kiekviename su vaiku susijusio proceso etape tėvams teiktų visą ir aiškią informaciją apie procesą ir galimas jo pasekmes.

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. – I am concerned by the large number of petitions Parliament has received on child-related cases. I therefore call on Member States to increase and improve cooperation between their judiciaries in cases involving child proceedings. The Commission and Member States must provide for specialised training and education for social workers and law enforcement professionals who deal with cross-border cases involving children. I strongly recommend the setting up of a single European helpline for cases of child abduction or abuse, and I call on the Council to conclude the relevant cooperation agreements on establishing child abduction alert systems with cross-border implications.

Last but not least, I emphasise the importance of offering children the best possible opportunities to maintain links with their cultural background and to learn and use their mother tongue. As a member of the EPP, I believe that we must, by every means, guarantee the child’s right to family life and that we must give priority to the best interests of the child in all decisions related to childcare issues at all levels.

  Enrico Gasbarra (S&D), per iscritto. – Condivido lo spirito e il testo dell'interrogazione orale presentata dalla commissione giuridica: occorre un passo avanti a livello europeo per dare più tutele giuridiche ai bambini in Europa. Ci rivolgiamo al Consiglio affinché si mettano in atto misure concrete per rafforzare la cooperazione tra gli Stati su temi quali affidamento, adozioni e garanzie procedurali per i minori. Gli interessi del bambino devono sempre ispirare l'azione europea in questo settore. Insistiamo pertanto con il Consiglio affinché si rafforzino i meccanismi di mediazione transfrontaliera, nell'obiettivo di ridurre le controversie e i casi di sottrazione di minori che, come sappiamo e come verifichiamo dalle tante petizioni ricevute, sono in costante incremento negli ultimi anni.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), na piśmie. – Wzrost mobilności w UE doprowadził do wzrostu liczby transgranicznych spraw związanych z ochroną dzieci, co jest widoczne między innymi w masowo składanych do Parlamentu Europejskiego petycjach. W świetle zbliżającego się przeglądu rozporządzenia Bruksela II Komisja powinna zwrócić uwagę na wyraźne problemy z wdrażaniem tego rozporządzenia oraz rozważyć wzmocnienie jego przepisów.

Ponadto ważną kwestią byłoby zniesienie obecnych przeszkód proceduralnych i biurokratycznych w postępowaniach dotyczących opieki nad osobami nieletnimi. Dobro dziecka musi być aspektem nadrzędnym we wszystkich decyzjach dotyczących opieki na wszystkich szczeblach legislacyjnych. Wszystkie systemy ochrony dzieci powinny mieć transnarodowe i transgraniczne mechanizmy uwzględniające charakterystyczne cechy takich sporów.

W tym kontekście cieszy mnie, że Rada wezwała państwa członkowskie do ustanowienia systemów monitorowania i oceny w ramach krajowych ram koordynacji spraw transgranicznych dotyczących dzieci. Ponadto niezbędny jest obowiązek władz krajowych, określony w rozporządzeniu Bruksela IIa, do uznawania i wykonywania orzeczeń wydanych w innym państwie członkowskim oraz nasilenie i poprawa współpracy organów wymiaru sprawiedliwości we wszystkich sprawach dotyczących dzieci.

  Филиз Хюсменова (ALDE), в писмена форма. – Уважаеми г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, броят на децата, лишени от родителска грижа, поверени на институционална грижа, варира в различните държави. За съжаление, немалък е делът на такива деца в Европа, въпреки отправените от УНИЦЕФ препоръки за деинституционализране на грижата. Това се дължи както на социално-икономически фактори, така и до известна степен на различните законодателни рамки на осиновяванията в Европа, предвиждащи различни правила и срокове. За съжаление, процедурите по осиновяване са често много тромави, особено в случаите на транснационални осиновявания, когато липсва достатъчно предварителна информация за свързаните с това изисквания, срокове и процедури. Смятам, че Комисията трябва да направи всичко възможно, за да подобри информираността по отношение на процедурите по осиновяване и да подпомогне държавите членки чрез осъществяване на обмен на добри практики в тази насока. Смятам също, че Комисията и държавите членки трябва да положат особена грижа за превенция чрез разработване на политики в подкрепа на семействата за отглеждане на децата с възможно най-голяма грижа за тяхното благосъстояние, особено по отношение на семействата, изложени на риск от социално изключване и бедност, така че да се намали броят на децата, които се дават за осиновяване. Защото именно възможността да расте в здрава, семейна среда представлява висшият интерес на детето.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE), in writing. – Unfortunately, there are no uniform rules applicable in all EU countries for child adoption (every country applies its own rules and procedures). Therefore, in the best interest of the child, we should promote cooperation among Member States in cross-border matters relating to children. In particular, we should focus on adoption practices in cross-border cases and on the sharing of best practice by child welfare services across the Member States.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D), in writing. – European children should enjoy the same rights and the same protection across Europe. Building a common legal framework in Europe is in the best interests of children and can only help families and parents to understand better how they can protect and support their heirs.

A closer and stronger European Union pre-supposes that children will enjoy the same rights across the Member States. In the light of Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Commission should introduce common minimum standards for the hearing of a child in national civil proceedings in cross-border cases. To that end, dialogue and the sharing of best practices between stakeholders and the Member States should be reinforced, and appropriate legal training should be provided for social workers, judges and police officers.

A good solution would be the development of specialised chambers within family courts or cross-border mediation bodies, thus allowing fairer and speedier proceedings in the Member States. In the meantime, the European Union should support Europe-wide initiatives aimed at launching a web portal for common users and legal operators, containing clear and easily accessible legal information on national adoption procedures and indicating the authorities to turn to in cases involving cross-border abductions.