Procedure : 2016/2891(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : B8-1056/2016

Texts tabled :

B8-1056/2016

Debates :

Votes :

PV 05/10/2016 - 8.6
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2016)0377

MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
PDF 310kWORD 99k
See also joint motion for a resolution RC-B8-1051/2016
28.9.2016
PE589.645v01-00
 
B8-1056/2016

to wind up the debate on the statements by the Council and the Commission

pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure


on the need for a European reindustrialisation policy in light of the recent Caterpillar and Alstom cases (2016/2891(RSP))


Maria Arena, Edouard Martin, Maria João Rodrigues, Kathleen Van Brempt, Dan Nica, Jutta Steinruck, Martina Werner, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy, Hugues Bayet, Eric Andrieu, Nikos Androulakis, Guillaume Balas, Pervenche Berès, José Blanco López, Vilija Blinkevičiūtė, Enrico Gasbarra, Elena Gentile, Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Demetris Papadakis, Georgi Pirinski, Evelyn Regner, Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández, Marc Tarabella, Isabelle Thomas, Flavio Zanonato, Nicola Caputo on behalf of the S&D Group

European Parliament resolution on the need for a European reindustrialisation policy in light of the recent Caterpillar and Alstom cases (2016/2891(RSP))  
B8‑1056/2016

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 9, 147, 151, 153(2), 173, 174, 192, 225 and 345 thereof,

–  having regard to Articles 14, 27 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community(1),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community(2),

–  having regard to the assessment of the European added value of a Union measure on ‘Information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring processes’, carried out by Parliament’s European Added Value Unit and submitted to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on 19 November 2012,

–  having regard to ‘Managing change’ – Final report of the High-Level Group on economic and social implications of industrial change, set up by the Luxembourg Employment Summit of November 1997,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European company (SE)(3),

–  having regard to Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies(4),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(5),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses(6),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees(7),

–  having regard to Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community(8),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees(9),

–  having regard to Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids(10),

–  having regard to Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies(11),

–  having regard to Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees(12),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 31 March 2005 entitled ‘Restructuring and employment: Anticipating and accompanying restructuring in order to develop employment: the role of the European Union’ (COM(2005)0120), and the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 December 2005,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 9 February 2005 on the Social Agenda (COM(2005)0033),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(13),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 28 October 2010 entitled ‘An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era – Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage’ (COM(2010)0614),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 27 October 2010 (corrigendum published on 11 November 2010) entitled ‘Towards a Single Market Act’ (COM(2010)0608),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 23 November 2010 entitled ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs: A European contribution towards full employment’(COM(2010)0682),

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 17 January 2012 entitled ‘Restructuring and anticipation of change: what lessons from recent experience?’ (COM(2012)0007),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the mid-term review of the European strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work(14),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 April 2012 entitled ‘Towards a job-rich recovery’ (COM(2012)0173),

–  having regard to its resolution of 26 May 2005 on the Social Agenda for the period 2006-2010(15),

–  having regard to the own-initiative Opinion of 25 April 2012 of the European Economic and Social Committee on cooperatives and restructuring,

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2007 on strengthening European legislation in the field of information and consultation of workers(16),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era(17),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 September 2011 entitled ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’ (COM(2011)0571),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 8 March 2011 entitled ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (COM(2011)0112),

–  having regard to the findings of research and surveys by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(18),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring(19),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2014 on Exploiting the employment potential of green growth,

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 December 2014 on the steel sector in the EU: protecting workers and industries(20),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working document of 18 April 2012 entitled ‘Exploiting the employment potential of green growth’ (SWD(2012)0092),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2012 entitled ‘A stronger European industry for growth and economic recovery’ (COM(2012)0582), and to the 20 % reindustrialisation target,

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2016 on the competitiveness of the European rail supply industry(21),

–  having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas European industry has played an essential role in the history of European integration and is a pillar for the creation of new values and channels in Europe;

B.  whereas the rail industry is the backbone of European industrialisation, with more than 175 years of history; whereas the annual growth rate of the accessible rail supply industry markets is expected to be 2.8 % until 2019;

C.  whereas the manufacturing industry represents 65 % of companies’ R&D expenditure and the strengthening of our industrial base is therefore essential in order to keep expertise and know-how in the EU;

D.  whereas the European rail supply industry directly employs 400 000 people throughout the EU, many of whom work in SMEs;

E.  whereas a strong and innovative European rail supply industry is essential for a shift to rail, which is necessary to achieve the EU’s climate and energy targets;

F.  whereas the Alstom production site in Belfort has a high added value and recognised expertise in traction;

G.  whereas digital development, a priority of the Juncker plan, needs a strong industrial base to materialise;

H.  whereas at present, this central and strategic EU industry faces strong competition from third countries, which export lower-cost products to the European market by carrying out an aggressive and rapidly expanding policy on all continents, often with political and financial support from their governments;

I.  whereas European industry faces a race against the clock to regain its competitiveness and capacity to invest in Europe, and it also faces social and environmental challenges which it must overcome, whilst remaining a world reference in terms of social and environmental responsibility;

J.  whereas only an ambitious innovation policy, which favours the production of high-quality, innovative, energy-efficient products and promotes new production processes, will allow the EU to stand on its own in an ever more competitive world context;

K.  whereas the lack of European coordination in fiscal and commercial matters allows large companies to create legal structures enabling them to evade taxes, including through the transfer of tangible assets, intangible assets or services between companies at inadequate prices;

L.  whereas today, consistency between the various policies the European Union has enacted in order to define a modern industrial policy is absolutely essential; whereas this renewal can largely be explained by situations that occurred mainly at the Caterpillar and Alstom sites;

M.  whereas the decision of the Board of Directors of Alstom to announce the transfer of its train production activity (400 jobs) from the Belfort site to the Reichshoffen site will, in reality, mean the closing down of the first site (as the only activity remaining there would not justify keeping it operational);

N.  whereas General Electric had already feared last January that it would have to cut 6 500 jobs in the European divisions of the former Alstom, and 236 layoffs (out of about 400 people employed) were even planned at the Sesto San Giovanni site in Italy, owing to the effects of the cessation of production and a heavy reduction in services; whereas the company has demonstrated a total indifference to the requests of the Italian Government, region and municipality, confirming the announcement of 99 redundancies at the Sesto San Giovanni site and, moreover, the availability of voluntary retirement incentives and transfers to other plants in Puglia and Campania;

O.  whereas on 2 September 2016, the Caterpillar holding announced a large restructuring plan worldwide, including the Gosselies site, which is being forced to close its doors, leading to the layoff of 2 500 direct workers and jeopardising the jobs of about 4 000 subcontractors;

P.  whereas on 28 February 2013, Caterpillar Belgium SA was subjected to a restructuring plan aiming at laying off about 1 400 workers, 85 % of whom were able to benefit from early retirement; whereas it would appear that, three years later, about half of the 15 % of workers who did not benefit from early retirement have been able to find a permanent job but with less favourable working conditions;

Q.  whereas the legal structure of Caterpillar in Europe reveals the fiscal engineering contributing to the tax evasion it benefits from: Caterpillar Belgium SA, a limited company under Belgian law, is a subsidiary of Caterpillar Overseas SARL based in Geneva, supplying it with, according to a service agreement, a service to process raw materials into finished goods, and is therefore deprived not only of the added value provided by the Belgian workforce, but also of the direct management of the Belgian site in Switzerland, where Belgian workers are not represented;

R.  whereas this mechanism does not only concern Caterpillar and cannot, in any case, benefit the EU; whereas it is therefore essential that the EU question these legal constructions by means of an investigation aiming to study the legal structures set up by the Caterpillar holding, but above all aiming to analyse the transfer operations between Caterpillar Overseas SARL and its various subsidiaries located on EU territory, in order to estimate whether the cost of these transfers is appropriate and verify whether they are not simply a way of evading taxes;

S.  whereas trade in construction machinery in the EU has suffered strong disruptions in recent years, linked to the reduction of public and private investment but also due to the increase in production costs stemming from the increase in the prices of raw materials; whereas the production of building site machinery in Europe plummeted by 45.1 % from 2007 to 2014, causing a major loss of market share for European producers, starting with the loss of employment in the sector;

T.  whereas fair trade of industrial products can only work if it respects fundamental workers’ rights and environmental rules; whereas investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency are a major driver for investment in industrial products capable of creating virtuous circles;

U.  whereas innovation in production has a positive effect on job growth at all stages of the industrial economic cycle; whereas workers’ participation in innovation measures and in the definition of strategies remains the best guarantee for economic success;

V.  whereas in the cases of Alstom and Caterpillar, the expertise of workers’ representatives was not duly taken into account; whereas the unity and solidarity expressed by all trade unions in this situation have been remarkable, especially from the workers in Reichshoffen towards their colleagues at the Belfort site and from the Caterpillar workers at the Grenoble site, who blocked the entrance to the site after the company announced the closure and who were also present at the demonstration on 16 September 2016 to show support for their Belgian colleagues;

W.  whereas, despite all this, some companies such as Caterpillar have put in place strategies based on short-term financial gain, instead of on innovation, investments in research and development, jobs and renewal of skills; whereas in 2015, 70 % of the operational profits were distributed as dividends, which strengthens the financialisation of the economy instead of strengthening investment in productive capacity, research and development;

X.  whereas according to the management, the decision to close the Caterpillar site was necessary to ensure the competitiveness of the plant; whereas trade unions strongly opposed the closure; whereas the government and the unions questioned the arguments regarding the competitiveness of the plant and their concern that these redundancies would be the first step towards the full closure of the plant;

Y.  whereas the Caterpillar plant at Gosselies has been profitable; whereas the reduction in production costs between 2013 and 2015 has allowed the plant’s products to become more attractive than the products coming from outside the EU; whereas the holding decided, however, to close the plant in order to move the production to other plants in Asia and Latin America; whereas this shows that the layoff decision was made only to increase profit share and not for real economic reasons, and that the EU should fight against this unlawful practice;

Z.  whereas company representatives attributed the planned closure to the excessive size of the production area at Gosselies, associated higher production costs, and the possibility of producing elsewhere at a lower cost; whereas trade unions have criticised Caterpillar’s management for favouring the interests of the shareholders and neglecting those of their employees; whereas it seems that nearly all of the job losses will take place between April and July 2017;

Aa.  whereas the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is a European instrument providing direct support to workers who have lost their jobs as a consequence of changes in trade patterns and globalisation; whereas the EGF has been mobilised several times to help workers in Europe who have been laid off from Caterpillar or its subsidiaries;

Ab.  whereas given the importance and the European dimension of this case, the Commission has decided to set up a task force gathering together the competent services, to act as interlocutor in the Caterpillar closure process;

Ac.  whereas the closure of the Caterpillar site at Gosselies is being done for the benefit of third countries, which do not respect the same standards of social and environmental protection as those applicable to European industry, thus creating unfair competition;

Ad.  whereas Alstom has stated that there will be a reduction in its orders of around 30 % for its French sites up to 2018, but that for the Belfort site its orders will only start decreasing as of 2018 and its last order will be delivered in 2021; whereas the Alstom Belfort site is viable and new solutions can be sought, and therefore the industrial know-how and skilled workforce should be taken into account in the evaluation of the viability of the production of the company as a whole;

Ae.  whereas the loss of know-how and skills of the workers at Alstom’s Belfort site is a cause for concern, as this would jeopardise any possibility of relaunching the site’s economic activity in the event of a fuller order book; whereas the European train fleet (notably the high-speed trains) is getting old and many countries will have to renew their fleets soon, so Europe must, therefore, retain its industrial capacity in order to meet these needs without depending on third countries’ producers, and the Alstom site would respond to that imperative;

Af.  whereas the serious European industry crisis is leading to an even deeper dependence of the EU’s manufacturing sector on imports from third countries, losses of industrial know-how and loss of investment, which will directly impact millions of jobs; whereas the closing down of factories often entails irreversible losses in terms of technologies, industrial know-how and skills of industrial workers;

Ag.  whereas industry plays a key role in the development of the economy as a whole, in terms of both technologies and overcoming difficulties in sourcing;

1.  Is convinced that European industry should be seen as a strategic asset for the competitiveness of the EU; reiterates that only a strong industry will allow the EU to face the different challenges ahead, namely the respect and fulfilment of its COP 21 commitments;

2.  Recalls that the economic crisis in Europe has demonstrated that industries which invest the most are those which resist the most, and underlines in this context the negative impact of austerity policies on public investment and on internal consumption, which should be growth stimulators;

3.  Stresses that European industry faces world competition and therefore strongly encourages the Commission to urgently take this world market as the reference when defining geographical markets in its analysis and comparisons under competition law, and not to limit its analysis only to the internal market, thus allowing European industries to create R&D partnerships or strategic alliances;

4.  Requests the revision of competition policy and State aid rules in order to facilitate public intervention to preserve social and regional cohesion; asks for an impact assessment to be carried out on the evolution of production capacities, including namely factories and jobs, before any decision is taken by DG Competition;

5.  Calls on the Commission to carry out a 15-year prospective study (2030) on the development of the rail industry in Europe, integrating different scenarios on the environmental objectives of the EU Member States; asks the Commission to conduct an additional complementary study on the impact of the different scenarios on jobs, professions and skills; stresses that the Commission needs to follow up rapidly on the recommendations in Parliament’s resolution on the EU rail supply industry to secure jobs and growth; points out that the follow-up needs to be facilitated by a permanent dialogue with stakeholders and must encompass all chapters of the resolution;

6.  Calls on the Council to rapidly adopt the modernisation of trade defence mechanisms, in order to finally be able to respond appropriately to unfair practices by third countries, and to protect EU industry from dumping into the European market, thus guaranteeing fair competition for all;

7.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that EU trade policy is more consistent with industrial policy, so that trade policy takes account of the need to secure European industrial jobs and does not lead to fresh relocations and further deindustrialisation; asks the Commission to ensure that trade agreements include specific provisions which improve market access for European industry; calls on the Commission to ensure a level playing field for market operators from inside and outside Europe;

8.  Calls on the Commission to ensure compliance with EU regulations on public procurement, namely regulations on national preference, abnormally low offers and unfair competition; also recalls that EU provisions allow for the rejection of tenders in which more than 50 % of the value is realised outside the EU;

9.  Exhorts the Commission to work with the different industrial sectors in order to ensure the best possible use of European structural and investment funds, and more precisely of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), to support R&D projects at regional level;

10.  Welcomes the initiative of certain local authorities, together with social partners, to foster experimental projects for workers and companies affected by the economic crisis, in order to secure professional careers through professional training and actions, instead of partial unemployment;

11.  Is strongly convinced that the protection of workers in the framework of the implementation of the industrial strategy of the Union should be reinforced by a legislative package on information and consultation of workers, strengthening the system for collective redundancies but also anticipating the negative effects of globalisation;

12.  Underlines the recognised expertise of workers’ representatives in strategic choices and decision-making in companies; favours the creation of local information and conciliation committees to prevent industrial risks, comprising all stakeholders who have a control or alert capacity;

13.  Calls for the creation of a pilot local information and conciliation committee at the Alstom site, in order to prevent industrial risks, to be made up of stakeholders with the power to control and analyse those risks and to be responsible for studying the future of the Alstom site and making proposals for activities after 2018;

14.  Underlines that when restructuring, it is the immediate and easily perceptible impact on employment that attracts most attention, while the adverse effects on working conditions and workers’ health are not properly recognised and tackled;

15.  Requests that the Commission submit as soon as possible, after consulting the social partners, a proposal for a legal act on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring, following the detailed recommendations set out in Parliament’s resolution of 15 January 2013 on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring;

16.  Notes that the scope of the impact of restructuring decisions taken by large European companies extends far beyond the company itself, and in fact affects an entire economic fabric, including the subcontractors, and compromises the future of entire industrial sector branches;

17.  Is deeply concerned that certain industrial sites are left to die, preventing any economic redeployment, and insists on the need to establish ways to retake possession of sites and to help public authorities to do so;

18.  Calls for the inclusion of subcontractors in the negotiation phase that occurs as the result of a collective redundancy plan identified in a large company;

19.  Requests that the Commission submit as soon as possible, after consulting the social partners, a revision proposal on the approximation of Member States’ laws regarding collective redundancies (Council Directive 98/59/EC), which should include the following principles:

–  Guarantee that all workers suffering from the effects of the restructuring and active in the same company, but in different places of business, will be able to carry out the collective dismissal procedure together,

–  Include all subcontractors of the company in the collective redundancy procedure, to enable them to negotiate compensation with the company for the damages resulting from the closure of their activities, including the impact on employment of subcontracted workers,

–  Calls for the company to appoint a representative with decision-making power for the negotiations throughout the collective redundancy procedure,

–  The establishment of a mechanism of sanctions against companies which conduct restructuring procedures that are unfair and not based on just causes (‘licenciement boursier’), including denying such companies access to the single market and the European funding programmes and/or obliging them to repay all the public aid granted to them in the years before the collective redundancy;

20.  Requests that the Commission submit as soon as possible, after consulting the social partners, a proposal for a legal act similar to the Florange Act at European level, the objective of this legal act being, in the event of closure, to invite the company to initiate a specific information procedure with the works council, aimed at organising the search for a buyer or the sale of the site;

21.  Believes that companies which want to take advantage of the opportunities offered by European company law must, at the same time, adhere to shared European values; calls, therefore, on the Commission to present a proposal for a directive introducing a new and integrated architecture for workers’ involvement in European company forms, which should set high standards on information and consultation and introduce ambitious minimum standards on workers’ board level representation; stresses that this new framework should become the single reference on information, consultation and board-level representation for all European company forms (e.g. European company (SE), European cooperative (SCE), upcoming statute on SMEs), and that it should introduce an obligation to put in place a system for workers’ representation on the board of directors (for one-tier systems) or on supervisory boards (for two-tier systems);

22.  Regrets that, just one day after the announcement of its restructuring plans, Caterpillar informed the members of the Select Committee of the European Works Council at the Gosselies site in Belgium by reading out the official press communiqué during a conference call; highlights that the Caterpillar case demonstrates once again that EU law is not being respected by certain companies, which are failing to inform and consult the European Works Council in advance of announcing restructurings, including mass redundancies in Belgium, the UK and Northern Ireland; considers that this brief statement was in clear contravention of the European Directive, which states that European Works Councils (EWCs) have to be informed and consulted before changes take place and not afterwards; demands, therefore, that the Commission present a proposal for the revision of the EWC Directive, introducing a right of suspension of restructuring plans and plant closures until the proper consultation procedure, laid out in European law, is completed, giving workers a fair chance to influence the decision-making process in the company;

23.  Notes that despite Caterpillar’s public commitment towards sustainability, including social responsibility, there is a lack of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the way the company handles its decisions for restructuring, affecting thousands of workers and failing to respect their rights; highlights that the first consideration of CSR must be the quality of industrial relations within a company, including finding ways for the social partners to work together, especially in improving social dialogue, anticipating and managing change and restructuring, respect for workers’ human rights, including the right to form or join trade unions, to bargain and to strike, and promoting workers’ participation through ‘real’ consultation and information procedures, including within European Works Councils and SE boards; calls on the Commission to present a proposal for harmonisation of CSR requirements, including a mandatory framework for social reporting and for companies and managers to take responsibility for the consequences of abuses or misdemeanours, and setting a framework for European agreements on CSR;

24.   Notes that the EGF is an essential EU tool in the era of globalisation in order to support Member States in their policies of professional requalification of workers and in order to re-establish the economic fabric in a region regarding workers who are suffering the negative effects of globalisation or economic crisis; regrets that the EGF is sometimes used as an instrument linked to the negotiations of collective dismissals, allowing the enterprise to reduce its level of intervention in the financing of measures for retraining of workers and/or in the compensation of workers; insists that EGF financial aid is not to be taken into account in the framework of negotiations regarding collective dismissals; invites the Commission to present a proposal to revise Regulation 1309/2013 on the EGF to allow all subcontractors related to the restructuring case, and also all NEETS, to be eligible for EGF actions, but also to guarantee that, once the demand from one Member State is introduced in a specific NUTS 2 region, the co-financing rate of the Member State for financing the measures is reduced to 20 %;

25.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to carry out studies on the impact of commercial negotiation across countries/regions external to the EU;

26.  Highlights that these studies should be conducted using a regional and sector-based approach, but should also help understand the positive and negative impacts on employment and European industries benefiting from these agreements;

27.  Maintains that the negative impact of the free trade agreements on employment and EU industry must be anticipated by the EU and supported by European funds aiming at allocating funds to the regions / sectors of activity affected negatively by the agreements; considers that the EGF could be attributed this competence in return for an increase in the funds currently allocated to it, and that the ERDF, the ESF and the EGF could be in charge of this competence;

28.  Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament on its strategy for the main industrial sectors in Europe, namely the rail supply sector and the machinery sector, to create a more favourable market environment, and of what it intends to do to keep employment, know-how and investments in Europe;

29.  Calls on the Commission to draw up a coherent strategy on the industrial policy of reindustrialisation, which must not remain a dead letter, in order to be consistent with our objectives;

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

(1)

OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(2)

OJ L 188, 18.7.2009, p. 93.

(3)

OJ L 294, 10.11.2001, p. 1.

(4)

OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.

(5)

OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

(6)

OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 16.

(7)

OJ L 294, 10.11.2001, p. 22.

(8)

OJ L 80, 23.3.2002, p. 29.

(9)

OJ L 207, 18.8.2003, p. 25.

(10)

OJ L 142, 30.4.2004, p. 12.

(11)

OJ L 310, 25.11.2005, p. 1.

(12)

OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28.

(13)

OJ L 308, 24.11.2010, p. 46.

(14)

OJ C 168E, 14.6.2013, p. 102.

(15)

OJ C 117E, 18.5.2006, p. 256.

(16)

OJ C 76E, 27.3.2008, p. 138.

(17)

OJ C 199E, 7.7.2012, p. 131.

(18)

OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855.

(19)

OJ C 440, 30.12.2015, p. 23.

(20)

Texts adopted, P8_TA(2014)0104.

(21)

Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0280.

Legal notice - Privacy policy