Debašu stenogramma

Ceturtdiena, 2012. gada 19. aprīlis - Strasbūra

1. Sēdes atklāšana

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.00)

2. Īstenošanas pasākumi (Reglamenta 88. pants) (sk. protokolu)

3. Deleģētie akti (Reglamenta 87.a pants) (sk. protokolu)

4. ES un ASV nolīgums par pasažieru datu reģistra datu izmantošanu un pārsūtīšanu ASV Iekšzemes drošības departamentam (debates)

  Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la raccomandazione della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni sul progetto di decisione del Consiglio relativa alla conclusione dell'accordo tra gli Stati Uniti d'America e l'Unione europea sull'uso e il trasferimento delle registrazioni dei nominativi dei passeggeri al dipartimento degli Stati Uniti per la sicurezza interna (17433/2011 - C7-0511/2011 - 2011/0382(NLE)) (Relatore: Sophia in 't Veld) (A7-0099/2012).

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. − Mr President, today we are at the conclusion of a process which started in March 2003. We have been working on this transatlantic data sharing deal for nine years, and I think that – whatever the outcome of today’s vote – one conclusion that we can already draw is that it is telling and disappointing that, after nine years of negotiations with our closest friend and ally, we can only come up with an agreement that commands half-hearted support from a divided House. I therefore think that, whatever today’s outcome, we need to have a closer look at how we deal with our transatlantic friends and at the position of the European Union in the transatlantic partnership. We need to reflect on whether we are not weak compared with our partner.

As you all know, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) voted a couple of weeks ago and – to my regret – rejected my recommendation to vote against the EU-US agreement, so the position of the LIBE committee is to recommend adoption of the agreement. However, I think that everybody – or almost everybody, including those who will vote in favour today – still has a number of questions.

Firstly, I would like to say something about a new element, namely the declaration of the European Commission, which we received yesterday and which, as I see it, does not change anything: it does not contain any new elements. It is only the European Commission’s interpretation and is not binding on the US, so it does not make us change our minds. With regard to the GUE resolution proposing to submit this agreement to the European Court of Justice: although I have great sympathy for it and it is very tempting, I am a Democrat and I am very reluctant to outsource political decision-making to the courts, and I think that this House should take its own responsibility.

I said there are still a couple of questions that I would like to put to the Commission. The Commission has its own interpretation of Article 4 on the purpose limitation, but I am still curious to find out – and I am sure many colleagues here would like to know – how you conclude that systematic use of the data for other purposes is explicitly excluded. Which words in Article 4 lead you to that conclusion? How do you conclude that the use of PNR data for public health purposes, immigration policies and customs is explicitly excluded, and how is the use of the data for those purposes based on Articles 82 and 87 on police and justice cooperation?

I think that much has been said about the retention periods. I would also like to ask the Commission about PUSH and PULL. You say that PULL will only be used in a very limited number of exceptional cases, but I would like to put some figures before you that we received from the Association of European Airlines. Just a few figures from 2010 and 2011 show that there are ad hoc PULLs tens of thousands of times a day. In December 2010, for example, there were 82 500 individual ad hoc PULLs a day. I would like to know: how you can conclude that that is exceptional?

Concerning judicial redress: the agreement specifically states that no rights may be derived from this agreement, either for individuals or for other legal persons. How can you come to the conclusion that there is full judicial redress for EU citizens? I realise my time is up and I would like to save the rest of my time for after the debate.

  Morten Bødskov, formand for Rådet. − Hr. formand! Ærede medlemmer! Ærede kommissær Malmström! Mange tak for muligheden for at tale her i anledning af Europa-Parlamentets behandling af denne vigtige sag og dette vigtige spørgsmål. Jeg vil tillade mig at fokusere på nogle af de mere overordnede overvejelser, som jeg mener, udkastet til aftale giver anledning til. De mere tekniske aspekter af aftalen vil jeg overlade til kommissær Malmström at redegøre for.

Som bekendt har spørgsmålet om udveksling af PNR-oplysninger mellem EU og USA været på den transatlantiske dagsorden i mange år. Samtidig har vi løbende fået fornyet indsigt i, hvilken betydning anvendelsen af PNR-oplysninger har for forebyggelsen og bekæmpelsen af alvorlig grænseoverskridende kriminalitet. Der kan efter min opfattelse ikke herske tvivl om, at PNR-oplysninger udgør et meget vigtigt redskab for de retshåndhævende myndigheders indsats over for alvorlig kriminalitet. Det har vi en række konkrete eksempler på. Det betyder imidlertid ikke, at vi skal undlade at stille krav til de myndigheder, der ønsker at gøre brug af PNR-oplysninger.

Hensynet til beskyttelsen af vores borgeres privatliv bør altid indgå med stor vægt i forbindelse med forebyggelse og bekæmpelse af alvorlig kriminalitet. Det gælder naturligvis, uanset om der er tale om myndigheder i EU eller i de tredjelande, som vi har et tæt samarbejde med om bekæmpelse af kriminalitet. Det foreliggende udkast til aftale indeholder en række nye og forbedrede garantier - garantier, som de amerikanske myndigheder har forpligtet sig til at respektere, når PNR-oplysninger behandles. Aftalen er ikke 100 % perfekt, men de amerikanske myndigheder har strakt sig langt for at imødekomme os på en række centrale områder. Aftalen udgør således efter min overbevisning det bedst mulige resultat efter omstændighederne. Lad os også huske på, at den aftale, vi behandler her i dag, jo ikke markerer afslutningen på den transatlantiske dialog om anvendelse af PNR-oplysninger.

Jeg vil slutte mine bemærkninger med at give udtryk for min store anerkendelse af, at Europa-Parlamentet gang på gang har været parat til at kæmpe for de europæiske borgeres interesser. Få sager viser dette tydeligere end den aftale, vi nu skal stemme om. Der kan således ikke herske tvivl om, at den forbedrede aftaletekst, som vi har foran os her i dag, er et resultat af Europa-Parlamentets meget stærke ønske om en genforhandling. Netop derfor vil jeg opfordre jer til at støtte indgåelsen af aftalen. Dermed sikrer I ikke blot, at europæiske borgere og flyselskaber opnår en forbedret beskyttelse af deres rettigheder og interesser, I er også med til at sende et klart signal om, at Den Europæiske Union efter Lissabontraktatens ikrafttræden er i stand til at skabe håndgribelige resultater. Samtidig vil vi i fællesskab kunne vise omverdenen, at EU's institutioner står sammen, når de svære sager skal løses.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission recommends that Parliament give its consent to the new agreement for three reasons. Firstly, because – as the Minister said – the law enforcement authorities need PNR to address the security threats that the US is facing. Secondly, because this agreement is a major improvement to the existing agreement that is now running and which you asked me to renegotiate. Thirdly, because it is difficult to see any alternatives which would better serve the interests of EU passengers and air carriers.

With regard to the necessity of PNR data, the Commission has presented evidence to Members of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on several occasions. It shows that PNR data is important in fighting terrorism and a major tool in fighting drug and people trafficking. For example, PNR has played a pivotal role in cracking some recent cases of terrorism – the Mumbai plotter David Headley, the New York City subway plotter, the Times Square plotter – and we have all read about the atrocities that could have been perpetrated in these cases.

Secondly, this is a major improvement to the existing agreement from 2007. It is a clear step forward from the draft agreement that the Commission presented to the LIBE committee in May, where we asked your advice. In that regard we did a good collective job in pushing the US to make further concessions. This is a good example of how the new Lisbon Treaty works: the three institutions working together with very clear signals from the European Parliament and the Council so that the Commission could be very clear in its negotiations with the Americans.

This good collective work brought more clarity, stronger reciprocity and a better protection of passengers’ rights to privacy, without undermining the effect of the PNR system and security on both sides of the Atlantic. It also reflects the concerns that you expressed in your resolution two years ago and respects fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality. Let me outline some details of this agreement.

The agreement, unlike the current one, is one single legally-binding text written in ‘proper treaty language’. It strengthens reciprocity and security on the EU side by obliging the US to share leads derived from PNR data with the law enforcement authorities in the EU. It sets strict limits on the purposes for which PNR data may be used. This is a concern for many Members, as I am aware, and I also heard the objections by the rapporteur. I would therefore like to read out the declaration on behalf of the Commission:

‘The Commission considers that the agreement sets forth a precise description of purpose and scope, clarifying the purposes for which PNR will be collected and used. The definition of terms and the detailed description of the uses of PNR in Article 4 ensure that the purpose limitation of the agreement is in line with relevant EU laws on the protection of personal data and privacy. The purposes for which PNR can be collected and used are limited to the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and certain transnational crimes.’ The agreement provides, in Article 4 (1), the first detailed definition of the terms ‘terrorist offences’ and ‘transnational crimes’.

Article 4 (2) of the agreement allows for the potential use of PNR on a case- by-case basis for the protection of vital interests of any individual, or if ordered by a court. These uses are, both by their nature and in view of the experiences we had in the joint reviews, very exceptional. In Article 4 (3) the agreement clarifies how PNR may become relevant when passengers travel to or from the US. In this regard the agreement merely clarifies that PNR may, in accordance with its scope and purpose, be processed to identify persons who require further examination. This does not constitute a further purpose for the processing of PNR data.

Article 4 (4) explains that the agreement is without prejudice to domestic law enforcement, judicial powers or proceedings, where other violations of the law of indications are therefore detected in the course of the use and processing of PNR.

This provision aims to clarify that domestic powers are not affected by the agreement in cases where other offences are detected in the course of using PNR. This clarification does not affect or extend the purposes for the use of PNR.

In the context of the joint review and evaluation mechanism set out in Article 23 of the agreement, and without prejudice to other matters that might be raised in this mechanism, the Commission will seek detailed information and pay particular attention to the respect of the provisions of Article 4 of the agreement. More specifically, the Commission will review respect of the uses of PNR under Article 41 of the agreement and request information on any cases in which PNR has been used, either for the protection of vital interests of any individual or, where ordered by a court, under Article 4 (2) of the agreement.

The Commission commits to keeping Parliament fully informed of these and other aspects and to presenting a full report to Parliament and to the Council, as foreseen by Article 23 (3), without delay at the end of the first joint review and of other subsequent reviews. If, following the joint review, Parliament states in a resolution that there are serious deficiencies in the application of the agreement and calls for the suspension or the termination of the agreement, the Commission commits to considering Parliament’s political request with the utmost attention while deciding on whether to make a proposal, in full respect of the procedures and competences defined by Article 218 of the Treaty.

Having examined the scope, let me return to some other points. The agreement reduces the retention period for which PNR data may be stored by US authorities from 15 to 10 years for serious transnational crimes. Only for terrorist offences would the data be used for 15 years as under the existing agreement and – an important new element – PNR data will be depersonalised six months after it is sent by the carriers, making those data elements which can be linked to an individual passenger invisible.

There are also important safeguards on data provisions. In order to prevent illegal profiling, in particular, the agreement prohibits automated decisions affecting passengers. A human being must always take the final decision. New rules on data security are included to prevent data being lost or disclosed to the public. The agreement clarifies and strengthens passengers’ right to access, correct and, where relevant, delete the PNR data stored in the US databases. It also contains a detailed provision on administrative and judicial redress under US law. The rules on sharing onward transfers of PNR data have been tightened. This can happen only on a case-by-case basis, not in bulk, and only for the specific purposes of the agreement itself.

The agreement is very clear on the method by which PNR data can be transferred: all air carriers must transfer data by the ‘push’ method within two years. The aviation industry has assured the Commission that air carriers are prepared to make the necessary investment in that timeframe. ‘Pulling’ of data by the US authorities will not be entirely prohibited, but the conditions governing this are precisely defined and limited to exceptional cases. In the current agreement, ‘push’ is not the norm. Now it becomes the norm. ‘Pulling’ is very exceptional and its use will be logged and, of course, checked thoroughly by the Commission.

Finally, there are provisions to ensure that the agreement is correctly applied. Several bodies from within and outside the US Department of Homeland Security will have independent oversight over it. We will have regular joint reviews and a full evaluation after four years. In order to make this effective, there will be records and logs of processing of PNR data. There are also clear rules on the resolution of disputes between the EU and the US and on suspension and termination of the agreement.

I recognise that many Members still have questions and think this is a difficult decision. I fully respect that and am ready to respond to all your questions. This is an international agreement. Like all international agreements, it is not 100% perfect. We have to give and take. The Commission has presented to Parliament and the LIBE Committee a draft agreement from May. There you gave clear instructions on where to make changes. We went back to the US and achieved a lot of those changes: on purpose limitation, scope, retention periods and other points. We now have an agreement that fully respects EU law.

This brings me to my final point, on the absence of better alternatives. Further negotiations with the US are not a real option – so what will happen if you vote it down today? What will the consequences be? It would be damaging for the transatlantic relationship because this data will be collected anyway and we would lose a very important chance to influence US policy on the use of that data. Secondly, we would leave the air carriers in a very difficult situation because they will be required to transfer the data, but there would be no legal basis in the EU for this transfer. So this would leave us in legal limbo, with potential lawsuits by passengers and a very difficult situation. Finally, and most importantly, we would fail to protect the interests of the more than 48 million passengers flying from the EU to the US every year. In the absence of the agreement, there would be no binding international rules to protect the passengers’ privacy.

One cannot exclude the possibility that there will be bilateral agreements with the US between our Member States, but I do not believe that the Member States could bilaterally obtain a level of protection of passengers’ rights that goes beyond what we have achieved today. For all these reasons, I ask you to endorse the new agreement today.

  Axel Voss, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Minister, Frau Kommissarin! Vielen Dank auch der Berichterstatterin für ihre immer sehr engagierte und vorbildliche Arbeit. Vieles von der Kritik, die Sophie in 't Veld geäußert hat, kann ich teilen, unterstütze dies oder habe dies auch zum Teil unterstützt. Doch es kommt dann eben auch immer der Punkt, an dem man Verantwortung übernehmen muss. Für die EVP oder auch für mich selbst nehme ich deshalb auch in Anspruch, dass wir uns jetzt mit den Realitäten beschäftigen müssen und uns eben nicht auf ideologische oder theoretische Standpunkte zurückziehen können.

Fakt ist, die USA sammeln seit zehn Jahren diese PNR-Daten, und es gab nicht eine einzige Beschwerde. Fakt ist, dass wir alle nicht wollen, dass der Datenverkehr – selbst bei einer ablehnenden Haltung – gestoppt wird. Sie hatten das gerade ausgeführt. Fakt ist auch, dass wir nicht wollen, dass der Flugverkehr zwischen Europa und den USA zum Stillstand kommt. Fakt ist auch, dass die USA ein Recht darauf haben, zu wissen, wer in ihr Land kommt. Fakt ist meines Erachtens auch, dass die Rechtsdienste alle mündlich geäußert haben, dass dieses Abkommen besser ist als die Alternativen. Deshalb muss man hier auch Verantwortung übernehmen. Hierfür sind wir auch gewählt.

Verantwortung für die Bürger, die man ansonsten allein und mit weniger Schutz und Rechten zurücklassen würde. Verantwortung für die Airlines, die man ansonsten – und auch das hatte die Kommissarin ausgeführt – in absoluter Rechtsunsicherheit zurücklassen würde. Verantwortung auch für die EU als Vertragspartner in Fragen von Datenschutz und Sicherheit, aber auch Verantwortung für ein ausgewogenes Verhältnis zwischen Sicherheit und Datenschutz. Deshalb sind wir in der Summe, auch wenn dieses Abkommen nicht perfekt ist, dafür, diesem Abkommen zuzustimmen. Wenn man die Bürger besser schützen will, und wenn man auch den Bürgern besseren Datenschutz zukommen lassen möchte, übernimmt man auch hier diese Verantwortung und stimmt diesem Abkommen zu.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Sophia in 't Veld, Blue-card question. − Mr President, I have a question for Mr Voss and his political group.

He rightly points out that there needs to be a legal base for the transfer of passenger data, so I wonder why this House has not reacted to the fact that, for three and a half years now, data has been transferred to Canada in the absence of any legal base and that, under the US secure flight programme, data is being transferred from Europe to the United States for flights not going to the United States, while this House does not seem to care.

Why is it that we want a legal base in one case and not in the other cases?

  Axel Voss (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Zum einen wollen wir immer eine Rechtsgrundlage haben. Natürlich ist es im Moment eine unglückliche Situation, dass sich das mit Kanada nicht so ergibt, wie wir es gerne hätten. Zum anderen bedeuten Überflugrechte natürlich auch ein Eindringen in das Hoheitsgebiet eines anderen Staates. Auch dafür braucht man natürlich entsprechende Grundlagen. Von daher ist es vollkommen richtig, dass wir eine Grundlage brauchen. Dafür werden wir uns auch einsetzen. Wir sperren uns in diesem Fall auch gar nicht gegen Rechtsgrundlagen. Wir müssen nur abwarten, was die Verhandlungen mit Kanada letztlich erbringen werden. Darauf warten wir, und deshalb werden wir uns dann auch dafür einsetzen, dass dies entsprechend Grundlage wird und eine entsprechende rechtliche Grundlage beinhaltet.

  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, speaking for the S&D Group, we will be having a free vote. In committee there was a small majority in favour of the PNR Agreement, but you will hear arguments against that agreement from our shadow and others.

I will be speaking in favour of this PNR Agreement and will vote for it, for the following reasons. Our group had three critical aims. We felt that this agreement, despite – as others, including the Commissioner, have said – no international agreement being perfect, was one whose scope was just too wide and went beyond terrorism; we said there was too long a retention period; and that it was taking in ‘pull’ methods as well as ‘push’ methods. In the end, two out of three of the critical key concessions were included.

Two out of three was enough, in my opinion, for us to say that this agreement was enough. That was a very difficult judgment to make, but the scope was substantially narrowed: minor crimes were excluded and the retention period for serious crimes reduced. Also, although the USA has not fully agreed to move fully on the pull / push issue, data will now only be pulled in exceptional cases where there is a serious and urgent threat. This is by no means perfect, as the Commissioner and Minister have said, particularly as regards the push / pull issue, but we had to reach a conclusion at some point, following difficult negotiations.

In committee, a small majority from my group felt that, while this agreement did not meet all our requests, it is undeniable that the text has been fundamentally improved. It constitutes the only legal and binding framework for the transfer of EU-US PNR data. A ‘no’ to this agreement, as many have said and will say, will leave a clear position of 27 bilateral agreements with no common rules, no EP monitoring and citizens being left in a legal void and being subject to contrasting regimes, which I believe is not in the interest of European Union citizens.

Finally, concerning difficulties about setting a precedent, the agreement clearly states that it will not constitute a precedent for other agreements in this field. That is, in my view, satisfying when we look at the agreement as a whole. This is not a perfect situation, and what we have to say to the Commissioner – and this is certainly true of those in my group who would want to support this agreement – is that the Commission should take Parliament seriously when it reviews this agreement.

Commissioner, we do not have the political power to terminate this agreement if it goes wrong and strays into other areas. If we support this agreement then you must support us and take us seriously, politically, should it go wrong or go beyond the remit that you have set.

  Renate Weber, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, colleagues, this is a controversial agreement because, while its aim – fighting terrorists through preventive means – is welcome, it undeniably interferes with the protection of other equally important values such as privacy and data protection. I am not the only person saying that the agreement violates this right and EU legislation; the European Data Protection Supervisor demonstrated it in a thorough analysis. What is more, the scope of the agreement goes far beyond combating terrorism.

Many say it is a better agreement than the previous one – which only means it is less bad than the previous one – but it remains an agreement with severe consequences for our fundamental rights. I respect the fact that the American authorities and lawmakers are interested in their citizens’ rights, but I believe that we are entitled to care above all about the protection of our own European citizens’ rights.

It has been said that, without this agreement, our air carriers will violate EU legislation on data protection because if they want to land in the USA they will continue to transfer data. But you must remember that the agreement obliges the air carriers to implement the ‘push’ obligations in two years, which means investing a huge amount of money in equipment and software to transmit all data to the US authorities in real time.

What if some of the air carriers are not able to implement this obligation? Big companies will probably do it, but either smaller companies will be forced out of business by this expenditure or the current situation will continue. They will allow the extraction of data by the American authorities directly from their computers.

I have never believed that a bad law is better than no law.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Vor etwa drei Jahren hat nur wenige Meter von hier der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte ein maßgebliches Urteil über das Verhältnis von Strafverfolgungsinteressen und dem Menschenrecht auf Familien- und Privatleben gefällt. Im Fall Marper gegen das Vereinigte Königreich stellte das Gericht klar, dass das anlasslose Ansammeln von personenbezogenen Daten in staatlichen Datenbanken ohne klaren Beleg für die Notwendigkeit und ohne engste Grenzen rechtswidrig ist.

Vor zwei Jahren hat nur wenige Kilometer von hier das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht über die Vorratsspeicherung von Telekommunikationsdaten geurteilt und ist zu dem Ergebnis gekommen, dass eine Verpflichtung privater Unternehmen zur anlasslosen Speicherung von personenbezogenen Daten selbst über wenige Monate nur unter außergewöhnlichsten Umständen gerechtfertigt sein kann. Kurz darauf hat dieses Europäische Parlament sich geweigert, ein Abkommen abzustimmen, das offensichtlich diesen Kriterien nicht annähernd entspricht. In einer Entschließung haben wir deutlich gemacht, dass eine Vorratsdatenspeicherung von bis zu 15 Jahren nicht verhältnismäßig ist. Wir haben ebenfalls deutlich gemacht, dass eine Verwendung solcher angesammelter Massendaten, anlasslos gespeicherter Daten, nur innerhalb engster Grenzen erfolgen kann, wie z. B. bei Terrorismus und organisierter Kriminalität. Wir haben außerdem deutlich gemacht, dass eine Rasterfahndung, profiling von Informationen nicht erlaubt sein darf.

Liebe Frau Malmström, in diesem Abkommen, mit dieser Maßnahme werden alle Daten verwendet und verarbeitet. Es wird nicht nur auf einzelne Daten zugegriffen, sondern alle werden verarbeitet. Das ist das Prinzip, das hinter dieser Maßnahme steckt: Eine Rasterfahndung, die alle Informationen von allen in die USA Reisenden automatisiert mit Gefahrenprofilen abgleicht. Hier muss man ganz ehrlich sagen: Das ist offener Rechtsbruch von europäischem Recht. Hier muss ich gerade in Richtung der Konservativen und der Sozialdemokraten im Europäischen Parlament fragen: Schämen Sie sich nicht? Schämen Sie sich nicht, offensichtlich Recht zu brechen? Und glauben Sie wirklich, dass die Abgeordneten im US-Kongress ebenso engagiert für die Souveränität unseres Rechts streiten würden? Das ist doch absurd!

Es geht hier doch nicht um die Frage, ob die USA selbst entscheiden dürfen, welche Maßnahmen sie ergreifen oder nicht, sondern es geht um die Frage, ob wir als Europäer sie legitimieren oder nicht. Da muss ich ehrlich sagen: Das können wir nicht legitimieren. Besonders viele Bürgerinnen und Bürger werden heute echt enttäuscht sein, wenn das Europäische Parlament nach 10 Jahren Auseinandersetzung diesem Abkommen, das immer noch genau die gleichen Regelungen vorsieht, zustimmt. Deswegen kann ich Ihnen nur raten: Retten Sie die Ehre des Parlaments und stimmen Sie mit Nein!

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Blue-card question. – Mr President, just a point of clarification. I agreed with you almost completely, especially taking into consideration the large-scale and serious violations of human rights committed by the government we are talking about, namely the US Government.

I just want to seek clarification on the issue of proportionality as opposed to purpose, because I think that for many people – especially those who are not lawyers – it might be disturbing to think that giving up some of our privacy and data protection rights might be proportionate to the noble aim of preventing terrorism. I think this is something we all agree upon. But the question here is: can this noble purpose really be achieved by the measures taken here? That is where I have a problem and that is why I am going to vote no today.

I want to ask your opinion on the issue of proportionality as opposed to purpose. I want to ask you for a clarification on that.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Vielen Dank für die Rückfrage. Natürlich ist der Einsatz gegen Terrorismus und organisierte Kriminalität ein notwendiges Ziel und meines Erachtens auch eine wichtige Maßnahme, die wir als Europäische Union – und auch gemeinsam mit den Vereinigten Staaten als engem Partner – verfolgen müssen. Das ist gar keine Frage.

Die Frage ist: Ist das mit der Massenanalyse von Daten von vielen unverdächtigen Personen überhaupt zu erreichen? Oder bedarf es nicht vielmehr einer verstärkten Zusammenarbeit bei verdachtsabhängigen Ermittlungen, einer Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Polizeibehörden in verdachtsabhängigen Situationen? Da gehen wir in die falsche Richtung – immer mehr Geld auszugeben für Analysezentren, für Datenzentren, wo immer mehr unverdächtige Personen analysiert werden, während auf der anderen Seite die Mittel für Polizistinnen und Polizisten vor Ort gestrichen werden, die an verdachtsabhängigen Ermittlungen arbeiten. Das kann nicht sein. Und darüber müssen wir hier im Europäischen Parlament verstärkt diskutieren.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, those who report on the activities of this Parliament have attached the word ‘controversial’ to this agreement, but the improvements to the text during our long deliberations in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) have received support from across five political groups, as well as from the Council and the Commission. I disagree with the rapporteur. These improvements are significant. Despite that, certain individuals and certain groups in Parliament do not trust the judgement and legal authority of the Commission.

A negotiation between two sides, two parties, two countries or two allies will never result in a perfect agreement and we cannot, and should not, expect that. However, the United States is our most trusted third-country partner, whose security vulnerabilities and recent history cannot, and should not, be ignored. Neither can we ignore the proven success and value of using PNR data in the prevention and prosecution of terrorism and of the most serious of crimes in many of our European countries.

We should also ask ourselves what the alternative is – 27 bilateral agreements, no legal uniformity or clarity for air carriers, no rights of redress for our passengers? No, those are neither good nor acceptable alternatives to this House. Members here who do not see this agreement as necessary must explain that to their electorates, but I and my group will be voting in favour in the knowledge that, at the end of the day, whilst it may not be perfect, this agreement is an integral and vital tool in the fight to ensure safety and security for all European citizens. Our citizens have a right to be able to travel safely.

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

  Graham Watson (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, concern for protecting our citizens against acts of terror is something we share with our partners across the Atlantic.

Clearly, we must work together in this endeavour, but we must do so on the basis of mutual respect. I would like to put a question to Mr Kirkhope. With all his experience in this area, does he believe that, if we were to ask the United States lawmakers to vote against their own laws and the principles on which those laws are based, and to assist us in such a way, they would agree to do so?

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I love hypothetical debates, particularly while we are discussing something which is of such importance. I can say with some certainty that, although I am not American, I do know a lot of legislators in the United States – as does Sir Graham – and I am pretty confident that the United States legislators would decide to do whatever was necessary to protect not only their own citizens but the other citizens of the Free World with whom they have dealings.

That is my experience of the United States. It may be not everybody’s but that is where I believe they would put their priorities.

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

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I have two brief questions for Mr Kirkhope. You said we have to accept the authority of the Legal Department of the European Commission. I ask you: do you accept the authority of the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Article 29 Working Group, who have both pointed out that this agreement is a violation of EU law?

My second question: you rightfully referred to security purposes, but I would like to know why the Conservatives – who are always concerned about small government and stating their preference for it over big government – allow the systematic use of these data for public health purposes, immigration policies and customs policies?

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I have no intention of answering the second question as I think that it is a matter for another occasion, and no doubt Miss in ’t Veld and I can have a private talk about that.

As far as lawyers and opinions are concerned, I – as a lawyer – am used to giving opinions. I am not always certain that my opinion as an individual lawyer will be followed any more than I believe that any particular set of lawyers has got some kind of monopoly on correctness and appropriateness.

My view is that the Commission’s lawyers are the main lawyers that we should be looking at in this particular context, because it is the Commission – as guardian of the treaties – that has to actually enforce matters on behalf of us all in relation to the international agreements that we conclude.

So my view is that the Commission’s legal opinion was the main opinion that we should have relied on – and which I do rely on – and whether other opinions would be as important is a matter for the context.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, we see increasing moves by governments to limit our personal freedom and privacy, citing the need to protect us from the threat of terrorism and organised crime. However, we have to be extremely cautious in allowing our freedoms to be removed, because once they are gone it is very hard to restore them.

We also have to ask if we have any particular reason to trust our governments. Legislation intruding into the citizen’s right to privacy should be proportionate, limited and controlled. Once it is enacted we need to be sure that its scope cannot be widened at the whim of government.

This kind of legislation should never have been proposed by the Commission in the first place. It probably comes under the jurisdiction of international law. It should be devised under international agreements by sovereign nation states. The legislation is also unacceptable because it is one-way traffic between Europe and the USA. We have to give them our citizens’ personal information, but they do not have to supply theirs.

The motion for a resolution wants the final decision to be referred to the European Court of Justice to rule on its legality and compatibility with the EU Treaties. The UK Independence Party’s MEPs will vote against this legislation. We will not vote in favour of the motion as we do not accept the legitimacy of the European Court.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Meine Damen und Herren! Die GUE/NGL-Fraktion wird gegen dieses Abkommen stimmen, weil damit ein elementares Recht der EU-Bürger ausgehebelt wird, nämlich das Recht auf den Schutz personenbezogener Daten. Frau Malmström, über das, was Sie gesagt haben, kann ich nur den Kopf schütteln. Sie laufen einer imaginären Sicherheit hinterher, die es nicht gibt und die es auch mit diesem Abkommen und keinem anderen Abkommen dieser Art geben wird.

Es geht nicht um ein paar Reisedaten europäischer Bürger, sondern darum, dass in Kombination mit anderen Datenbanken, die es längst gibt, natürlich profiling und damit die Überwachung von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern möglich ist. Wir lehnen dieses Abkommen ab, weil es keine hinreichenden Beweise – auch nicht das, was Sie genannt haben, Frau Malmström – für den Nutzen dieses Abkommens gibt. Und weil Verhältnismäßigkeit und Zweckbestimmtheit ad absurdum geführt werden, wenn Millionen Daten unbescholtener Bürgerinnen und Bürger gespeichert werden. Wir lehnen es ab, weil die Verwendung dieser Daten weit über den Zweck, den Sie genannt haben – Terrorismusbekämpfung und Bekämpfung schwerer organisierter, grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität – ausgedehnt wird.

Es gibt in Artikel 4 eine Öffnungsklausel, über die wir dann auch reden müssen. Es gibt eine Öffnungsklausel, die den Zweck deutlich ausdehnt. Man kann diesem Abkommen unmöglich zustimmen, weil die Verarbeitung und die Weitergabe der PNR-Daten, übrigens auch an Drittländer, einer Behörde, dem Department of Homeland Security, übertragen wird, die parlamentarisch überhaupt nicht kontrollierbar ist, die nicht für Transparenz sorgen kann, einer Behörde, in der die Geheimdienste sich die Türklinke in die Hand geben. Wir lehnen das Abkommen ab, weil die Speicherzeit der Daten gegen jedes Verständnis von Angemessenheit und Verhältnismäßigkeit verstößt, und sogar sensible Daten 30 Tage und gegebenenfalls sogar länger gespeichert werden können. Das ist ein Skandal!

Es ist für uns als Fraktion vollkommen unmöglich zuzustimmen, weil es vor allem auch keinen ernstzunehmenden Rechtsbehelf gibt. Das ist doch lächerlich, was dort unter Rechtsbehelf zu finden ist! Es gibt nur ein begrenztes Informationsrecht, und es können noch nicht einmal Rechtsmittel nach einem ordentlichen Datenschutzgesetz eingelegt werden. Das ist gar nicht möglich. Rechtsbehelf wird hier Rechtsbehinderung. Und Herrn Voss, und auch den Abgeordneten, die hier zustimmen wollen, will ich sagen: Wenn uns etwas an unseren eigenen EU-Verträgen liegt, dann müssen wir dieses Abkommen ablehnen. Das, Herr Voss, hat etwas mit Verantwortung zu tun, nämlich Verantwortung für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in der EU.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). - De primaire taak van de overheid is veiligheid, en daarmee heeft in Europa elke lidstaat de verantwoordelijkheid zijn eigen burgers tegen terrorisme te beschermen. Nimmer mag een land daar door Brusselse bemoeizucht in gehinderd worden. De burger verwacht immers terecht veiligheid. Landen dienen dus zelf te beslissen wie hun grondgebied mag betreden en welke voorwaarden daaraan zijn verbonden. En dat geldt natuurlijk ook voor landen buiten Europa. Amerika weet prima hoe de strijd tegen terrorisme moet worden gevoerd, dus waar bemoeit Brussel zich eigenlijk mee?

Als een land uit veiligheidsoverwegingen persoonsgegevens eist van wie dan ook die het grondgebied wil betreden, dan is dat niet alleen zijn recht, dat is dan zijn plicht. Wil een burger zijn persoonsgegevens niet afstaan, dan komt hij er dus niet in. Dat is een eigen beslissing, waar Brussel niets mee te maken heeft. Want Voorzitter, laat ik helder zijn, persoonsgegevens zijn enkel en alleen eigendom van het individu, niet van bedrijven en al helemaal niet van Brussel! Het is dan ook absoluut niet aan Brussel om te onderhandelen over het al dan niet verstrekken van persoonsgegevens van EU-burgers aan derden.

Voorzitter, terrorisme bedreigt ons elke dag en dat moeten wij serieus nemen. Maar deze overeenkomst erkent niet eens dat de islam een van de grootste inspiratiebronnen van hedendaags terrorisme is en dat is beschamend. Brussel is naïef en de lidstaten accepteren de beknotting van de verantwoordelijkheid die zij hebben voor hun eigen burgers. En dat verwijt ik ze.

(Spreker is bereid een "blauwe kaart"-vraag te beantwoorden (artikel 149, lid 8, van het Reglement))

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Könnte mir der Kollege bitte den Gefallen tun, seine Aussage zu spezifizieren? Was meint er damit, dass der Islam Herd von terroristischen Angriffen wäre?

  Auke Zijlstra (NI), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Voorzitter, dit is een voorbeeld van de naïviteit die ik zonet noemde. Ik meen uit cijfers te kunnen opmaken dat er vorig jaar 11.000 aanslagen zijn geweest in de islamitische landen, dus allemaal op de islam geïnspireerd terrorisme. Waar denkt u dat de aanslagen in Toulouse, in Madrid, in Londen, de twin towers vandaan kwamen? Hoe kan ik aantonen dat de islam een bron is van terrorisme? Kijk om u heen en lees de krant. En opnieuw: het is beschamend dat blijkbaar de enige parlementariërs die dit erkennen, aan deze kant van de zaal zitten. Ik hoorde mevrouw Ernst zonet zeggen dat veiligheid een illusie is. Met de houding van dit parlement is dat inderdaad het geval.

  Manfred Weber (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Ratsvertreter! Wir sollten uns gegenseitig schon zugestehen, dass wir alle darum ringen, wie wir den Datenschutz für unsere europäischen Bürger hochhalten. Wir sollten auch ernst nehmen, was der Kollege Watson in seinem kurzen Redebeitrag unterstrichen hat, dass uns der Kampf gegen den Terror gemeinsam ein Anliegen ist, dass die Menschen, die in Toulouse den Terror erlebt haben, in diesem Haus auch eine Rolle spielen müssen. Beide Argumente sind abzuwägen.

Für die EVP-Fraktion ist klar, dass die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika in diesem Kampf gegen den Terror, der eine globale Herausforderung ist, unser Partner sind. Wir sehen die Vereinigten Staaten als Partner an und wollen gemeinsam mit ihnen arbeiten. Ich glaube, dass wir dieses Rollenspiel – die Amerikaner sind die Bösen, die Datensammler, und wir Europäer profitieren aber dann von den Auswertungsergebnissen, die sie ja durchaus den europäischen Behörden zur Verfügung stellen – nicht mitspielen wollen. Wir wollen gemeinsam unserer Verantwortung gerecht werden, und das heißt auch, dass wir Europäer handeln müssen.

Jeder Staat hat souverän das Recht, zu regeln, wie man in sein Staatsgebiet einreist, welche Daten dafür notwendig sind. Genauso wie wir es mit Kanada und Australien diskutieren, diskutieren wir es jetzt auch mit den Vereinigten Staaten. Der jetzige Vertrag bringt mehr Rechtssicherheit. Und alle, die gegen den Vertrag stimmen, werden weniger Rechtssicherheit haben. Das ist die Alternative, die wir heute vorgelegt bekommen.

Ich möchte mich ausdrücklich bei der Kommissarin bedanken, dass sie deutlich gemacht hat, dass Europa gemeinsam stärker ist, dass wir als Europäische Union mehr erreichen können als 27 Staaten, die einzeln verhandeln. Die EVP bekennt sich zur Partnerschaft mit den Amerikanern und deshalb darf ich noch einen Blick in die Zukunft werfen. Wir haben die Diskussion um ein Rahmenabkommen zum Datenschutz, weil der Austausch von Daten in der Zukunft wichtiger werden wird. Deswegen bitte ich auch die Amerikaner, bei diesen Verhandlungen dranzubleiben, das Angebot der Europäer ernst zu nehmen, dass wir globale Standards beim Datenaustausch, beim Datenschutz erarbeiten. Wenn wir Europäer und Amerikaner es gemeinsam in einem Rahmenvertrag fixieren können, dann besteht die Chance, dass wir globale Standards schaffen. Das wäre echter Mehrwert für unsere europäischen Bürger.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE), Pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”. – Senhor Presidente, Colega Weber, num debate deste género, nós temos toda a obrigação de ter um discurso realista para os nossos cidadãos e de não lhes infundir medo, de não infundir o pânico.

Ora, o colega fez uma afirmação que me parece muitíssimo ambiciosa, olhem para Toulouse, disse, olhem para Toulouse. O que eu gostaria de lhe perguntar é de que forma é que consegue ligar os ataques em Toulouse ao acordo que estamos aqui a votar. Como sabe, eram conhecidas as viagens do terrorista de Toulouse ao Paquistão e de volta, o que é que o Colega Weber teria feito? Teria impedido de viajar ou como é que teria conseguido impedir, se existe alguma forma de impedir os ataques em Toulouse pelo uso de dados PNA, que aliás foram usados, e não impediram os ataques. Portanto, eu creio que o colega aqui tem uma obrigação de se manter nas baias de um debate que seja tecnicamente realista e que não use acontecimentos terríveis, como foram os de Toulouse, para infundir medo nos cidadãos.

  Weber, Manfred (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Sehr geehrter Kollege, jeder Ermittler, der im Antiterrorkampf tätig ist, wird Ihnen darauf antworten, dass bei einer Ermittlung nie ein einziger Datenbestand den Ausschlag geben wird, sondern das Gesamtbild, das man sich macht. Es ist die Frage, wie sich Terror finanziert. Es ist die Frage, mit wem ein Terrorist telefonischen Kontakt hat. Deswegen diskutieren wir die Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Es ist auch die Frage, welches Bewegungsprofil ein Terrorist oder ein möglicher Gefährder hat. Das Gesamtbild ist es. Ich habe nie behauptet, dass nur ein einziger Datensatz zum Ergebnis führen wird. Ich habe aber gesagt, dass wir zum einen die Datenschutzinteressen der Bürger haben, und zum anderen, dass wir hier genauso abwägen müssen, welche Macht bzw. welche Daten wir den Ermittlern geben müssen, damit sie ihren Job machen können, nämlich die Terroranschläge zukünftig zu verhindern. Das gilt es abzuwägen. Das müssen auch die respektieren, die heute ablehnen, dass sie manche Daten eben nicht zur Verfügung haben. Mehr habe ich nicht gesagt.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Weber, ich respektiere Ihre Meinung. Aber wenn ich mir überlege, dass Sie sagen, natürlich müssen wir mit Drittstaaten gemeinsam solche Abkommen schließen, dann frage ich mich, wie reagieren Sie denn auf die Anfragen aus Saudi Arabien – sicher auch bald aus China –, die vielleicht in ähnlicher Weise fragen werden, ja wenn die US-Amerikaner diese Informationen bekommen, warum bekommen wir sie nicht auch? Warum bekommen wir sie nicht auch legitimiert durch das Europäische Parlament? Wie reagieren Sie darauf, wenn diese Länder vielleicht auch noch weitere Maßnahmen durch das Europäische Parlament legitimiert sehen wollen? Müssen wir jetzt als Europäisches Parlament alles akzeptieren, was Drittstaaten entscheiden? Egal, ob es mit dem europäischen Recht vereinbar ist oder nicht?

  Weber, Manfred (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege Albrecht! Wenn ich mit Ermittlern spreche, dann berichten die mir, dass wir eine Fülle von Terrorvorbereitungen in Europa nicht hätten aufklären können, wenn wir nicht die Partnerschaft mit den Vereinigten Staaten gehabt hätten. Das sagen Ermittler mir. Deswegen sage ich, dass die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika ein Partner Europas im gemeinsamen Kampf gegen den Terror sind. Wenn ich der Meinung bin, dass die Vereinigten Staaten ein fairer Partner sind, dann setze ich mich gerne mit denen an einen Tisch und verhandle einen Vertrag. Das gilt nicht als Freibrief für alle Staaten dieser Erde.

Wenn Sie andeuten, dass wir die Vereinigten Staaten mit China als Partner gleichsetzen, dann ist das Ihre Position, aber nicht meine. Ich sehe in den Vereinigten Staaten einen Partner. Ich glaube, dass mit diesem Vertrag, der uns vorliegt, die Kommission gestärkt wird, den Amerikanern zukünftig auf die Finger zu schauen, was sie denn mit diesen Daten machen, ob die Spielregeln, die wir gemeinsam vereinbart haben, auch umgesetzt werden. Ich wünsche mir ein starkes Europa. Aber ich akzeptiere auch die Vereinigten Staaten als einen fairen Partner, der gemeinsam mit uns gegen den Terror kämpfen will.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Weber, ich kenne Sie jetzt schon länger, und ich kenne Sie insbesondere als strammen Vertreter des Rechtsstaats, und denke, das ist schon in Ordnung so. Jetzt bin ich doch verwundert über das, was Sie und Ihre Fraktion in dieser Debatte sagen. Sie sagen im Wesentlichen, dieses Abkommen – das für mich unsinnig ist – ist gut, denn wenn wir es nicht hätten, würden die Vereinigten Staaten sowieso tun, was sie wollen, ganz egal, was die Europäische Union will. Das ist dann aber Erpressung, wenn wir dieses Abkommen nur bekommen, weil wir sonst Angst haben müssen, dass die Amerikaner sowieso tun, was sie wollen. So geht es auch nicht! Ich möchte gerne wissen, wie Sie das mir und Ihren Wählerinnen und Wählern erklären können.

  Presidente. − Volevo dire all'onorevole Morvai che ho già accettato tre richieste di "blue card" e adesso non possiamo accettare ulteriori domande, anche perché la discussione deve proseguire e poi avrà l'occasione di rivolgere la sua domanda a qualche altro oratore.

  Weber, Manfred (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Rechtswidrig? Diese Frage kann man politisch bewerten. Da sind Sie anderer Meinung als ich. Wenn wir auf den Vertrag blicken, haben wir eine Organisation, die beim Verhandeln eines Vertrags das Initiativrecht hat, die Möglichkeiten hat, das auch zu bewerten, und zwar die Kommission. Der Rechtsdienst der Kommission hat erklärt, dass der Vertrag in Ordnung ist. Das ist die Rechtslage. Wenn andere anderer Meinung sind, wenn Kollegen, Mitgliedstaaten, Regierungen in Europa anderer Meinung sind, dann steht ihnen vollkommen frei, vor den EuGH zu gehen und das prüfen zu lassen. Das ist unser Rechtssystem. Damit habe ich überhaupt kein Problem.

Aber zu unterstellen, man würde gegen das Recht sprechen, obwohl der Rechtsdienst der Kommission sagt, das ist in Ordnung, geht doch sehr weit. Ich stelle mir vielmehr die Frage, wie Sie, wenn wir heute ablehnen, denn den Bürgern erklären wollen, dass wir dann im Prinzip im rechtsfreien Raum sind, dass dann die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika mit den Airlines und eventuell mit den Staaten direkt verhandeln. Wie wollen Sie den Bürgern klar machen, dass dann in dieser Datenaustauschfrage keine Spielregeln mehr gelten. Das ist die Frage, die heute im Raum steht.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, tengo el honor de presidir la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, donde este asunto ha sido debatido de manera detallada, detenida y prolongada en el tiempo. Y, como resultado de ese debate intenso, se produce una votación democrática que expresa la voluntad mayoritariamente reflejada en el voto de la comisión: 31 votos a favor del Acuerdo, de dar, por tanto, el consentimiento del Parlamento a la conclusión del Acuerdo, y 23 contrarios, con una abstención.

Creo que en ese voto se refleja el reconocimiento del trabajo hecho en el curso de la negociación. En primer lugar, para afirmar la limitación del objeto, en modo que lo que era la pretensión de la otra parte —que, evidentemente, nunca conduce a un resultado perfecto— de incluir todos los delitos sancionados con penas de más de un año de cárcel, se contrae a los delitos de terrorismo, criminalidad grave transnacional y a los delitos sancionados con penas superiores a tres años.

También se produce una afirmación del principio de retención, fijado en el tiempo, contrayendo y limitando el tiempo de retención de datos y dando carácter anónimo a los datos a partir de cinco años, salvo los delitos de terrorismo, que se retienen por un período de quince años.

Pero, finalmente, se produce también un razonable equilibrio en las garantías que se ofrecen con respecto de la afirmación del principio de extracción de datos –lo que se ha llamado el sistema PUSH– y el carácter no discriminatorio de los remedios que se ofrecen a los ciudadanos afectados por ese sistema de fijación de datos.

Bien, creo que a partir de ahí lo que se produce es la afirmación del principio de que el Parlamento Europeo tiene la oportunidad de ser parte de la formación de la voluntad negociadora de la Unión Europea y, por tanto, ser relevante a la hora de negociar con otros actores globalmente relevantes, como sin duda es el caso de los Estados Unidos.

Porque la alternativa, evidentemente, es abandonar a los 27 Estados miembros a negociaciones bilaterales, y creo que hay una apreciación del principio de que la negociación de toda la Unión Europea nos hace más fuertes, mientras que abandonar la negociación a los 27 Estados miembros nos hará más vulnerables.

Pero también se reconoce que eso significa, en términos prácticos, que los ciudadanos estarían sujetos al acuerdo actualmente en vigor –el acuerdo de 2007–, que no mejora la situación de los ciudadanos europeos. Por el contrario, retrotraerlos al acuerdo de 2007 empeoraría su situación, no mejoraría sus garantías sino que las empeoraría y, por tanto, hay un reconocimiento razonable de que el acuerdo produce una mejora, con respecto al statu quo.

Introduce una garantía jurídica uniforme en el conjunto de la Unión Europea y produce un conjunto de reglas jurídicas que van a tener que cumplir las compañías aéreas, que se encargan de ese tránsito de al menos 42 millones de europeos que desean viajar a los Estados Unidos, con unas normas de seguridad jurídica compartidas, en los términos fijados ahora a partir de este Acuerdo.

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Wir machen es uns als Liberale nicht einfach, wenn wir in dieser Frage eine Entscheidung treffen müssen. Für uns ist es ein Abwägungsprozess, und wir folgen da der Vernunft und den Argumenten, und keinen Dogmen. Das behalten wir uns als einzige Fraktion hier im Hause vor. Wir sind uns bewusst, dass Rechtssicherheit, Rechtsklarheit und auch die Frage der Klarheit des Wortlauts entscheidend sind, also was in diesem Abkommen steht und was für uns die entscheidenden Punkte sein werden. Hier mangelt es in der Frage der weiteren Verwendungsmöglichkeiten, der Speicherfristen, aber sicherlich auch hinsichtlich des Anwendungsbereichs, der in der Interpretation offen ist. Der Wortlaut ist nicht klar definiert.

Wir sind als Fraktion dafür bekannt, dass für uns die Freiheit im Vordergrund steht, die Freiheit des Individuums. Die Sicherheit ist immer Diener der Freiheit. Es ist niemals umgekehrt. Ein wesentliches Element dieses Zusammenhangs ist die Verantwortung. Unsere Verantwortung ist es, die Interessen unserer Bürger zu schützen und zum Ausgleich zu bringen. Unserer Auffassung nach tut dieses Abkommen das nicht, und ich glaube, dass wir mit unserer Ablehnung deutlich machen, dass wir uns gegen die Erosion von Freiheit und Verantwortung wehren werden.

  Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). - Er werd hier eerder vandaag het voorbeeld van Toulouse aangehaald en ik wil zelf het voorbeeld noemen van die Nigeriaan die uit Jemen via Amsterdam naar Detroit vloog. Zijn vader had de Amerikaanse ambassade gebeld en gezegd: "Mijn zoon is iets verkeerds van plan". De Franse autoriteiten hadden ook informatie over de terrorist in Toulouse. Onze veiligheidsdiensten bezitten informatie over individuen die iets kwaads in de zin hebben en daar doen ze niet het juiste mee. Ik denk dat het toch primair onze veiligheid zou bevorderen, als onze veiligheidsdiensten doen wat ze kunnen met de informatie die ze hebben.

Daarentegen komt bij PNR eigenlijk een vorm van signaalpolitiek naar voren. In tijden van gevaar doen mensen rare dingen, nemen mensen irrationele besluiten en dan kun je niet meer terug. Het verzamelen van data overal in de wereld van iedere reiziger die zich maar verplaatst is eerder signaalpolitiek dan efficiënte terrorismebestrijding.

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR). - Mr President, this has been a most enlightening debate. I think we have lost the plot here in that there seems to be – certainly from the rapporteur’s side – a lack of thought about ten years ago, when more than 3 000 people lost their lives in the United States of America. As someone who was the transport spokesman for my delegation at that time, I pushed for the adoption of security measures across European airports in order to improve security following that terrible terrorist attack.

Certainly from my point of view, I have views about my human rights and I would find it a breach of my human rights if my government did not take sufficient steps to ensure my security when I travelled both within and outside the United Kingdom. Sometimes they have to take steps which I may not be too happy about, but it is all about balance. I have to tell the rapporteur that, at 37 000 feet, the terrorists do not really give a toss about what we like or what we do not like, or what questions we want to ask or what we do not want to ask. I spent more than twenty years in the airline industry, and I was aware of terrorists from the 1970s as a young person. Terrorists have no boundaries; they have no morals, and – most of the time – they have no justification for taking human life. They do not care. They want to make a statement.

So all that I would say on this, if I may, is: what is PNR? It is really quite basic information. There is not much in addition to PNR. It is quite clear to me, Mr President, that my colleagues in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs have negotiated strongly on this report in order to secure the interests of EU citizens and the protection of everyone, and I believe that the safeguards are in place.

Following 9/11, the use of PNR data has been a vital tool, not only in the USA but also in the UK in investigating the 7/7 bombings in London as well as in locating international criminals across the globe. I, along with my ECR colleagues, will urge this Parliament to support this agreement and to accept that a strong deal has been negotiated which will support all British and European citizens and assist them when they are travelling across the globe.

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

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to ask Ms Foster if she sticks by her slur on me, and – by extension – on all those colleagues who will oppose this agreement, in saying that I have not given sufficient thought to security. I would like to know whether she has actually read the Agreement and the objections against it. Can she please answer the question on how public health, immigration policies and customs controls have a bearing on aeroplanes at 37 000 feet above the ground?

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), blue-card answer. – Mr President, I do not believe that I cast a slur on the rapporteur. Perhaps the rapporteur is suffering from what is called ‘tall poppy syndrome’ and believes she is now the world expert on terrorism. That is what I believe.

I attended a meeting in the United Kingdom which was arranged by Mr Kirkhope with officials from the Home Office. It is not as though all the colleagues on her committee were not prepared to give her as much information as possible and to assist in this report, but 10 years down the line, rapporteur, some of the comments that you have come out with this morning I just find totally naïve. You are living on a different planet sometimes. You think you have a monopoly on human rights. Of course you do not. Do you think the rest of the people in this Chamber do not believe that it is very important that our human rights and our information is not kept securely? Of course we do. We are not stupid. We do not need lecturing from people like you, but what we also know is that our governments and politicians have to make tough decisions sometimes and it is not always easy. I think this is the best deal we could have achieved. It was very seriously negotiated and the Commission, I believe, will follow through very well on this.

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

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Blue-card question. – Mr President, with all due respect, may I ask if, under normal circumstances, you would agree that a government – whether our own or another – has absolutely no business knowing where we travel, with whom, how often we do so, how much we spend on airline tickets, or whether we have a stoma, for example, or any other health issues?

Of course the government might have a justified interest in collecting data about this if they can protect lives with this information, but how exactly can they protect us from terrorism by collecting this data and restricting our privacy?

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I take Ms Morvai’s comments on board. Airlines traditionally and historically have collected information from all of us when we book a ticket; they have done so for decades. The information they gather now is little different to what they gathered before 9/11. Ms Morvai is quite right: how much information is too much information?

The problem is that terrorism does not stop at borders; it is international. So we as citizens are obliged sometimes to give, with a heavy heart, information that we perhaps do not particularly want to give. It is sometimes difficult for governments and politicians to say that it is actually in all of our interests to do so.

I do not think there is a one-line straightforward answer on that. It is a result of the cumulative effect of terrorist attacks that have gone on over decades.

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

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Sehr geehrte Frau Foster, ich habe noch eine Frage an Sie, weil Sie der Meinung waren, es handele sich bei den Passagierdaten, den PNR-Daten, um quite basic information, also wenige Informationen. Sind Sie sich dessen bewusst, dass mit den API-Informationen im Grunde genommen der Teil der basic information schon automatisch übertragen wird? Weltweit werden automatisch alle Fluginformationen zu der Frage, wer in welchem Flugzeug sitzt, übertragen. Sind Sie sich bewusst, dass in den PNR-Informationen sogar enthalten ist, was ich mit meiner Bordkarte am Flughafen kaufe, dass meine Kreditkarteninformationen dabei sind, dass viele Informationen über mein Flugverhalten darin enthalten sind und dass dazu in der Analyse weitere Informationen enthalten sind?

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, I will be very brief. The answer is yes.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, prima di svolgere le argomentazioni sento il dovere di dare atto al presidente della commissione, l'onorevole López Aguilar, del grande equilibrio nella conduzione del dibattito e nelle parole che con grande dignità e serietà ha espresso e sulle quali mi pare nessuno abbia osato proporre controdeduzioni serie e fondate.

Penso che questa mattina, piuttosto che svolgere una serie di considerazioni di natura filosofica e di filosofia del diritto, si dovrebbe pensare con senso di responsabilità al diritto alla sicurezza dei nostri concittadini – e soprattutto a quelle persone, operai, giovani, che sono state vittime del terrorismo che ha colpito magari un treno che trasportava gli operai, che trasportava i giovani, e così via – e al diritto alla sicurezza, che noi dobbiamo far prevalere anche sulle nostre considerazioni personali e politiche, quelle di un gruppo euroscettico che io non penso potrà votare come è stato detto dall'onorevole Batten.

Per quanto riguarda la componente della Lega Nord, essa certamente voterà a favore di questo provvedimento, non perché non siamo sensibili alle ragioni serie e motivate sulla privacy, ma perché pensiamo che incomba in questo momento su tutto il mondo il pericolo di un terrorismo diffuso che potrebbe essere anche nucleare.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Es ist doch einfach so, dass das PNR-Abkommen zweifellos keinen ausreichenden Schutz von personenbezogenen Daten der europäischen Bürger bietet. Zumal diese auch weiterhin nach Ermessen der Amerikaner an Drittstaaten übermittelt werden können. Das PNR-Abkommen wird ja in den USA auch weiterhin als executive agreement eingestuft, und das bedeutet, dass es dem Kongress nicht zur Ratifizierung vorgelegt wird. Es ist daher rechtlich für die USA eigentlich gar nicht bindend. Wenn dann beispielsweise Reisebewegungen europäischer Topmanager über lange Zeit vollständig darstellbar sind, ist es doch naiv anzunehmen, dass US-Auslandsgeheimdienste eine solche einzigartige Quelle ökonomischer intelligence wegen eines rechtlich nicht bindenden Abkommens mit Europa nicht nützen würden. Es ist naiv, das anzunehmen.

Es gibt insgesamt keine Gleichbehandlung europäischer Flugreisender mit jenen der USA, und man muss natürlich schon sagen, dass die Kommission eine Verbesserung der Rechtstellung der Europäer hätte aushandeln können und sollen.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE). - Mr President, the crux of the matter when casting our vote is this: we have to reply to the question, ‘does this agreement strike a fair balance between two equally important objectives that all of us hold dear?’ – that is to say, the protection of our citizens’ security and the protection of their privacy. It is in this context that we need to judge this agreement today before we are able to say yes or no to it.

My reply to this question is: yes, I think we have struck a fair balance with this agreement, even though I am the first to concede that it does not quite live up to our high expectations on data protection and does not constitute the major breakthrough that we wanted. There are three reasons why I think we should support this agreement, most of which have already been mentioned.

First of all, having this agreement is better than not having it at all, both for security reasons and for the privacy of our citizens. The agreement provides a better data protection framework than the existing agreement of 2007 and, possibly, a better one than the bilateral agreements that we would have had to live with if we did not have it. Also, without the agreement, data would continue to flow, but without any safeguards.

Secondly, we have to admit that the United States has the right to request all the data it wants from the people who want to travel there. So we are doing everything in our power to secure their privacy when they choose to do so. In practice, without this agreement, we could end up with obstacles to flight traffic, extremely long waiting times for flight passengers and weaker safeguards concerning data protection and privacy. Lastly, yes, there is no doubt that the processing of PNR data helps the security of our citizens.

It should not be taboo in this House to say that protecting the security of our citizens is equally important. So, yes, it is far from perfect, but on balance our citizens are better off with it.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8) of the Rules of Procedure.)

  Carmen Romero López (S&D), pregunta de tarjeta azul. – Señor Presidente, señor Busuttil, ¿sabe usted que, de los Parlamentos nacionales, solamente en tres países se ha incluido el PNR en sus legislaciones nacionales? ¿Sabe que el Reino Unido y Francia –dos de estos países– lo han incluido en sus leyes contra la inmigración? ¿Sabe que Dinamarca –el tercer país que lo ha incluido en su legislación– lo ha hecho solamente para casos de terrorismo?

¿Usted sabe que tal vez estamos hurtando con este debate a los Parlamentos nacionales un debate tan importante como este? ¿Sabe que el informe jurídico de la Comisión no es el único informe sobre este tema y que, como aquí se ha dicho, en la elaboración del informe del supervisor de datos y del informe del Grupo de Trabajo del artículo 29 (GT 29) no solo han participado expertos juristas? En el informe del GT 29 son los supervisores de protección de datos nacionales de cada uno de los países los que han estimado que este acuerdo vulnera los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos europeos.

  Simon Busuttil (PPE), Blue-card answer. – Mr President, yes I do know this, and I also know that we consider PNR agreements and their effectiveness in the fight against terrorism to be so important that we even want to establish a PNR system within the European Union itself.

The major flaw in the argument of those who oppose this agreement by saying that it does not give sufficient protection of privacy is precisely that, without this agreement, there would be even weaker data protection safeguards for our citizens.

I would ask the opponents of this agreement to please register this important point.

  Birgit Sippel (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Terroranschläge waren vor mehreren Jahren der Anlass für Maßnahmen wie Vorratsdatenspeicherung oder PNR. Doch Terrorismus allein reicht offenbar als Rechtfertigung für diese Datensammlungen gegenüber den Bürgern nicht mehr aus. Deshalb reden wir von schweren Verbrechen, von organisierter Kriminalität und debattieren heute über Menschenhandel – millionenfache Datensammlungen mit bisher nur einzelnen benennbaren Erfolgen. Aber der Datenschutz wurde verbessert, sagt Frau Malmström und bezieht sich insbesondere darauf, dass einige Daten „nur noch“ 10 Jahre gespeichert werden.

Datenschutz fängt aber früher an, etwa bei der konkreten Zweckbindung oder bei einer Begrenzung der notwendigen zu sammelnden Daten. Doch was geschieht mit dem Text des Abkommens, das heute zur Abstimmung steht? Millionenfache Speicherung von Daten überwiegend völlig unbescholtener Bürger, die über mindestens 10 Jahre mit wechselnden Kriterien immer wieder für nahezu jeden Zweck überprüft werden. Andere Straftaten aber mit einer Haftstrafe von drei Jahren – die Bundesregierung sagt dazu auf ihrer Internetseite: Reisende in die USA müssen bedenken, dass für Vergehen, für die hier noch nicht einmal ein Prozess angestrengt wird, in den USA mit einer mehrjährigen Haftstrafe zu rechnen ist. Die Strafen müssen grenzübergreifend sein. Laut Text reicht es dafür aus, wenn der Verdächtige die Absicht hat, die Grenze zu überschreiten. Das wollen wir alle, wenn wir in die USA reisen, weil wir unser Rückflugticket ja schon in der Tasche haben. Darüber hinaus darf jedes Gericht diese Daten anfordern.

Besserer Datenschutz? Angesichts des breiten Anwendungsbereiches ist die Möglichkeit der Weitergabe von Daten an andere Behörden und an Drittstaaten mehr als bedenklich. Und es ist zudem bedauerlich, dass bei der vorgesehenen Evaluierung bisher jedenfalls die Teilnahme von Datenschützern nicht vorgesehen ist. Nicht reden will ich an dieser Stelle davon, dass in den USA immer wieder Menschen des Terrorismus verdächtigt werden und über mehrere Jahre ohne offizielle Anklage inhaftiert bleiben. Mitunter trifft es auch Unschuldige. Terrorismus muss bekämpft werden. Doch mit diesem Text gehen wir deutlich einen Schritt zu weit. Wir stellen alle Bürger unter Generalverdacht, wir liefern sie dem Rechtssystem der USA aus, anstatt unsere Werte und die Rechte unserer Bürger zu schützen.

Eine letzte Bemerkung: Herr Albrecht hat gefragt, ob diejenigen, die dem Abkommen zustimmen, sich schämen müssen. Nein, schämen muss sich niemand für seine heutige Entscheidung. Aber ich bin zutiefst besorgt über die Richtung, die wir mit einem Beschluss zu diesem Abkommen einschlagen würden, und bin deshalb aus tiefster Überzeugung gegen dieses Abkommen.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame le Commissaire, SWIFT, ACTA, PNR sont des acronymes que l'on entend évoquer souvent et qui inquiètent les Européens qui ne savent pas vraiment ce qu'ils recouvrent. Quelles réalités se cachent derrière? Une surveillance trop généralisée de tous les passagers, un accord avec lequel, si je prends l'avion, les États-Unis vont savoir quels sont mes goûts alimentaires, mon comportement à l'aéroport, connaître des éléments sur ma santé, etc.

Sans revenir sur tous les arguments qui ont été avancés ce matin dans un débat long mais passionnant, nous avions – je voudrais le rappeler – demandé, dès 2007, des garanties comme autant de lignes rouges qui nous auraient permis d'obtenir un accord du Parlement. Or, aujourd'hui, nous ne les avons pas, ni en termes de réciprocité, ni en termes de proportionnalité, comme l'a rappelé notre excellent collègue, Graham Watson, par rapport à la position des États-Unis, et je conteste les propos de Mme Foster, selon lesquels il n'y a pas grand-chose dans les PNR. S'il n'y a pas grand-chose, demandons alors la réciprocité aux États-Unis.

Ici ou là, dans cet hémicycle, on dit que c'est ce que l'on a pu obtenir de mieux, que nous n'obtiendrons rien de plus, qu'il faut demander aux juges.

C'est inadmissible de se décharger de nos responsabilités de cette manière-là. C'est à nous de créer les conditions de l'équilibre, de la démocratie européenne, entre la sécurité de la lutte contre le terrorisme et la préservation des libertés. C'est la raison pour laquelle je voterai contre cet accord.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, finalement, depuis le début de ce débat, il n'y a pas beaucoup de collègues pour considérer que cet accord ne porte pas, d'une manière ou d'une autre, atteinte aux droits fondamentaux des citoyens européens. Simplement, certains disent "C'est mieux que rien. Ce serait pire s'il n'y avait pas cet accord. Et puis finalement, grignoter un peu nos droits, si on a la contrepartie en matière de sécurité, l'un dans l'autre on peut s'y retrouver." Voilà ce que nous racontons depuis tout à l'heure.

Or, nous savons tous pertinemment – non seulement nous le disons, mais nous l'avons démontré – qu'une politique de lutte contre le terrorisme, pour qu'elle soit efficace, pas pour qu'elle soit seulement morale ou qu'elle réponde à des obligations internationales, doit respecter intégralement les droits de l'homme, le droit international et nos obligations.

Il est fort peu crédible que cet accord ne pourrait pas être démoli par une cour, si jamais nous n'étions pas capables ici de prendre nos responsabilités politiques, car c'est tout de même de cela qu'il s'agit. Allons-nous savoir être aux côtés des citoyens européens – parce que le passé montre que ces derniers, dans ces domaines, ne peuvent compter que sur le Parlement européen –, ou allons-nous nous laisser impressionner par des menaces? Parce que le passé parle, quand même! Dans le cadre du système mis en place par la CIA, où il y a eu des prisons secrètes, des transferts illégaux, de la torture, sur notre territoire, qui avons-nous trouvé à nos côtés au Conseil, à la Commission, pour mener les enquêtes et trouver les responsabilités? Personne!

Nous voulons coopérer. Nous n'avons aucun mécanisme de comptabilité quand les services sortent du cadre légal. Et ça, c'est une grave question.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu", conformément à l'article 149, paragraphe 8)).

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to provide a brief response to the comments made. It was said that all citizens object to this; I would say that most citizens do not know anything about it.

What the citizens of the European Union want is to ensure that their governments take responsibility when they as citizens move around their countries – and they expect to be able to move around Europe and the world freely. They expect governments to take responsibility for their security; and governments have to take difficult decisions.

I knock on many doors when I am canvassing, as I am sure you do, and you may have done so in the run-up to the forthcoming French elections. I speak to citizens and nobody knows what PNR is and nobody is interested. They just expect politicians to keep them safe.

  Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, j'ai dit que dans notre débat de parlementaires, personne ne niait le fait que nous étions en train de grignoter sérieusement les droits des citoyens.

Vous dites que les citoyens ne sont pas au courant. Mais vous aggravez votre cas, Madame Foster. C'est un grave problème si on prend les données personnelles des citoyens sans qu'eux-mêmes puissent encore moins les contrôler puisqu'ils ne sont même pas au courant.

Je crois franchement qu'il n'est pas raisonnable de s'engager dans une voie, et nous allons le dire aux citoyens européens – où ils pourraient se retrouver pris dans un système de lutte contre le terrorisme à l'américaine, avec des tribunaux militaires sans garantie procédurale, avec des enfermements sans fin, et sans charges. Je crois vraiment que le citoyen européen mérite d'être informé du sort que vous voulez lui réserver, Madame Foster.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). - Herr Präsident! Das Europäische Parlament hatte im Jahr 2010 zwei Entschließungsanträge mehrheitlich verabschiedet. In diesen beiden Entschließungsanträgen hat dieses Haus ganz klar Bedingungen formuliert. Es ist Fakt, dass dieses Abkommen diese Bedingungen konterkariert.

Erstens: Profiling ist weiterhin nicht ausgeschlossen. Zweitens: Das Pull-Verfahren ist nach wie vor möglich. Drittens: Der Zweck für die Weitergabe der Daten ist nicht ausreichend spezifiziert. Und generell ist zu sagen, dass der Zweck des Sammelns und Speicherns von Massendaten überhaupt nicht dargelegt wurde und die Europäische Kommission in keinster Weise für Alternativen gesorgt hat. In Summe ist also festzuhalten, dass dieses Abkommen erhebliche Bedenken in Bezug auf die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte und in Bezug auf die Grundrechte der Europäischen Charta aufwirft. Aus diesem Grund werde ich selbstverständlich diesem Abkommen nicht zustimmen. Ich denke, dass dieses Haus sehr gut daran tun würde, dieses Abkommen auch abzulehnen, um glaubwürdig zu bleiben und seine eigenen Bedingungen zu erfüllen.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'aspetto di fragilità che tutti quanti i colleghi, anche coloro che oggi voteranno a favore, hanno denunciato a proposito di questo accordo è facilmente comprensibile se si fa riferimento a un passaggio effettuato sia dal Commissario Malmström sia dal Consiglio, quando hanno parlato con chiarezza di nuove e importanti concessioni che sono contenute nell'accordo.

Appunto, concessioni, e l'atteggiamento della concessione è diverso dall'atteggiamento del riconoscimento di prerogative di diritto. Questo è il vero problema, vorrei dire più culturale che politico, che c'è oggi nel rapporto tra le istituzioni europee e le autorità americane, ed è questo problema che ha permesso alle autorità americane, più che di trattare con le istituzioni europee, di affidarsi anche alla trattativa separata con ognuno dei paesi membri. Non c'è ministro degli Esteri o primo ministro europeo che non sia stato sensibilizzato su questo dossier in questi mesi.

Ciononostante, e riconoscendo l'oggettività di questo fatto, credo che non solo la preoccupazione per la sicurezza, ma l'aspetto della considerazione dei progressi che vengono fatti in questo accordo ci deve far votare a favore, perché onestamente anche la posizione unita e mordace dell'Unione europea non si costruisce in una sola notte, non si riesce in un solo passaggio a trasferire la capacità di affidare alle istituzioni europee la garanzia di quelli che sono i diritti di tutti cittadini europei.

È una cosa che stiamo facendo giorno dopo giorno e credo che l'abbia rappresentata benissimo il collega e presidente López Aguilar nel descrivere quanto è stato animato, ma anche quanto è stato profondo il dibattito in commissione LIBE. Proprio per questa ragione la delegazione italiana del Partito popolare al Parlamento europeo voterà convinta questo accordo in attesa di tempi migliori.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). - Elnök Úr! Az Európai Parlamentnek egyetértési joga van a légiutas-adatok cseréjére vonatkozó egyezmény kapcsán. Így volt ez a SWIFT-megállapodásnál is, ahol nemmel szavaztunk. Nem csak a tartalmi problémák miatt, hanem amiatt is, hogy nem kaptunk megfelelő információkat és nem vették figyelembe a tárgyalásnál az Európai Parlament által megfogalmazott feltételeket. Részben az akkori parlamenti "nem" következménye, hogy most a tárgyalások átláthatóbbak voltak, párbeszéd volt a LIBE Bizottság és az Európai Bizottság között.

A folyamat elején megfogalmazott elvárásaink egy része bekerült a megállapodás-tervezetbe.

Ennek ellenére az egyezmény több ponton nem kielégítő. Mégis azt gondolom, hogy az Európai Parlamentnek el kell fogadnia a megállapodást. Ha nem fogadjuk el, akkor az adatok ugyanolyan módon kerülnek az Egyesült Államok birtokába anélkül, hogy az európai polgárok számára bármiféle egységes garanciája lenne az adataik utánkövetésének, jogorvoslatnak. Az történne, ami korábban is. Kétoldalú megállapodások szabályoznák az adatok védelmét, amelyek megkötésénél az egyes tagállamok még kisebb érdekérvényesítő erővel tárgyalnának mint az Európai Bizottság most. Nem tartom jónak a megállapodás-tervezetet, de az elfogadás mellett érvelek, mert ez ad lehetőséget arra, hogy a közös felülvizsgálat és monitorozás révén információkat kapjon az Európai Parlament arról, hogy mi történik a megállapodás végrehajtása során, és ha szükséges, követelje annak felfüggesztését, újratárgyalását. Az utasok nyomon követhessék, hogy kik birtokolják az adataikat és mit kezdenek azokkal. Jogbiztonságot adjon az európai légitársaságoknak.

Nyomatékosan felkérem az Európai Bizottságot, hogy szorosan kövesse figyelemmel a megállapodás végrehajtását, az utasok adatainak felhasználását, az érzékeny adatok kezelését és mindenről számoljon be a Parlamentnek. Amennyiben a megállapodás végrehajtása során sérül az európai polgárok adatainak védelme a gyakorlatban, függessze fel és tárgyalja újra a megállapodást.

PRÉSIDENCE DE MME ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-présidente

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). - Sper că acest Parlament poate privilegia diversitatea de opinii şi sunt convinsă că toţi acceptăm că riscurile criminalităţii transnaţionale şi riscurile terorismului sunt riscuri globale, la care trebuie răspunsuri globale. Singura abordare, în acest context, este existenţa unui cadru juridic şi aşa s-a ajuns la adoptarea acestui tratat, care din punctul de vedere al cetăţenilor europeni, chiar şchiop, aşa cum este consemnat, constituie o regulă de drept care le dă garanţia respectării drepturilor lor.

Din păcate, însă, trebuie să privilegiem o serie de drepturi fundamentale. Sunt de acord şi respect datele cu caracter personal, dar trebuie să fim de acord că cetăţenii europeni au dreptul la securitatea individuală ca drept fundamental al dreptului la viaţă. Din acest punct de vedere, cred că îmbunătăţirile care s-au creat în acest acord, faptul că putem renegocia, putem monitoriza şi nu am niciun motiv să nu am încredere în Comisia Europeană şi în autorităţile americane, sunt argumente pentru vot în favoarea acestui acord.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Senhora Presidente, o que este acordo dá com uma mão, sejamos francos, tira com a outra. Diz que anonimiza os nossos dados passados seis meses mas depois mantém-nos recuperáveis por 15 anos e até por mais de 15 anos, se for necessário. Diz que podemos ter recurso judicial mas sabemos que a lei americana não nos deixa ir a um tribunal americano no caso de os nossos dados terem sido violados. Depois, diz-nos que é só para usar em caso de terrorismo, a não ser que as autoridades considerem que seja necessário utilizar em qualquer outra situação. E é por isso que, até colegas que vão votar a favor deste acordo, nos disseram que é bem possível que este acordo morra em tribunal.

Ora, eu acho que, se nós votamos a favor de um acordo acerca do qual não temos as garantias que são dadas, são logo a seguir retiradas e não temos garantias que sobrevive em tribunal, estamos a fazer um mau serviço à democracia europeia, porque há neste momento um espetro que ronda a Europa, que é o da falta de credibilidade dos políticos e se os cidadãos começam a dizer os políticos não defenderam os nossos direitos porque disseram que se calhar nós não sabíamos, como disse a Senhora Foster, o que é que quer dizer PNR e portanto podemos deixar cair, porque aquilo que os eleitores não sabem nós podemos deixar cair e vamos deixar que os cidadãos depois só possam ter recurso aos juízes, quer dizer que cumprimos mal com o nosso serviço e ajudámos a descredibilizar a política na União Europeia e isso é muitíssimo grave.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”, nos termos do n.° 8 do artigo 149.°)

  Axel Voss (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Rui, welche Alternative siehst du denn überhaupt, wenn wir dieses Abkommen nicht haben? Dann haben wir eine Datensammlung in den USA, die unkontrolliert ist, und wir haben höchstwahrscheinlich die Freiheit des Bürgers, in einer Schlange zu stehen. Deshalb verstehe ich diese Argumente nicht, wie man sagen kann, der Bürger steht hier auf einmal schlechter da. Er hat dann Schwierigkeiten, wenn er in die USA reist. Und es geht eben auch nur um USA-Reisende, und da soll es doch eine Vereinfachung für die Bürger geben und keine Schlechterstellung bei diesen Reisen.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE), Resposta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”. – Caro Axel, obrigado pela tua pergunta, a questão que nos é colocada aqui é se nós vamos legitimar algo que contraria os nossos princípios, a Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais e a nossa Diretiva de Proteção de Dados, ou não. As nossas alternativas não são se os americanos têm acesso a dados que estão no território deles, que estão em servidores no território deles, mas nós não temos de legalizar essa pilhagem, nós não temos que a legitimar, porque se nós legitimamos, nesse caso, a pergunta que te será feita daqui a alguns meses, ou daqui a alguns anos é se estás preparado para fazer o mesmo com a China, com a Arábia Saudita, com a Rússia ou com outros países que pedirem e que também têm ataques terroristas no território deles.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”, nos termos do n.° 8 do artigo 149)

  Jacqueline Foster (ECR), Blue-card question. – Madam President, I would just say to the last speaker: if you want to quote me, then quote me accurately. You know perfectly well that that was not what I said in terms of the citizens’ understanding of what PNR was. So if you want to use a cheap shot, let us use it outside the Chamber, shall we?

If that is the best you can do for a political argument, you should not be sitting where you are sitting.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – Madam President, I would be delight to answer Mrs Foster.

I will quote you correctly. You said we are not here to hear lectures from your side. Well, let me tell you something, your citizens have elected you to hear lectures from our side just as I have to hear lectures from your side.

What I do not accept from you is that you tell us here that we have forgotten the deaths of 9/11. I do not say to you that you are advocating liberticide. I would never tell you that. Please do not offend this side of the House by telling us that we have forgotten the victims of terrorism – and I did quote you correctly.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! Wir sind alle der Meinung, dass die EU und die USA die Sicherheit aller Bürgerinnen und Bürger schützen müssen. Die gemeinsamen bilateralen Anstrengungen gegen den Terrorismus stehen außer Diskussion. Ich denke, soweit sind wir uns alle einig. Dennoch möchte ich heute sehr klar sagen: Datenschutz ist in der EU in Artikel 16 des AEUV und in Artikel 8 der Grundrechtecharta geregelt und muss respektiert werden! Bedenken Sie bitte, dass unter anderem die Artikel 13 und Artikel 21 dieses PNR-Abkommens EU-USA deutlich im Gegensatz zueinander stehen und den europäischen Bürgern keine neuen Rechte übertragen. Ich fordere daher die Kommission auf weiterzuverhandeln, sodass es für unsere Bürger eine akzeptable Lösung gibt. Botschafter Eacho hat einmal gesagt: „Freiheit ohne Sicherheit ist fragil, Sicherheit ohne Freiheit ist repressiv.“ Es gilt daher, die richtige Balance zu finden, und mit den Anstrengungen aller ist dies zu schaffen.

  Frank Engel (PPE). - Madam President, after an hour and forty minutes of debate, I still have the impression that this agreement, unfortunately, does not have much to do with either security or protection of privacy but has much more to do with creating a European legal framework for the enforcement of US PNR practices.

There is no doubt that the United States can act as it wishes with respect to what it requires of somebody who enters its territory. It is up to those who want to enter its territory to decide whether or not they want to comply with that. There is also no doubt that the United States will go to any length to obtain what it seeks – and that is where our problems lie, because we are dealing with an executive agreement in this particular case.

Most unfortunately, the United States does not have a Lisbon Treaty conferring upon the Senate or Congress the unconditional right to ratify international agreements that the United States enters into. This one is entered into by the President of the United States and cannot – and will not – either create or confer rights that do not already exist under current US law.

As sorry as I am – for myself and also for my group, without whom I have to vote today – I cannot give my consent to an agreement which does not change what currently happens because it cannot do so. With this agreement, nobody will stand in line any less long than they currently do. With this agreement, nobody will be treated any better at a border crossing point in the United States than they currently are; and, indeed, nobody will have any sort of better data protection than they currently have. In case of need, the United States will just have to say that the sort of redress sought by a European citizen is not allowed by current US law. I am sorry, but I cannot agree to this.

  Δημήτριος Δρούτσας (S&D). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, να το πούμε ξεκάθαρα η συμφωνία δεν είναι τέλεια και τα επιχειρήματα και ιδιαίτερα οι επιφυλάξεις που εκφράστηκαν και σήμερα, σίγουρα, έχουν βάση. Το θέμα όμως είναι το εξής, ποια είναι η εναλλακτική λύση; Με ποιόν τρόπο κατοχυρώνουμε τα δικαιώματα και την ασφάλεια των ευρωπαίων πολιτών με τον καλύτερο δυνατόν τρόπο, υπό τις παρούσες συνθήκες βέβαια. Η απάντηση, πιστεύω, είναι ότι με αυτή τη συμφωνία την οποία καλούμαστε σήμερα να ψηφίσουμε με όλες τις αδυναμίες της που γνωρίζουμε καλά.

Θα ήθελα όμως να αναλογιστούμε και ένα άλλο στοιχείο. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο καλείται σήμερα να ψηφίσει μια διεθνή συμφωνία και σε μια διεθνή συμφωνία πρέπει να ληφθούν υπόψη και άλλες παράμετροι, όπως ποιο είναι το μέλλον της συνεργασίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με τις ΗΠΑ, ποιος θέλουμε να είναι ο ρόλος της Ευρώπης στις διεθνείς εξελίξεις στο μέλλον; Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο διεκδικεί, ορθώς, έναν πιο ουσιαστικό ρόλο στις διαπραγματεύσεις διεθνών συνθηκών της Ένωσης και πρέπει ως Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο να έχουμε αυτόν το ρόλο στο μέλλον. Πρέπει, όμως, να αποδείξουμε ως Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ότι είμαστε υπεύθυνοι και ξέρουμε και μπορούμε να ανταποκριθούμε σε αυτές τις ευθύνες.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señora Presidenta, doy mi opinión con referencia al asunto.

Como respuesta a las amenazas a las que la Unión Europea y los Estados Unidos deben hacer frente, el Acuerdo PNR se entiende en el marco de la lucha contra la delincuencia transnacional en todas sus dimensiones. Tanto la estrategia sobre la dimensión exterior de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior como la estrategia de la Unión contra el terrorismo, así como el Programa de Estocolmo, se refieren a la necesidad de crear una estrecha colaboración con terceros países a través del intercambio de información. Los datos que se recaban mediante el Acuerdo PNR son utilizados a los efectos de prevenir, investigar, reprimir y perseguir, solo para eso.

Este nuevo Acuerdo presenta grandes mejoras en comparación con el de 2007: se reconoce el método PUSH como el modelo de transferencia, existe una mayor protección de los datos recabados, un aumento de las autoridades supervisoras, así como avances en la evaluación de datos, sin olvidar el derecho de los ciudadanos de corrección y supresión, teniendo la posibilidad de interponer recursos efectivos por vía administrativa o por vía judicial.

Por otro lado, el Acuerdo respeta los derechos de la intimidad y la privacidad con arreglo al principio de proporcionalidad. Solo podrán introducirse limitaciones que sean necesarias y respondan efectivamente a los objetivos de interés general reconocidos por la Unión o a la protección de los derechos y libertades de otras personas.

Ante dicha situación, tenemos dos opciones: votar a favor del Acuerdo, beneficiándonos de las mejoras introducidas, o votar en contra; en este caso, originaríamos una amplia inseguridad jurídica que podría derivar en la firma de acuerdos bilaterales o penalizar y obligar a las compañías aéreas.

Debemos comprometernos y garantizar un elevado nivel de protección efectiva de los datos personales, lo que implica que cualquier transmisión PNR a los Estados Unidos debe hacerse de manera segura y conforme a la legislación de la Unión, y que los pasajeros puedan ejercer sus derechos en relación con el tratamiento de sus datos.

Así es que, a la vista de esta situación, señora Presidenta, estoy a favor de este Acuerdo para luchar contra el terrorismo y contra el crimen transnacional.

(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la tarjeta azul (artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kollege Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Sie haben die EU-Strategie gegen Terrorismus angesprochen. Im Rahmen dieser Strategie passiert das ja auch alles. Im Rahmen dieser Strategie werden aber auch unsere bürgerlichen Grundfreiheiten, das, was eigentlich den Wert des Lebens in der Europäischen Union ausmacht, immer stärker eingeschränkt. Wir haben SWIFT, ACTA, wir haben diese PNR-Abkommen usw. Machen Sie sich nicht auch Sorgen darüber, dass das am Ende alles zuviel ist und dass das, was wir an Europa so schätzen, nämlich unser freies Leben, dadurch immer stärker eingeschränkt wird? Ich glaube nämlich, das geschieht.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE), respuesta a una pregunta de tarjeta azul. – Querido colega, en realidad, a lo que yo me refería —y usted no me ha debido de escuchar bien— era a la estrategia de seguridad de la Unión Europea y a su programa de Estocolmo. En realidad, usted utiliza la lengua de Goethe y yo utilizo la lengua de Cervantes, y tenemos intérpretes, pero, a pesar de ello, no nos podemos comunicar. ¿Por qué? No nos podemos comunicar porque usted habla de impresiones y yo hablo de experiencias. Así es que, en función de mis experiencias, yo, definitivamente, en materia de seguridad, estoy a favor del PNR.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, je souhaite tout d'abord insister sur deux considérations qu'il me paraît important de rappeler en préambule: nous ne sommes pas hostiles au PNR en général et, plus largement, la lutte contre le terrorisme reste une de nos préoccupations majeures.

Ce préalable étant posé, si l'on peut convenir du fait qu'un compromis reste un résultat de concessions de part et d'autre, qu'il est donc imparfait, il ne devrait toutefois pas se faire aux dépens d'une partie. Or, ici, l'impression qui domine est que, du côté de la Commission européenne, le compte n'y est pas. À ce stade, les arguments avancés ne parviennent pas, aujourd'hui, à nous convaincre tous de voter en faveur de cet accord. Si des progrès ont été obtenus, ils demeurent largement insuffisants et ne lèvent en aucun cas les préoccupations exprimées en mai et novembre 2010 par ce même Parlement: non-respect des principes de nécessité et de proportionnalité, finalité insuffisamment précise, durée de rétention excessive, champ d'application trop large, recours judiciaire limité. Bref, la liste des réserves qu'on peut adresser est très longue.

Cette situation est regrettable car cet accord devait être l'occasion de faire prévaloir de hauts standards de protection des données, propres à l'Union européenne. J'ai également du mal à saisir la logique de la déclaration que la Commission nous propose. Aujourd'hui, on nous promet que le Parlement sera informé régulièrement et complètement. Heureusement! On nous dit aussi que, si le Parlement repère des déficiences à cet accord et demande sa suspension, la Commission s'engage à considérer sa demande avec la plus grande attention. Heureusement encore! Il me semble pourtant paradoxal de nous marteler depuis plusieurs mois que l'accord n'est pas négociable pour, ensuite, nous assurer que la Commission pourra le négocier.

C'est un pari bien incertain. Je voterai contre cet accord.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente em exercício do Conselho, Senhora Comissária, não tenho dúvidas que a celebração de um acordo entre a União Europeia e os Estados Unidos sobre os dados PNR é a melhor solução, ao contrário da celebração de acordos bilaterais, para garantir uma abordagem coerente e um grau mais elevado de certeza jurídica e proteção dos nossos cidadãos.

Reconheço o esforço feito pela Comissária Malmström nestas negociações com os Estados Unidos mas o resultado final está longe do que, na minha opinião, podemos e devemos aprovar. Irei assim abster-me, sobretudo pelas seguintes razões: primeiro, não há mais proteção dos cidadãos europeus. Alguns sustentam que foram melhorados os direitos relacionados com o acesso, a retificação e a eliminação dos dados ou a possibilidade de recurso judicial ou administrativo. Como decorre do próprio artigo 21.° do Acordo, esses direitos só poderiam ser conferidos na medida em que já estejam consagrados na legislação americana, este acordo apenas poderia conferir novos direitos se houvesse um envolvimento do Congresso americano o que não é o caso. Em segundo lugar, a utilização do sistema pull. No acordo com a Austrália, estava claramente previsto o sistema push, ao contrário do presente acordo, que ainda permite a extração pull. Concordo plenamente que os Estados Unidos, enquanto Estado soberano, tenham o direito de requerer informações sobre as pessoas que queiram entrar no seu território, porém, não concordo com a possibilidade de entrar nas bases de dados das companhias aéreas para extrair os dados que necessita, uma coisa é assinarmos um acordo em que nos comprometemos a fornecer dados, outra bem diferente, é permitir a devassa dos nossos computadores e bases de dados à utilização por forças de segurança de Estados terceiros. Em terceiro lugar, a utilização dos dados sensíveis, o acordo de 2004 proibia a sua utilização, enquanto o presente acordo permite o seu tratamento. Em quarto, a retenção de dados, se, por um lado, há melhorias na anonimização dos dados, por outro, há um prolongamento da conservação por um período indefinido.

Senhora Presidente, uma palavra final para agradecer o trabalho da relatora in ’t Veld e do relator-sombra do meu grupo, o Senhor Voss.

  David-Maria Sassoli (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario Malmström, Lei ha detto bene, non è un accordo perfetto, se l'avessimo fatto noi europei lo avremmo fatto in un altro modo, ma questa non è una direttiva, questo è un accordo, un accordo fra parti.

Un accordo è sempre meglio di un "non accordo", ed è un accordo questo che ci fa fare passi in avanti, che potrà consentire anche ulteriori miglioramenti perché ogni anno, non accordi segreti, così come sono stati fatti con tutti i paesi dell'Unione europea, ma un accordo europeo tornerà in Parlamento e verrà verificato in Parlamento, e allora c'è da prendere atto di un dato politico: l'Europa con questo accordo sta al tavolo con gli Stati Uniti ed entra direttamente nella giurisdizione americana.

Ringrazio il mio gruppo per aver consentito libertà di voto e la delegazione del Partito democratico italiano di votare a favore dell'accordo.

Interventions à la demande

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Madam President, during this very interesting debate this morning, I have not heard, coming out of the wave of criticism, a single alternative proposal that could be pursued. International agreements are all about compromises. That is the nature of an agreement. You dance with each other. What is the alternative being offered to the citizens of Europe? Not to travel to the United States? That is the only alternative being offered. That means depriving them of their freedom.

Let us have a minimum of realism in this debate. No, it is not an ideal agreement. Fine, but what else is there? The United States authorities can collect data in their country. It is their country that people are travelling to. Would we prefer them to have secret bilateral agreements with Member States? Would we want them to take away visa-free travel and suspend it? They could do that.

This agreement is a great improvement over that of 2007. It is a significant step forward in providing data protection to our citizens. My vote is for protection, safeguards and freedom and security for the citizens of Europe.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - O acordo de PNR que a Comissão negociou com os Estados Unidos tem graves problemas. Preocupa-nos, sobretudo, que os cidadãos europeus não tenham direito a revisão judicial nos Estados Unidos, isto é, não tenham os meios de recurso facultados aos americanos. No entanto, sendo mau, este acordo é bastante melhor que o de 2007 que hoje se aplica e é muito melhor do que os acordos que foram negociados por governos europeus bilateralmente com os Estados Unidos. No caso do meu país, Portugal, um tal acordo foi subservientemente ratificado pelo parlamento nacional contra as sérias advertências da autoridade nacional de proteção de dados.

Se o Parlamento Europeu não der consentimento a este texto, os acordos bilaterais são muito mais gravosos e entrarão em vigor, se o Parlamento Europeu der consentimento a este acordo, apesar de tudo, os cidadãos europeus ficarão mais protegidos e o Parlamento poderá monitorizar a aplicação do acordo nos termos do compromisso assumido pela Comissão Europeia. É por isso que vou votar a favor deste acordo.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Odhodlanie Európskej únie aj členských štátov zefektívniť boj proti medzinárodnému terorizmu a organizovanému nadnárodnému zločinu sa musí prenášať do konkrétnych opatrení, ktoré sú v prísnom súlade so základnými ľudskými právami a slobodami. Nové výzvy sa nemôžu stať zámienkou na použitie neprimeraných prostriedkov zasahujúcich do základných práv a slobôd občanov EÚ. Poskytnutie osobných záznamov o cestujúcich patrí medzi takéto zásahy a preto si vyžaduje rešpektovanie zásad na jednej strane a nevyhnutnosti a proporcionality na strane druhej. Proces získavania, zhromažďovania, spracovávania, uchovávania údajov musí spĺňať vopred precízne stanovené pravidlá. Celý proces musí byť podrobený nezávislému dohľadu, aby požadované zásady nezostávali len odporučeniami. Mnohé nejasnosti pretrvávajú, preto sa obávam, že súčasná dohoda neprináša dostatočne jasne vymedzené záruky pre občanov EÚ.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Madam President, today’s agreement is an expression of the new balance between an ever-inquisitive state and the ever-decreasing respect for the privacy of their citizens after 11 September 2001.

I am not going to dwell on technicalities; I will rather try to make three points. First, before being concerned with the transfer of PNRs, we should be concerned primarily with their content upon collection. I do not see the relevance of, for instance, my trade union membership when booking a flight. Second, the data does not become public through transfer but through collection here in Europe. Third, our American friends want the data mostly to compare it with their own data already collected through other means.

In view of the above, I am afraid that we do not have an alternative to approving the agreement, which I personally intend to do.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). - Madam President, I have been sitting here since 9 o’clock this morning and I am amazed: I have not heard the words ‘law enforcement’. I went to get a cup of coffee a few minutes ago. Maybe during those few minutes it was mentioned.

As Mr Kirkhope said in his excellent remarks, he is not an American. I am not an American either, but I have spent several years of my life living in the United States, and I am afraid that some elements in this discussion today reflect a grave misunderstanding of motives and intentions.

I would like to ask some of the speakers on the left side of the chamber whether, if someone comes to your house, you are interested in what they are going to do there. Are you not interested in what their intentions and motives are? I think this is absurd. I would be interested. I do not understand the whole question. I am going to vote for this; it is pretty clear.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE). - Frau Präsidentin! Frau Kommissarin Malmström, ich respektiere Ihre Bemühungen um eine Verbesserung des Abkommens sehr. Aber ich denke, das Abkommen in seiner jetzigen Form ist nicht gut genug. Im Grunde genommen könnte ich jetzt bei meinem Vorredner anknüpfen. Natürlich will man wissen, wenn jemand ins Haus kommt, wer er ist und was er da will. Man will aber nicht unbedingt Daten für längere Zeit speichern, auf die auch andere Zugriff haben.

Frau Kommissarin, Sie haben zum Beispiel gesagt, nach sechs Monaten werden die Daten entpersonalisiert. Das ist richtig. Aber Sie sagten eben, das geschieht erst nach sechs Monaten. Wir müssen viele Bedenken einfach berücksichtigen. Es wurde auch gesagt, die Daten werden sowieso erhoben. Das ist für mich kein Grund, dieses Abkommen zu unterzeichnen. Bis jetzt gab es keine Beschwerde, sagte Herr Voss. Das ist auch kein Grund, das Abkommen zu unterzeichnen. Wir haben nicht diese Eile. Bei Verhandlungen mit den USA geschieht eben vieles nicht auf Augenhöhe. Das weiß ich von dem Luftverkehrsabkommen mit den USA. Da haben wir zugestimmt, obwohl es ungleich war, weil es uns wirtschaftlich nach vorne brachte. Aber in diesem Fall denke ich, dass ich Renate Weber voll zustimmen kann: Besser kein Gesetz als ein schlechtes!

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Madam President, colleagues, I have serious concerns about the EU-US PNR agreement on the grounds of scope, purpose, methods and necessity. In my view, the necessity and effectiveness of wholesale automated transfers of US-bound PNR data for counter-terrorism purposes has not been demonstrated. However, we need to face the fact that the United States is a sovereign country entitled to demand the information it deems necessary for its security from those approaching its airspace.

I am convinced that, at this juncture, Home Affairs Commissioner Malmström has negotiated the strongest possible legal guarantees on behalf of the Union and our citizens. For all my reservations in this context, a rejection of this agreement would not prevent the flow of data to the US under bilateral agreements, which would offer our citizens little by way of guarantees of data protection. This has to be taken into account if we, as a Parliament, are to take a sensible and responsible stance.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Bolo tu už dnes, kolegovia, kolegyne, povedané takmer všetko a ja by som bola veľmi nerada, keby táto naša dnešná diskusia bola vnímaná ako akýsi prejav proamerických alebo proti amerických pocitov jednotlivých členov tejto snemovne. Pravdou je, že pani komisárka urobila veľa opatrení v tom, aby sa tie pôvodné návrhy, ktoré sme nakoniec aj my tu v roku 2010 v máji, myslím, odmietli, dostali do dohovoru. Pravdou ale ostáva aj to, že ak Spojené štáty americké chcú mať dobré partnerstvo v boji proti medzinárodnému zločinu, v boji proti terorizmu s Európskou úniou, potom by bolo na mieste, keby naše pozície boli viac vyvážené a viac vyrovnané. Nepochybujem, pani komisárka, že ste naozaj urobili všetko pre to, aby ste získali pre občanov členských štátov Únie dobrú pozíciu, žiaľbohu, dokázali ste len to, čo vám Spojené štáty americké dovolili. A práve preto ešte stále tento dohovor obsahuje veľa slabých miest, pod ktoré sa jednoducho ja hlasovaním podpísať nemôžem.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Madam President, I just wanted Commissioner Malmström to know not only how much the ALDE Group appreciates her work, but also that it has persuaded a significant part of the ALDE Group to vote in favour of the agreement.

In particular I find the declaration that she has offered very valuable. Her pledges to be really on the ball about the review and monitoring mechanisms in the agreement, particularly the scope and purpose limitation under Article 4, are of particular relevance. She is aware of Parliament’s concern – which I share – about Articles 4(2)(3)(3) and 4(2)(3)(4). She knows we will be on her tail.

I trust that she will be vigilant and will report back to us in the way that she has promised on the occasion of the first joint review and subsequent reviews. I appreciate what she has done, and she has persuaded me and others to vote in favour.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - V roku 2007 uzavrela Európska únia so Spojenými štátmi americkými dohodu o využívaní osobných záznamoch cestujúcich s cieľom legitimizovať a formálne upraviť nakladanie s osobnými údajmi občanov Európskej únie pracoviskami Ministerstva vnútornej bezpečnosti Spojených štátoch amerických. V máji 2010 sme odmietli udeliť súhlas na aplikáciu tejto dohody, pretože sa v jej znení nezohľadňovali európske normy opravujúce nakladanie s osobnými údajmi našich občanov. Nové znenie dohody, o ktorom dnes rokujeme, sprísňuje viaceré ustanovenia zaoberajúce sa ochranou osobných údajov a posilňuje záruky zákonného nakladania s údajmi. Aj v novom znení dohody však ostali viaceré nedostatky, pre ktoré sme odmietli dohodu v máji v 2010. Predložené znenie teda musíme vnímať ako istý pokus o kompromis. Otázkou však ostáva, či my vôbec máme právo a mandát na to, aby sme našich občanov takýmto pochybným spôsobom oberali o ich práva a občianske slobody. Ja si myslím, vážená pani komisárka, že nie.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, c'est pour une motion d'ordre. Je suis désolé d'interrompre les débats mais on m'a informé du fait que les interprétations anglaise et allemande ont, apparemment, fait une grave erreur à propos de mon discours. J'ai dit que je ne peux pas approuver cet accord et j'en ai expliqué les raisons. Mais il semblerait que ces deux versions – je ne sais pas si cela a été le cas pour d'autres versions – disent complètement le contraire. Pour tous les collègues, je veux souligner que je m'abstiendrai, comme je l'ai dit lors de mon intervention.

  La Présidente. - Nous en prenons bonne note.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Kedves Kollegák! Meddig fog elmenni Európa? Hol van a határ annak eltűrésében, hogy mit engedünk meg az Egyesült Államoknak, hogy a terrorizmus veszélyére hivatkozással rákényszerítse Európát saját emberi-jogi normáinak a feladására? Kezdődött azzal, hogy az Egyesült Államok olyan intézkedéseket hozott saját földjén, amelyek semmilyen okozati összefüggésben nem voltak a terrorizmus megelőzésével, mert az, hogy tíz éven keresztül védelemhez való jog nélkül kínozva, kegyetlen körülmények között, eljárás nélkül európai értelemben vett fair eljárás nélkül tartanak embereket börtönben, ez számunkra elfogadhatatlan. Mégis elfogadtuk, hogy Európa területén titkos börtönöket építettek és ott folytatták ezt a magatartást. Lehet, hogy most ez semmiségnek tűnik, amiről ma beszélünk, de mégis úgy gondolom, hogy valahol meg kell húznunk a határt.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich würde nie Ihre Sitzungsführung in Frage stellen. Das machen Sie hervorragend. Ich hätte nur eine Anregung für die Zukunft. Ich habe mich auch zu catch-the-eye gemeldet und bin von Anfang an hier gewesen. Ich habe mich ganz am Anfang gemeldet und meine, es wäre doch vernünftig, die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dranzunehmen, die die ganze Debatte verfolgen, und nicht die, die zum Schluss kommen und sich dann noch schnell melden. Das wäre ein fairerer Zugang.

  La Présidente. - J'en prends bonne note. Je m'excuse, c'est toujours frustrant. Je suis tributaire du timing, il y a les votes à midi et il y a encore un débat sur la traite des êtres humains. En tout cas, merci de votre intervention. Je tâcherai d'en tenir compte.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank everyone for this very good debate. I also appreciate the good cooperation I have had with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, with the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs. Let me quickly answer a few questions.

Firstly, scope. The scope of this is to fight terrorism and serious cross-border crime, which carries a penalty of three years. Customs, migration and border controls are not additional purposes. The reference to vital interests applies to life-and-death matters and communicable diseases. This arose in only four cases during the review we did on the current agreement from 2007 to 2010. That is four cases, none of which involved European PNR data.

Secondly, court orders. In the US Constitution and some European constitutions, a court can ask for PNR data to be used to prove whether someone has been on a plane or not, for instance. This only happened once in our evaluation, so these cases are extremely rare and they are all logged.

Thirdly, ‘push’ and ‘pull’. In this agreement – in contrast to the current one – ‘push’ is the norm. This has been welcomed by the Association of European Airlines and the international organisation of airlines. A vast majority of carriers already use this method and will be able to comply with the requirement to have ‘push’ capacity within two years.

Fourthly, redress. It is spelled out in the agreement that anybody can appeal to the Court against a decision to refuse access because of his or her data under the Freedom of Information Act. The US Privacy Act does not give these rights to EU citizens, but the Traveler Redress Inquiry Programme is available for all decisions made by the US Government that may be subject to judicial review. It is also possible to claim compensation.

Finally, the content of the data. The data registered are the data you give when you book an airline ticket. You do not say if you are a member of a trade union. You do not say in that booking what you intend to buy at the airport. The data is registered. I do not know how well informed passengers are about this (as was mentioned in the debate with Mrs Foster and others), but we say in the agreement that the US must inform passengers about this. This is a major improvement. Profiling is prohibited by Article 7 and Article 9.

As has been said, the United States has the right to ask for data from an individual who intends to land on its territory, as does any country. They do it today, they have done it in the past, and they will do it in the future, as most of our Member States do. We are currently negotiating EU PNR, which I am looking forward to debating with you later. Why? Because our Member States think that this is a valuable and important tool to fight terrorism and – even more importantly – drug smuggling and people smuggling.

What we are here to do is to make sure that the transfer of data is used in a proportionate, limited way, with the strongest protection possible when it comes to fundamental rights and integrity. This is our collective duty. You asked the Commission to renegotiate the 2007 Agreement in force today. We all did that with strong support from the Parliament, clear directions in your resolution and with the support of the Council as well.

It is not perfect. You did not get 100% of what you asked for. However, on all points it is a better agreement than the one we currently have. This is why we are asking for your agreement. We attach great importance to this agreement, as you all do. We will review it, and in the review, Mrs Sippel, there will be data protection experts present. I undertake – as I did earlier in my declaration – to be fully transparent and to report to you at all stages of these evaluations and reviews.

  Morten Bødskov, formand for Rådet. − Fru formand! Jeg vil gerne endnu en gang sige tak for muligheden for at deltage i denne debat her i dag. Det er et vigtigt emne, som vi har diskuteret her i dag, og debatten har igen i dag vist, at det er en sag, som vi alle tillægger meget stor betydning. Det er jo ikke, som det også er fremgået af debatten i dag, noget let spørgsmål, og mange af de bekymringer, der er blevet rejst i dag, de er blevet grundigt diskuteret. Men jeg vil gerne ligesom kommissær Malmström slå fast, at det er opfattelsen fra formandskabets side, at den aftale, vi står med i dag, den er bedre end den, vi har. Og det er grundlæggende det spørgsmål, det er vigtigt at finde svar på. Aftalen er og vil være bedre, end det vi har, og den vil give os bedre muligheder for at styrke indsatsen mod grænseoverskridende alvorlig kriminalitet.

Der er stor forståelse for, at nogen af jer stadig har forbehold over for aftaleudkastet. Men jeg håber dog, at både jeg selv og kommissær Malmström har fået forklaret os ganske tydeligt og sagt, at vi selvfølgelig tager forbeholdene og spørgsmålene meget alvorligt. Samtidig skal I vide, at mange af de spørgsmål, der også er rejst i dag, de har også været genstand for drøftelser i Rådet. Med det vil jeg også gerne afslutningsvist sige og understrege, at denne aftale jo ikke markerer afslutningen på den transatlantiske dialog om anvendelse af PNR-oplysninger.

Aftalens bestemmelser om evalueringer vil sikre os muligheden for at påse, at aftalens bestemmelser om formålsbegrænsning efterleves i praksis. Derfor synes jeg, at det er vigtigt, at vi ser denne aftale som et godt skridt mod en ny ramme for anvendelsen af PNR-oplysninger - en ramme, der giver plads til forbedringer, men som også løser et presserende problem, der påvirker både vores borgere og vores flyselskaber. Som kommissær Malmström var inde på, så vil både Europa-Parlamentet og Rådet blive inddraget og informeret, når aftalen skal evalueres. Det kan jeg på Rådets vegne selvfølgelig fuldt og helt støtte. Endnu en gang tak for muligheden for at være til stede her i dag ved denne vigtige diskussion om et meget vigtigt forslag.

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. − Madam President, very quickly, first of all, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding. I have said this countless times: nobody in this House disputes the need to use data in the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime, Mrs Foster – nobody. But we do dispute the use of these data for other purposes like communicable diseases, as the Commission said, and immigration and customs checks.

Secondly, I would like to put a question to the Commission. You have a certain interpretation of Article 4 that is not shared by everybody, but what is key here is this: is it shared by the United States authorities and how do we know?

Thirdly, I would like to address Mrs Corazza Bildt. Yes, politics is about compromises, but certain things are not negotiable, like fundamental rights and EU law. I do not understand how we are able to reach a good agreement or an acceptable agreement with our Australian friends and not with our American friends and allies. That escapes me completely.

I think the analysis by our EPP colleague, Mr Engel, was spot on. Without the agreement, we do not have weaker safeguards, because the safeguards that are there are provided by existing US legislation and will still be there, even if we vote down this agreement.

On push and pull, Commissioner, as Renate Weber right said, not all carriers will shift to ‘pull’, and you know and we know that this clause is not enforceable. Even if ‘push’ is in place, as it is today, ‘pull’ is still being used. This means that the Americans go into our computer systems and pull the data.

I have not heard you answer my question: why do you qualify as ‘exceptional’ tens of thousands of pulls – up to 82 000 – a day? How, frankly, do you qualify that as exceptional?

Finally, on monitoring. If the experience with the SWIFT Agreement and the monitoring of that is anything to go by, monitoring is a joke.

One last question. Colleagues, ask yourselves, look yourselves in the eye and ask yourselves: if other countries knock on our door and ask – and we know that they will, as Qatar and Japan have already done, and South Korea and Cuba will come, South Africa will come, China and Russia too – are we willing to give them our data for use in profiling on the same terms as we are doing for the United States now? That is a key question.

  La Présidente. - Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu à douze heures.

Déclarations écrites (article 149)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – A maioria das pessoas que utilizam o transporte aéreo desconhecerá o que é o PNR - o registo de identificação dos passageiros. Mais, desconhecerá a utilização que hoje é feita desse registo. O PNR pode conter diversas informações, como o nome, a morada, o número de passaporte, o número de cartão de crédito, ou ainda informação relativa a outros passageiros acompanhantes, rotas de viagem, entre outras. É este rol de dados pessoais, relativos a qualquer passageiro, que hoje é enviado pelas companhias aéreas ao departamento de Segurança Interna dos Estados Unidos, agora e sempre, em nome da chamada luta contra o terrorismo - o pretexto para todo o tipo de atropelos e grosseiras violações aos direitos, liberdades e garantias dos cidadãos. Tudo isto, feito com a cumplicidade da Comissão Europeia. Como bem assinalou a relatora, chegam a ser dezenas de milhar os registos de passageiros enviados por dia para as autoridades dos EUA, com desconhecimento dos passageiros. Foi o que se verificou nos últimos anos. Estes dados podem ainda ser enviados para países terceiros. Este autêntico Big Brother será agora caucionado pelo Parlamento Europeu, apoiado que foi, na Comissão das Liberdades (ironia das ironias), pelos comparsas habituais: direita e social-democracia. Uma decisão inaceitável. A justificar indignação, denúncia, mobilização e luta.

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE), írásban. – A terrorizmus és a szervezett bűnözés elleni harc aligha lehet eredményes a banki és az utasforgalmi adatok nyomonkövetése és feldolgozása nélkül. Üdvözlendő, hogy mind a TFTP, mind a PNR vonatkozásában olyan megállapodások születtek az EU és szövetségesei között, amelyek orvosolják az Európai Parlament személyiségjogi és adatvédelmi aggályainak többségét, beépítve az esetleges jogsérelmek megelőzésének és utólagos orvoslásának a garanciáit az egyezményekbe. Számos alkalommal hívtam fel a figyelmet a kölcsönösség szükségességére az USA és az EU kapcsolatában. Azaz az Unió ne csupán adjon, hanem egyenrangú partnerként kapjon is a bűnüldözéshez elengedhetetlen információkat az USA-tól. Vitatható, szüksége van-e az EU-nak saját PNR-ra. A saját PNR-rendszer nem csupán a terrorizmus elleni harcot tehetné hatékonyabbá, hanem elősegíthetné, hogy valóban megvalósuljon a viszonosság az Unió és szövetségesei között. Szerencsés volna, ha a Bizottság végre világossá tenné elképzeléseit az EU PNR jövőjéről. Mind az Unió, mind a tagállamok és a légiipar számára előnyökkel járna, ha az uniós PNR olyan egységes európai keretként működne, amely feldolgozza az adatokat, biztosítva az információhoz való egyenlő hozzáférést a tagországok számára. Természetesen - és erre ez az egyezmény is reménytkeltő alapot ad - elengedhetetlen, hogy a személyiségjogi és adatvédelmi garanciákat egy esetleges EU PNR rendszer kialakítása során is fokozottan szem előtt tartsuk.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – The EU-US PNR Agreement should be favoured because it is an effective tool for the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crime. The US authorities have provided several concrete examples where the PNR data system had been crucial in disrupting major terrorist plots. The cases of David Headley, Faisal Shahzad or Najibullah Zazi, arrested before they could accomplish planned terrorist crimes, are strong arguments in favour of the security benefits this agreement carries. The agreement also provides for judicial and extra-judicial means of redress for individuals who may feel that they or their data have been improperly handled. According to the US Department of Homeland Security, however, no complaints of abuse of personal data have been recorded so far under the PNR agreement currently in effect. The conclusion of this agreement is a good opportunity for the EU to advance negotiations with the USA for the application of the reciprocity principle on the elimination of visas for all EU Member States, including Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Poland, in the framework of the Visa Waiver Programme.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), în scris. – Trăim într-o societate globalizată, unde pericolele potențiale nu se mai limitează la granițele statelor naționale. Lupta împotriva terorismului a expus unele state la serioase amenințări. Este cazul câtorva țări europene, dar și al Statelor Unite ale Americii. Acordul cu SUA în privința schimbului de date ale pasagerilor legiferează o practică actuală, bazată pe un acord provizoriu din anul 2007. Astfel de date au fost folosite în ultimii 60 de ani de către autoritățile vamale din întreaga lume, iar noile tehnologii au venit să faciliteze transmiterea lor. Potrivit proiectului de acord, informațiile vor fi păstrate într-o bază de date securizată, urmând să fie utilizate în principal pentru prevenirea și investigarea delictelor transfrontaliere. E important de precizat faptul că cetățenii UE beneficiază de dreptul la despăgubire, în cazul în care datele lor personale sunt folosite într-o manieră neadecvată. Încheierea acestui acord între UE și SUA, pe modelul altor acorduri similare (cu Australia, de exemplu) este importantă în perspectiva consolidării cooperării, fiind o garanție pentru continuarea politicii de eliminare a vizelor de călătorie pentru cetățeni și a liberei circulații în condiții de siguranță.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), rakstiski. – Eiropas Parlaments (EP), apstiprinot ES un ASV nolīgumu par aviopasažieru datu izmantošanu cīņai pret terorismu un smagiem starptautiskiem noziegumiem, ļaus nodrošināt lielāku tiesisko noteiktību gan Eiropas pasažieriem, gan aviokompānijām. Eiropas Tautas partija (ETP) atbalsta šī nolīguma stāšanos spēkā. Šis būs liels sasniegums, jo aviopasažieru datu nodošana ASV jau gadiem ir bijis „karsts kartupelis” ES un ASV attiecībās. Nolīguma noraidīšana nozīmētu, ka ASV varētu turpmāk uzstāt uz zemāku standartu ievērošanu divpusēji ar katru no ES dalībvalstīm vai pat aviosabiedrībām, kas kopumā būtu ļoti neveiksmīgs risinājums Eiropai. Kā zinām, EP de facto noraidīja iepriekšējo nolīguma versiju 2010. gada maijā, lūdzot Eiropas Komisiju atkārtoti apspriest noteikumus par datu aizsardzību ar ASV, lai tas atspoguļotu EP rezolūcijās izteiktās bažas. Lai gan līdzšinējā dokumenta versijā ir būtiski uzlabojumi attiecībā uz datu aizsardzību un sadarbību ar ASV drošības iestādēm, piemēram, ir skaidri noteikta darbības joma un datu uzglabāšanas laiks, EP Pilsoņu brīvību, tieslietu un iekšlietu komitejā bija ļoti asas debates par šo strīdīgo jautājumu. Un ne velti — nolīgums tiešām nav izcils. Bet labāk ar šādu, nekā bez nekā. Tiek uzskatīts, ka ES un Austrālijas nolīgums par pieeju pasažieru datu reģistram ir ļoti labs piemērs, uz ko vajadzētu tiekties. Cerams, ka ES un Kanādas nolīgumā, kas drīzumā nonāks arī EP darba kārtībā, ievēros augstus datu aizsardzības standartus.

5. Cilvēku tirdzniecība (debates)

  La Présidente. - L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur les déclarations du Conseil et de la Commission sur la traite des êtres humains.

  Morten Bødskov, formand for Rådet. − Fru formand, ærede medlemmer, ærede kommissær Malmström! Jeg vil gerne indlede debatten her i dag med at takke for muligheden for at tage del i dagens debat om menneskehandel, som jo er et meget vigtigt og påtrængende emne.

Der skal ikke herske nogen tvivl om, at menneskehandel er en modbydelig form for kriminalitet, som skal bekæmpes på alle fronter. Det er et problem, som vi også ved ikke kan løses nationalt, men som kræver både en regional, en international og også en global indsats. Der er i den forbindelse behov for, at vi koordinerer den europæiske indsats mod menneskehandel med vores eksterne samarbejdspartnere. Derfor er jeg glad for, at kampen mod menneskehandel har så høj en prioritet hos både FN, Europarådet, Organisationen for Sikkerhed og Samarbejde i Europa og International Organisation for Migration.

Jeg sætter også stor pris på, at de seks FN-agenturer i fællesskab er fremkommet med en række kommentarer til vores direktiv fra 2011, og jeg er sikker på, at dette bidrag vil vise sig nyttigt, når medlemsstaterne skal gennemføre direktivet frem mod fristen den 6. april 2013. I den forbindelse skal bemærkes, at der er tale om et direktiv, der indeholder minimumsregler. Dermed står det medlemsstaterne frit at indføre mere vidtgående regler end dem, der følger af direktivet. FN's anbefalinger retter sig da også til medlemsstaterne i forbindelse med deres nationale gennemførelse af direktivet. Det er således et nationalt anliggende, hvorvidt man ønsker at efterkomme FN's anbefalinger i det omfang, de går videre end selve direktivet.

Det følger bl.a. af direktivet, at medlemsstaterne for at bidrage til en koordineret og konsolideret EU-strategi for bekæmpelse af menneskehandel skal lette opgaverne for en EU-koordinator for bekæmpelse af menneskehandel. I marts 2011 udpegede Kommissionen som bekendt den første antimenneskehandelskoordinator. Koordinatorens rolle består i at yde generel strategisk vejledning omkring menneskehandel, herunder i relation til tredjelande. Jeg og de øvrige rådsmedlemmer er særdeles glade for, at vi nu har en antimenneskehandelskoordinator, der udfører et meget vigtigt arbejde. Kommissionen vil komme nærmere ind på koordinatorens mandat.

Et andet væsentligt element i direktivet er bestemmelsen om, at medlemsstaterne skal udpege nationale rapportører eller etablere tilsvarende mekanismer. Rapportørernes opgaver består bl.a. i at vurdere tendenser i menneskehandelen, måle resultater af aktioner til bekæmpelse af menneskehandel samt forestå indsamling af statistikker og foretage rapporteringer.

I 2009 besluttede Rådet at etablere et netværk bestående af nationale rapportører og tilsvarende mekanismer til overvågning af menneskehandel. Som det også fremgår af FN-kommentaren, er det særdeles vanskeligt at vurdere det reelle omfang af menneskehandel. Et af formålene med dette netværk er at forbedre vores forståelse for fænomenet menneskehandel og indsamle pålidelige data. Netværket er tilgængeligt for EU-institutioner og -agenturer samt relevante internationale organisationer, herunder selvfølgelig også FN. Formandskabet for Rådet koordinerer i samarbejde med Kommissionen netværkets aktiviteter og leder møderne. Netværket mødes cirka hvert halve år, og Rådets generalsekretær og Parlamentets sekretariat inviteres til at deltage i møderne. Det seneste møde fandt sted i februar her i 2012.

Jeg håber, at det var svar på jeres spørgsmål, ellers er jeg selvfølgelig sikker på, at Kommissionen kan være behjælpelig med yderligere oplysninger.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I think this is a very good opportunity to discuss this matter. Trafficking of human beings is a horrible crime. It goes on today, it affects millions of people – young children, women, men – and it is a shame. It is unacceptable that today, in 2012, this modern slavery still goes on.

I think – or rather I know – that the European Parliament has pursued this issue for many years, and some Member States have been very quick to engage in these issues, while others have taken a little more time. However, I think it is fair to say that today everybody is very committed – Member States, the Commission, Parliament – to fighting this horrible violation of human rights. It is a priority for all of us, and it is very important for me personally.

The directive to which the Presidency was referring and which was the subject of your oral questions is very important for preventing and combating the problem, as well as for protecting the victims. It is a reflection of our joint commitment. It has a comprehensive and integrative approach. It is centred on the protection of victims and on human rights. It is gender-specific and does not only focus on repression but aims to prevent the crime and to ensure that the victims of trafficking are given the opportunity to recover and be reintegrated into society.

It brings robust provisions to deliver protection, assistance and support for victims. It asks, for instance, the Member States to ensure that all victims are dealt with on the basis of an individual risk assessment. Additionally, the Member States should establish appropriate mechanisms to identify, assist and support the victims in cooperation with different support organisations.

There are special provisions concerning children who are victims of trafficking. The Member States are obliged to appoint a guardian or a representative for each child victim and always to take into consideration what is best for the child.

Regarding prevention, we fully share your concern on the need to put in place concrete preventive measures. The Member States are obliged to take measures to discourage and reduce the demands that foster all forms of exploitation. We also foresee the inclusion of a study on demand and supply in our upcoming communication on the strategy, with a view to better understanding the roots and causes of trafficking.

The need for preventive actions in addressing the role of the Internet in recruitment, as well as in advertising services, was repeatedly brought up during the consultation with stakeholders when elaborating the strategy. The strategy which we are currently in the process of writing will therefore consider the best ways to reflect on the Internet.

As regards the gender dimension, women, men, boys and girls can all become victims of trafficking. However, victims of trafficking are affected in different ways and to different degrees, so Directive 2011/36/EU and the Strategy for Equality between Women and Men should mainstream a gender-specific approach in all areas of human-trafficking policy and legislation, reducing vulnerability to trafficking and responding to victims’ needs.

The Directive is a great achievement, and our focus now must be on transposition and implementation. The commitment of the Member States’ governments to enacting national legislation that would give full effect to the provisions is fundamental, and the Member States have one year left fully to transpose the provisions. In order to assist them – as has been mentioned – there is an informal contact group on the Directive. It brings together experts on the transposition of the Directive at national level. During these meetings, Member States can discuss questions related to this process that they consider important, and the European Parliament is invited to participate in these informal meetings.

In this context, we welcome the joint United Nations commentary on the Directive and its strong focus on human rights. The commentary is a positive exercise by the United Nations’ agencies to combine the previously-adopted UN and Council of Europe legislation with the implementation of the EU Directive. It places EU policy in a global context, and this is crucial for consistency, as we are discussing a global phenomenon.

You asked about the national rapporteur or equivalent mechanism. The Directive obliges Member States to set up these mechanisms. They will be responsible for the assessment of trends and measuring the result of the anti-trafficking actions: statistics, reporting, etc. Some Member States already have this in place, and others are now in the process of setting it up. The Commission will discuss, within the informal network, how best to implement this provision, and this will also be a question to be discussed in the contact group.

Let me inform you that the third group of experts on the trafficking of human beings was appointed by the Director-General of DG Home Affairs, Mr Manservisi. The call for experts was an open call, and the selection was made by a committee which ensured the presence of different specialisations and areas of expertise, as well as a geographical and gender balance. This group of experts included many human rights and gender experts, and they will feed into the Commission policies, advise us on policies and initiatives related to trafficking issues, help us to assess policy and assist us in identifying measures to be taken. Overall, this group of experts is a forum for the discussion of all issues relating to the trafficking of human beings.

The anti-trafficking coordinator, Mrs Vassiliadou, took up her mandate a year ago. The Commission is in the process of providing additional staff for her in order to support her and ensure that she can fully exercise her tasks and priorities. She has been working on making anti-trafficking policies more coherent, such as by mainstreaming the issue in different policy strands and ensuring coordination between the different actors.

Partly in order to ensure transparency, the anti-trafficking coordinator will have to contribute to the Commission’s biennial reporting on the progress made in addressing trafficking in human beings. In order to evaluate this process, as stated in your resolution on the prevention of trafficking in human beings, there is a need for better information gathering.

Last year, the Commission sent out a questionnaire to the Member States to collect data on the trafficking of human beings at EU level. We have received replies from everybody. A general overview of the data will be integrated into the strategy on which we are currently working, and the Commission will most likely be able to publish a separate analysis of this later this year.

As you know, the Commission funds many projects aimed at preventing trafficking both within and outside the EU. Some projects address the root causes: for example, there is a project in Kosovo that aims to raise awareness amongst the most vulnerable groups in rural areas of Kosovo. More information on this project and others is available on the anti-trafficking website.

We have an action-oriented paper aimed at strengthening the commitment and the coordinated action of the EU and Member States against trafficking in human beings. This will be done in partnership with third countries, regions and organisations at international level. The Commission has established an inter-service group on trafficking of human beings shared by the anti-trafficking coordinator. This group brings together diverse policy areas such as migration, asylum, development cooperation, trade, employment and gender policy, to name but a few. Coordination is one of the main objectives here, and that was the objective of last year’s anti-trafficking day, which resulted in a joint statement from seven agencies on ensuring future cooperation on trafficking between them.

Much has been done and much is prepared. The strategy will be presented later this spring or just before the summer. I will be happy to come back and talk about this specific strategy once it is ready, but I would like to thank you for your strong commitment, for your engagement and for urging the Commission and the Member States never to give up on this and to make sure that we do everything possible to eradicate this horrible form of modern slavery.

  Edit Bauer, a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Asszony! Kedves Biztos Asszony! Kedves Miniszter Úr! Köszönöm ezt a lehetőséget, hogy eszmét cserélhetünk az irányelv alkalmazásáról és transzpozíciójáról. Az elmúlt hetekben több civil szervezettel eszmét cseréltünk arról, hogy milyen feladatok várnak ránk, és az egyik résztvevő azt mondta, hogy ez az irányelv, ez egy átkozottul jó irányelv. Elnézést kérek a kifejezésért, de pontosan akartam idézni. Ez persze nem azt jelenti, hogy most már hátradőlhetünk, mert mindent jól elvégeztünk, hanem a munka dandárja gyakorlatilag előttünk áll. És annak ellenére, hogy ez valóban egy jó irányelv, és köszönet azért, hogy a Bizottság és a Tanács jó együttműködése alapján ez így létrejöhetett, magában az irányelvben is vannak olyan hiányosságok, amiket előbb-utóbb pótolni kell, ilyen például az ideiglenes tartózkodási engedélyre vonatkozó irányelv, amelyik feltételhez köti az áldozatok támogatását, miközben ez az új irányelv feltétel nélküli támogatást biztosít az áldozatoknak.

De ugyanígy hiánypótló intézkedésekre van szükség, ami a nemzeti koordinátorokat és az európai koordinátor kapcsolatát illeti, és úgy érzem, hogy talán fontos lesz az elkövetkező időben több figyelmet fordítani a különböző politikák összehangolására. Legyen az a fejlesztési politika, ahol igazából nem vesszük figyelembe még ma sem azt, hogy milyen fontos lenne az emberkereskedelem témáját fontosabb helyre rangsorolni a fejlesztési politikákban. Nagy figyelemmel kísérjük és várjuk, hogy mit fog hozni az új stratégia, és azt szeretném kérdezni, hogy milyen hozzáadott értéket várhatunk tőle?

  Anna Hedh, för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Som föredragande är jag stolt över de framsteg som åstadkommits tillsammans med rådet och kommissionen i samband med att vi antog den nya lagstiftningen mot människohandel. Direktivet har ett helhetsperspektiv med fokus på både förebyggande åtgärder och lagföring av människohandlare. Nu har det gått mer än ett år sedan direktivet antogs och jag är glad över att få höra både från kommissionen och rådet här idag om dess genomförande.

För några veckor sedan var jag på ett seminarium tillsammans med EU:s anti trafficking-samordnare. Hon meddelade där att den senaste tillgängliga statistiken från medlemsstaterna visar att en klar majoritet, över 70 procent av offren i människohandel, är kvinnor som fallit offer för sexslavhandel. Trots att detta bekräftas av en rad andra studier upplever jag att det finns ett motstånd mot att prata om detta faktum. Istället för att diskutera sexslaveri, som enligt all tillgänglig statistik står för den övervägande delen, så finns det tendenser att vilja fokusera på utnyttjande i andra sektorer.

Detta är djupt olyckligt då vi aldrig kommer att komma åt människohandeln om vi inte vågar tala öppet om alla dess orsaker. En mycket väsentlig del i direktivet handlar just om att arbeta mot efterfrågan och slå mot själva lönsamheten för människohandeln. Enligt artikel 18 är medlemsstaterna inte bara skyldiga att agera mot människohandeln utan också att vidta lämpliga åtgärder i syfte att motverka och minska den efterfrågan som ligger till grund för alla former av utnyttjande som är relaterat till människohandel. I detta ingår att se över köparnas ansvar, oavsett vilken typ av slaveri de betalar för. Det är därför särskilt intressant hur rådet och kommissionen ser på detta i ljuset av lagstiftningen. Jag ser fram emot den utvärdering som så småningom kommer!

  Antonyia Parvanova, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, one year after the adoption of the directive on combating and preventing trafficking in human beings, Member States still need to take concrete action to put an end to trafficking and effectively protect the victims of such crimes.

We hope that the directive, including its provisions concerning criminal offences, will be implemented in a timely, consistent and effective manner and will, together with the EU strategy, lead to improved cooperation cross the Union. The further legal framework would enable Member States’ actions to have a greater impact not only in terms of law enforcement but also for the protection and assistance provided to victims.

It is therefore crucial that the European anti-trafficking coordinator is provided with appropriate tools and means of cooperation, in order to coordinate efforts at national and EU level. Existing data show that women and girls represent the majority of trafficked people, and we should take into account the root causes of such phenomena, particularly when we speak about gender-based discrimination and violence against women. In this respect, transposing and implementing this directive with an open gender perspective is crucially needed. Further efforts in terms of ensuring the establishment of national rapporteurs responsible for gathering gender-separated national statistics and data would be welcome. In terms of prevention and information, gender-sensitive awareness campaigns still remain to be developed.

Finally, as rapporteur for the European Parliament on the Victims’ Rights Package, I would like to stress the need to draw up a solid and ambitious legislative framework establishing minimum standards for victims of crimes and facilitating the recognition of protection measures – civil or criminal –across the EU.

I hope the Council will also acknowledge that supporting victims and recognising their rights throughout the Union is essential in order to facilitate the reporting of crimes and effectively combat organised crime networks which abuse thousands of people and deprive them of their fundamental rights, regardless of their nationality and place of residence.

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Een groot gemis in de bescherming van slachtoffers van mensenhandel blijft toch wel de beperking op de verblijfsvergunning. In de debatten die wij in dit Parlement met elkaar hebben gevoerd, hebben de Groenen geprobeerd om ruimhartige voorstellen in te brengen, waarbij slachtoffers van mensenhandel bescherming kregen in de vorm van een verblijfsvergunning. Dat is ons niet gelukt, het is een tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning geworden en een tijdelijke verblijfsvergunning betekent dat je na bijvoorbeeld een rechtszaak terug zou kunnen worden gestuurd naar de plaats vanwaar je verhandeld bent, wellicht ook naar de mensen die hebben geholpen jou te verhandelen. Dat blijft een tekortkoming.

Ik ben wel blij om te zien dat in het slachtofferpakket waarover nu met de Raad wordt onderhandeld erkend is dat slachtoffers steun verdienen, ongeacht hun legale status, dus of zij legaal dan wel illegaal zijn. Dat zal slachtoffers van mensenhandel helpen.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, we all agree that human trafficking is an abhorrent crime which grossly violates the human rights of its victims. This is a modern form of slavery, the incidence of which across Europe continues to grow at an alarming pace. In my own region of Northern Ireland there is a huge problem with human trafficking. Criminal gangs use the province as a gateway to traffic people into the mainland United Kingdom, as well as retaining some victims for local illegal activities. The Police Service of Northern Ireland, the PSNI, is engaged in a comprehensive battle against human trafficking, which focuses both on rescuing victims and catching perpetrators. However, the first person who was convicted on a charge of human trafficking in Northern Ireland was only sentenced a few weeks ago. This shows that we still have a long way to go.

I welcome the Commissioner’s statements here today. It is important that this issue is not brushed under the carpet. It should remain very much at the top of the agenda in the fight against crime, and I believe the most important tool for fighting this crime is tougher sentencing of the perpetrators of human trafficking.

  Zbigniew Ziobro, w imieniu grupy EFD. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Z wielkim smutkiem należy stwierdzić, że mimo upływu 230 lat od zniesienia niewolnictwa w Europie nadal mamy do czynienia ze zjawiskiem niewolnictwa i handlu ludźmi. Nadal dochodzi do strasznych krzywd najczęściej wyrządzanych kobietom, które również dzisiaj – teraz, kiedy debatujemy w Parlamencie Europejskim – w najbogatszych krajach Unii Europejskiej są zmuszane pod groźbą szantażu, pobicia, czasami – co do opornych – zabójstwa nawet do tego, aby świadczyć usługi seksualne. Odmawia im się godności ludzkiej, a często organa ścigania w poszczególnych państwach rozkładają ręce i udają, że problemu nie ma. To wielki wstyd, by nie użyć mocniejszych słów, i dlatego w tej sprawie należy podejmować wszelkie działania, które umożliwią podjęcie skutecznych środków zaradczych.

Po pierwsze, trzeba kwalifikować takie zachowania zawsze jako działania w ramach zorganizowanych struktur przestępczych. Po drugie, trzeba takie działania odpowiednio surowo karać, surowiej niż zwykłą przestępczość kryminalną, bo wsparcie grupy przestępczej stwarza większe zagrożenie i siłę rażenia takich przestępców oraz ich poczucie bezkarności. Po trzecie wreszcie, trzeba wprowadzić elementy konfiskaty rozszerzonej we wszystkich krajach Unii Europejskiej, aby odbierać ten cel i sens działania zorganizowanej przestępczości handlu ludźmi, czyli zarabianie pieniędzy na krzywdzie, najczęściej krzywdzie kobiet, ale też i dzieci. Te wszystkie działania razem podejmowane, koordynowane w ramach poszczególnych krajów Unii Europejskiej, koordynowane też przez zaangażowane instytucje europejskie, mogą przynieść rezultat, ale tylko wtedy, jeśli będą podejmowane wszechstronnie i właśnie z takim nastawieniem, zdecydowaniem i konsekwencją, której do tej pory niestety brakowało.

Media co chwila opisują straszne dramaty kobiet z Europy Wschodniej, kobiet z Trzeciego Świata, które podstępem zostały sprowadzone do rzekomo uczciwej pracy w krajach Europy Zachodniej, a później spotkały je koszmarne zdarzenia, przestępstwa, pobicia, a czasami nawet zabójstwa. Musimy z tym skończyć, musimy też bronić ofiar tych przestępstw. Musimy pokazać tutaj stanowczość!

  Mikael Gustafsson, för GUE/NGL-gruppen. – Fru talman! Den absolut vanligaste formen av människohandel gäller naturligtvis kvinnor och flickor som utnyttjas sexuellt. Jag kommer därför att fokusera på det.

Kvinnor och flickor luras och övertalas in i en exploaterande och grym värld. Eftersom efterfrågan på att köpa kvinnor är större än vad det finns prostituerade i Europa så rekryteras dessa kvinnor från andra delar av världen för att köpas och säljas om och om igen. Detta är cyniskt, ovärdigt, kolonialt och till och med rasistiskt. Vi måste våga fatta beslut som ifrågasätter detta. Sexköp är inte okej. I egenskap av man säger jag nej till mäns rätt att köpa kvinnors kroppar. I egenskap av politiker säger jag att vi måste våga fatta beslut som verkligen avskaffar kvinnohandeln.

Det behövs självklart många viktiga åtgärder, t.ex. utöka stödet till offren för människohandeln, förstärka deras rättigheter, ge offer för människohandel rätt till uppehållstillstånd i det land de utnyttjas. Samtidigt måste vi alltdi komma ihåg att utan efterfrågan på kvinnokroppar så finns ingen handel med kvinnor och flickor. Det betyder att det verkliga problemet ligger hos sexköparna.

Jag anser att vi måste gå hela vägen i den kedjan för att kunna stävja handeln, dvs. även kunna förbjuda sexköp. Det har visat sig vara en effektiv åtgärd i Norge, Sverige och Island. För det är inte kvinnorna i prostitution som ska bestraffas utan det är männen som ska sättas i fokus.

För att sammanfatta: att bekämpa människohandel i EU handlar till stor del om att bekämpa handel med kvinnor och flickor. För att göra den kampen effektiv krävs politiskt mod att bekämpa efterfrågan. En sådan politik skulle vara betydligt mer effektiv än dagens fokus på biometriska id-handlingar, passageraruppgifter och stärkta gränskontroller.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Madam President, I welcome Commissioner Malmström’s genuine commitment to fighting trafficking, along with all the measures that the Commission has implemented already. Now is the time for all the Member States to do the same and implement fully, swiftly and effectively the directive that was adopted a year ago. But there is more to be done, because the figures are stunning and the stories are heartbreaking. The issue is the millions of women, children and men who live as slaves in our neighbourhoods.

There is a need for a cultural paradigm shift, and the time of impunity has to come to an end. The culture of impunity, of abuse, cheating and oppression, has to be replaced by a culture which criminalises trafficking. All the perpetrators should hear our voice. They will not feel immune anywhere, in any corner of Europe. We have to join forces on this, not only by better training police forces and taking into account children’s and women’s special needs as well as victim protection, but also by adding some prevention. We need to do more than just persecute; we must also really improve cooperation and have stronger sanctions. This may be a challenge for a criminal system, but we need to see adults and children freed and perpetrators in prison.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, apprezzo l'intervento del Consiglio e del Commissario Malmström, credo che oggi dobbiamo finalmente parlare di una vera strategia europea incentrata sulla lotta al traffico, sulla prevenzione e sulla tutela delle vittime.

Importantissimo il ruolo del coordinatore europeo, il cui staff va a mio giudizio irrobustito, e ci vuole un forte indirizzo della Commissione perché tutti gli Stati membri realizzino analoghi organismi che affianchino il relatore nazionale con consulte permanenti e con le ONG, che spesso sono le più impegnate su questo piano, e con un collegamento forte con la polizia, con la magistratura e con la polizia informatica per i reati su Internet.

È importante confrontare anche le misure che ci sono nei vari paesi sui clienti e sullo scoraggiamento della domanda, per fare un passo avanti e raccordare di più però gli interventi sui minori in modo più olistico in attuazione di questa direttiva e di quella sulla pedopornografia su Internet.

Credo che sia centrale la formazione degli operatori di giustizia, ma anche la coerenza della legislazione e segnalo la gravità della situazione di chi nel nostro paese dal 1998 aveva il permesso di soggiorno umanitario – e spero che questo governo cambi questo punto – perché oggi è stato introdotto il reato di clandestinità per l'immigrazione clandestina che sta vanificando la possibilità di applicare il soggiorno umanitario per le donne vittime della tratta.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). - Madame la Présidente, si l'esclavage a été aboli au dix-neuvième siècle, de nombreux enfants, des femmes et des hommes sont encore victimes chaque jour de la traite des êtres humains en Europe. Il s'agit d'esclaves domestiques, de prostituées, de mendiants, de travailleurs clandestins, qui vivent un véritable calvaire fait de violences physiques, d'humiliations et à chaque étape de cet enfer, c'est l'indignation. Ce phénomène concerne en outre, pour près de 40 %, des enfants. Totalement impuissantes, ces personnes sont enlevées, gardées contre leur gré, frappées, soumises à des violences sexuelles et à d'autres formes de torture et de traitements inhumains et dégradants, privées de leurs droits.

L'Union, les États membres de l'Union ont une responsabilité historique, comme vous l'avez rappelé, Madame la Commissaire, et nous devons agir ensemble pour faire face à ce phénomène criminel qui bafoue tous les droits humains, particulièrement ceux des femmes. Mais surtout, il incombe bien sûr à l'Union de protéger les plus fragiles, les plus vulnérables que sont les enfants.

Madame la Commissaire, en ce qui concerne cette coopération, si bien sûr la directive constitue une avancée, un pas en avant, il vous revient de contrôler fermement la responsabilité des États à travers des mesures concrètes, tangibles, pour pouvoir éliminer ce véritable cancer qui constitue une offense aux fondements de nos sociétés démocratiques et aux valeurs qui ont cimenté la construction européenne.

Qu'allez-vous faire par rapport aux obligations des États de mise en œuvre de la transposition de la directive? Deuxième question: quid de la campagne d'information et de sensibilisation massive? Et, enfin, quid de la collecte des informations relatives à la traite des êtres humains et quelles actions pourraient être prises à partir justement de cette collecte de données?

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - Voorzitter, de richtlijn tegen mensenhandel biedt meer bescherming voor de slachtoffers en de daders kunnen nu beter worden aangepakt. Helaas is het echter zo dat de lidstaten de kansen van de richtlijn nog te weinig benutten en bovendien vooral de prostitutie nog te weinig aanpakken.

Wij weten dat 80% van de vrouwen en meisjes in de mensenhandel terechtkomen in de prostitutie, vooral door een mix van leugens, valse beloftes en corruptie. En dan zijn zij gevangen in die onderwereld. Daar moeten wij hen uit proberen te halen, mevrouw de Voorzitter, want deze misdaad wordt helaas nóg te weinig erkend. Het gevolg is dat Europese projecten om vrouwen en meisjes te waarschuwen of op te vangen nauwelijks van de grond komen. De samenwerking tussen de politie, met name tussen West- en Oost-Europa, moet écht veel beter.

Wij moeten deze misdaad niet uit schaamte verzwijgen, maar wij moeten gebruikmaken van de richtlijn. Ik roep de lidstaten daartoe op en ik steun daarin de Europese commissaris. Want wij moeten van deze misdaden af, zij kunnen namelijk nog te veel ongehinderd plaatsvinden en daar moeten wij tegen blijven strijden.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signora Commissario, con l'adozione della direttiva sul trafficking l'Unione europea ha compiuto un passaggio fondamentale nell'ambito della cooperazione giudiziaria penale tra gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea per la lotta contro tutte le nuove schiavitù.

La disciplina definisce regole comuni sulla definizione di un reato e il livello delle sanzioni, garantisce una maggiore protezione delle vittime, soprattutto dei bambini che, a mio avviso, sono forse la categoria più vulnerabile, quella che corre maggiori rischi e che pertanto va tutelata con il rafforzamento delle sanzioni, anche per i reati commessi sul web.

Come è noto, il recepimento della direttiva dovrà avvenire nel 2013, quindi c'è ancora un anno, però voglio fare qualche domanda e chiedere a che punto sono gli Stati membri e come procede la collaborazione transfrontaliera tra le autorità di polizia, quali sono i dati raccolti in materia e anche qualche notizia sulla annunciata campagna di informazione.

Perché pongo queste domande? Perché io credo che la Commissione debba in qualche modo monitorare la situazione negli Stati membri e in qualche modo supportare gli stessi nella corretta ed efficace trasposizione della direttiva, questo perché la direttiva è sicuramente uno strumento legislativo all'avanguardia di cui dobbiamo essere fieri, ma la mia preoccupazione è che gli Stati membri possano essere un po' in ritardo rispetto all'obiettivo o comunque trovare delle difficoltà applicative, quindi a mio avviso dobbiamo seguire con responsabilità questo processo per il miglior esito del lavoro che abbiamo fatto.

  Carmen Romero López (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, el más dramático final de todos aquellos que vienen a Europa pensando que es el paraíso es el de las mujeres que se sienten y están obligadas a pagar su trayecto con su cuerpo. Sin duda, ninguna humillación es semejante a esa y realmente es la esclavitud más dura que estamos viviendo. Es un fenómeno que no es imposible de combatir, estamos ante un fenómeno muy difícil que nos obliga a profundizar día a día los métodos para luchar contra el mismo.

Pero, de hecho, es un fenómeno que podemos abordar. Esa es nuestra responsabilidad: gracias a la Directiva que acabamos de poner en marcha y a los medios que hemos puesto en marcha —como, por ejemplo, la figura del coordinador o de la coordinadora en esta materia— podemos avanzar muy rápidamente. Necesitamos urgentemente un informe sobre las rutas, los fenómenos, las causas, de cuáles son los ...

(La Presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la tratta di esseri umani è certamente un reato odioso, ma è anche un reato che ha una natura transnazionale.

L'obiettivo per sconfiggerlo è quello di una cooperazione internazionale fra Stati membri e paesi terzi con un ruolo preminente da parte delle istituzioni europee. Dobbiamo sconfiggere lo sfruttamento della prostituzione, il lavoro illegale, la microdelinquenza, ma parlare di tratta degli esseri umani senza parlare di crimine organizzato – perché molto spesso la tratta degli esseri umani è nelle mani del crimine organizzato – sarebbe come avere un approccio parziale a questo fenomeno così inquietante.

Si è costituita nei giorni scorsi la commissione CRIM, della quale io sono il relatore e non vi è dubbio che uno degli indirizzi concreti e una delle priorità politiche sarà proprio quella di valorizzare al meglio questo nostro lavoro per avere un maggior rapporto di collaborazione e di cooperazione con i paesi terzi, perché noi siamo dell'avviso che la migrazione regolare e legale vada incoraggiata, ma vada decisamente contestata e sconfitta – o almeno ci proveremo – quella illegale.

Sono pertanto necessari accordi bilaterali fra l'Unione europea e i singoli paesi terzi nella regolazione dei flussi migratori, tutela delle libertà fondamentali attraverso garanzie decise, ruolo di collaborazione delle agenzie Europol e Frontex innanzitutto, con due principi: solidarietà e responsabilità, senza i quali non si può certamente andare avanti.

Questo è l'indirizzo forte che daremo anche nella commissione CRIM e il fatto che oggi una direttiva che sta per essere recepita in tutti gli Stati membri rappresenti uno strumento essenziale del contrasto alla tratta degli esseri umani ci dà la misura di quanto un approccio europeo forte possa dare a questo inquietante e ancora dilagante fenomeno.

Interventions à la demande

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Medzinárodný organizovaný zločin ohrozuje bezpečnosť a obchodovanie s ľuďmi sa týka takmer milióna ľudí ročne, z čoho 80 % je žien. A to neberieme už do úvahy ďalších ľudí vystavených obchodovaniu v rámci jednotlivých štátov. Obchodovanie s ľuďmi, či už vo forme sexuálneho zneužívania, nútenej práce, otroctva alebo dokonca vo forme nelegálneho odoberania orgánov z tela žiaľ patrí medzi latentné formy kriminality, a veľmi vážne. Domnievam sa, že špeciálnu pozornosť si vyžaduje vypracovanie a implementácia preventívnych programov zameraných na deti a mládež z rizikových skupín. Komplexné riešenie širokospektrálnej problematiky obchodovania s ľuďmi logicky musí zahŕňať aj komplexný program návratu a integrácie obchodovaných osôb. Dámy a páni, toto je oblasť, kde musíme pomôcť najmä ženám, ktoré naletia pochybným obchodníkom, ktorí ich lákajú do inej krajiny za účelom atraktívnej práce.

  Catherine Bearder (ALDE). - Madam President, Europe will soon be in the football spotlight, and UEFA should be commended for launching campaigns to tackle racism in the game. However, I believe that it is not doing enough to raise awareness of human trafficking. This vile trade will be fuelled in Poland and Ukraine.

The Commissioner has already told me she is concerned about trafficking for sexual exploitation at events such as football championships. UEFA suggests large football events are irrelevant when it comes to trafficking, but it wishes to remain vigilant. I am not convinced. Mega-brothels opened in host cities in the 2006 World Cup in Germany, and already strip clubs are opening near the football stadiums in Kiev. Where there is a spike in the demand for sex workers there will also be a spike in the demand for the number of women trafficked.

It is vital that UEFA makes a strong stand to clamp down on the potential for trafficking at its big tournaments. This summer is a massive year for sport in Europe, and millions of people will enjoy the games. We must all make sure that such great events are not tarnished by trafficking.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). - Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, você está muito consciente que por terra, por mar, por ar, continua o tráfico de seres humanos na Europa: mulheres, crianças, sobretudo raparigas forçadas a prostituir-se como escravas sexuais, migrantes e solicitantes de asilo, vítimas das redes criminais organizadas, um delito que vai contra a dignidade humana, que por muito tempo foi considerado como episódio isolado, mas o incremento nos últimos anos como um problema global ao que nenhum Estado europeu é alheio. Por exemplo, o Estado espanhol está nos principais destinos do tráfico de pessoas a nível mundial, hoje este drama é um problema estrutural. Por isso, é muito importante esta estratégia europeia coordenando, monitorizando as políticas públicas, as causas, mas não é suficiente pela posição dos Estados-Membros. É necessário prosseguir…

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, whilst trafficking in human beings can be for many purposes, the dominant form is of women and girls for sexual exploitation. When this subject was discussed in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs about two years ago, I asked the representative from Europol whether any population groups were prominent among the traffickers and the trafficked. He answered without any qualification: the answer to both questions is the Roma. We need to examine the significance of that answer.

Of course, criminal sexual exploitation of girls does not always involve crossing international frontiers. The grooming of under-age girls for prostitution by Asian men in the United Kingdom was first brought to public attention by our chairman. The authorities responded by prosecuting him for alleged incitement. It was only when he was acquitted that the authorities were forced to start prosecuting those responsible for the grooming. International human trafficking is hindered by border checks.

(The President cut off the speaker)

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, honourable Members, Minister, I have met young women who have come to Western Europe with the aim of working in a restaurant or as an au pair, and who instead find themselves working in brothels selling sex up to fifteen times a day. I have met small children, very young children, who are forced to beg on the streets of Brussels, Paris, Stockholm and Vienna. All these people are examples of the modern slavery that exists today in Europe: a very profitable form of organised crime and unworthy of Europe today.

For the sake of all those people and many others, we must fight this crime. The directive we have been referring to is a very good tool. The Commission will make sure that it does everything to support the Member States in fully transposing and implementing it.

You asked a question on the Directive on residence permits. It is clear that not all Member States are making full use of it. We are right now studying the causes of this before taking further action, and the input and ideas of the European Parliament here are most welcome.

The upcoming strategy intends to move on from where we are with the Directive: to take a broad, consistent and coherent approach on prevention, protection and prosecution. We want to focus on training, raising awareness and providing information to key groups. We want to focus very much on the desperately-needed coordination that so many of you mentioned. We want to streamline our work on human trafficking and launch studies on, for example, demand and the root causes of trafficking in human beings. This will be a strategy for the coming five years; the aim is that it will be concrete, practical and measurable. It will be adopted later this spring or summer and presented to you as soon as possible.

I am looking forward to discussing this with you, and again I want to thank you for a very good debate and for your strong commitment to this very important cause.

  Morten Bødskov, formand for Rådet. − Fru formand! Det har været meget interessant at følge debatten her i dag, og den har understreget, at vi har med et område at gøre, hvor det er utroligt vigtigt at forstærke indsatsen.

Det er grusomme forhold, som vi er vidne til i forbindelse med menneskehandel. Derfor vil jeg gerne benytte lejligheden til at forsikre jer om, at Rådet vil arbejde for opfølgning på direktivet, og at vi vil gøre alt, hvad der står i vores magt, for som sagt at bekæmpe det grusomme fænomen, som menneskehandel er.

Det er glædeligt, at vi er enige om, at der skal være en koordineret tilgang til bekæmpelse af menneskehandel, både på EU-niveau og i det øvrige internationale samfund. Også af den grund synes jeg, at det er værd at se frem til den strategi om bekæmpelse af menneskehandel, som Kommissionen ventes at præsentere snarligt, og at det også er værd at glæde sig over, at vi har et godt samarbejde med Parlamentet og kan se frem til nye initiativer i kampen mod menneskehandel også herfra.

Tak for en rigtig god debat, som har understreget, at menneskehandel er et uhyrligt fænomen, som vi skal forstærke indsatsen overfor.

  La Présidente. - Le débat est clos.

Déclarations écrites (Article 149)

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. – O tráfico de seres humanos é a moderna forma de escravatura e a segunda atividade mais lucrativa para o crime organizado em todo o mundo, afetando milhões de pessoas. Aguardo com expectativa a estratégia que nos deverá ser apresentada, em breve, pela Comissão, proporcionando uma abordagem mais abrangente, que possa lidar de forma mais eficaz contra este tipo de criminalidade e, ao mesmo tempo, reforçar a vertente da prevenção e proteção das vítimas, com especial atenção para as crianças e outros grupos de risco.

A Diretiva aprovada em 2010 representou um passo importante ao criar normas mínimas comuns e suprindo a lacuna jurídica que existia. Cabe, agora, aos Estados-Membros procederem à sua transposição atempadamente - até abril de 2013. Considero positiva a criação de um coordenador da luta contra o tráfico da UE, que deverá contribuir para a existência de uma estratégia anti-tráfico mais coerente e coordenada, delineando orientações estratégicas gerais e diretrizes a aplicar na cooperação com países terceiros. É, igualmente, positiva quer a criação, por parte da Comissão, de um grupo de trabalho para a luta contra o tráfico, quer a criação, por parte do Conselho, de uma rede de relatórios e mecanismos equivalentes para analisar este fenómeno e recolher dados fiáveis.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – Human trafficking is a form of modern day slavery. Not only is it a serious crime, it is also a serious violation of a person’s fundamental human rights. The reality is that the exploitation of human beings is happening in our streets, towns and cities throughout Europe. Organised crime gangs are making huge profits by trafficking people into my own constituency of Northern Ireland for labour and sexual exploitation. An organisation that campaigns for ethnic minorities has recently stated that ‘Northern Ireland has the fastest growing sex industry in any part of the UK’, with victims originating from Ghana, Zimbabwe, China and Slovakia. This statement, coupled with the fact that the first conviction for human trafficking violations in Northern Ireland took place only in February of this year, highlights the urgent need to tackle this problem head on and, in doing so, help some of the most vulnerable in society. These victims are being sentenced to a life of misery and exploitation. We need to send a strong and clear message that human beings are not commodities that can be bought and sold for profit.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), na piśmie. – Handel ludźmi – po narkotykach i broni, to trzecie pod względem opłacalności przestępstwo w Unii Europejskiej o tzw. niewielkim stopniu ryzyka. Komisja Europejska ocenia, że kilkaset tysięcy osób rocznie pada ofiarą handlu ludźmi w obrębie UE, z czego 80 proc. z nich to kobiety i dziewczęta.

Traktat lizboński wzmocnił działania UE w obszarze współpracy sądowej i policyjnej w sprawach karnych, w tym w zwalczaniu handlu ludźmi. W marcu 2011 Rada przyjęła dyrektywę ustanawiającą reguły dotyczące określania przestępstw i wysokości kar odnoszących się do handlu ludźmi. Te uregulowania są pierwszym, bezpośrednim następstwem traktatu lizbońskiego w dziedzinie materialnego prawa karnego – pierwszym aktem wspólnie uzgodnionym w tej dziedzinie przez Radę i Parlament Europejski. Celem tego aktu jest lepsze zapobieganie handlowi ludźmi oraz ochrona ofiar. Państwa członkowskie mają wprowadzić dyrektywę do ustawodawstwa krajowego do 6 kwietnia 2013 r. Konieczny jest plan działań w zakresie zwalczania handlu ludźmi podczas zbliżającego się EURO 2012. Koordynator ds. przeciwdziałania handlowi ludźmi powinien wnosić wkład w sprawozdania Komisji na temat postępów w walce z handlem ludźmi, które byłyby co dwa lata przedstawiane Radzie i Parlamentowi Europejskiemu. W centrum strategii zapobiegania i zwalczania handlu ludźmi powinny znaleźć się prawa człowieka w odniesieniu do ofiar.

PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente

6. Balsošanas laiks

  El Presidente. − Pasamos ahora al turno de votaciones.

(Para los resultados y otros detalles de la votación: véase el Acta)

6.1. Brīvprātīgs partnerattiecību nolīgums starp ES un Centrālāfrikas Republiku par meža tiesību aktu ieviešanu, pārvaldību un kokmateriālu un koksnes izstrādājumu tirdzniecību uz Eiropas Savienību (A7-0082/2012 - Elisabeth Köstinger) (balsošana)

– Antes de la votación:

  Elisabeth Köstinger, Berichterstatterin. − Herr Präsident! Geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bei den ersten beiden Abstimmungen handelt es sich um freiwillige Partnerschaftsabkommen der EU mit den beiden afrikanischen Staaten Liberia einerseits sowie der Republik Zentralafrika andererseits. Die Abkommen werden zur Schaffung eines Zertifizierungssystems führen, das sicherstellt, dass Holz legal geschlagen und in weiterer Folge legal gehandelt wird. Die Holzproduktion stellt in beiden afrikanischen Staaten den wichtigsten Wirtschaftssektor dar. Den europäischen Unternehmen, Arbeitnehmern und Konsumenten wird damit Gewissheit gegeben, dass importiertes Holz aus legalen, zertifizierten Quellen stammt.

Vielen Dank allen Schattenberichterstattern und Mitarbeitern, die zum Gelingen dieses Berichts beigetragen und somit ein wichtiges Kapitel im Bereich Nachhaltigkeit, Umweltschutz sowie der Mitbestimmung aller betroffenen Bevölkerungsgruppen in diesen von Bürgerkriegen gepeinigten Regionen geschrieben haben.

6.2. Brīvprātīgs partnerattiecību nolīgums starp ES un Libēriju par meža tiesību aktu ieviešanu, pārvaldību un koksnes izstrādājumu tirdzniecību uz Eiropas Savienību (A7-0081/2012 - Elisabeth Köstinger) (balsošana)

6.3. Riska dalīšanas instruments dalībvalstīm, kuras saskaras ar nopietnām grūtībām vai kurām draud šādas grūtības saistībā ar šo valstu finansiālo stabilitāti (A7-0067/2012 - Danuta Maria Hübner) (balsošana)

– Después de la votación de la enm. 25:

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei rilevare che sull'avviso che c'era sugli schermi era indicato l'inizio del voto alle 12.10, invece si è votato alle 12.09, anche perché questi orologi sono avanti di 2 minuti.

  El Presidente. − Muchas gracias, señor Speroni, por su precisión cronográfica.

6.4. Eiropas Savienības Tiesas atzinums par to, vai Amerikas Savienoto Valstu un Eiropas Savienības nolīgums par pasažieru datu reģistra izmantošanu un pārsūtīšanu Amerikas Savienoto Valstu Iekšzemes drošības departamentam ir saderīgs ar Līgumiem (B7-0200/2012) (balsošana)

6.5. ES un ASV nolīgums par pasažieru datu reģistra datu izmantošanu un pārsūtīšanu ASV Iekšzemes drošības departamentam (A7-0099/2012 - Sophia in 't Veld) (balsošana)

– Antes de la votación:

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. − Mr President, in reply to a number of colleagues who were confused about exactly how to vote: if you are for the agreement you have to vote for the report and if you are against the agreement you have to vote against it.

I just wanted to be absolutely sure that there is no confusion.

(Applause and laughter)

– Después de la votación:

  Sophia in 't Veld, rapporteur. − Mr President, just for the record for the administration, I would like to dissociate myself from the report as obviously it is contrary to my recommendation.

(Applause)

6.6. Kopējā konsolidētā uzņēmumu ienākuma nodokļa bāze (A7-0080/2012 - Marianne Thyssen) (balsošana)

6.7. Nodokļu uzlikšana energoproduktiem un elektroenerģijai (A7-0052/2012 - Astrid Lulling) (balsošana)

6.8. Aicinājums veikt konkrētus pasākumus, lai apkarotu krāpšanu nodokļu jomā un izvairīšanos no nodokļu maksāšanas (B7-0203/2012) (balsošana)

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el turno de votaciones.

7. Balsojumu skaidrojumi

  El Presidente. − Pasamos a las explicaciones de voto.

Explicaciones de voto orales

Informe: Danuta Maria Hübner (A7-0067/2012)

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la creazione di uno strumento di condivisione dei rischi deve rappresentare un aiuto concreto per gli Stati membri maggiormente colpiti dalla crisi economica e finanziaria. L'Unione europea deve fare di più, sostenere le gravi difficoltà degli Stati nell'attuare progetti come quelli della produzione delle infrastrutture.

Bisogna dunque assicurare che si continui a dare esecuzione ai progetti cofinanziati dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale e dal Fondo di coesione. Bisogna farlo perché sono progetti strategici, mi riferisco in particolare ai progetti in grado di generare entrate nette, come ad esempio la costruzione di autostrade, che possono quindi favorire un ripresa economica e produttiva dei paesi interessati.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la proposta della Commissione giunge quanto mai opportuna per modificare le disposizioni relative agli strumenti di condivisione del rischio, per gli Stati membri che rischiano di subire gravi difficoltà a causa dell'instabilità finanziaria.

Giunge quanto mai opportuna in un momento di grave crisi economica, per cui paesi come l'Irlanda, il Portogallo, l'Ungheria, la Romania, la Lettonia e soprattutto la Grecia vedono in questa modifica del regolamento relativo agli strumenti di condivisione un'alternativa al rischio della perdita dei fondi già assegnati e la possibilità quindi di proseguire i programmi cofinanziati dal Fondo di sviluppo regionale e dal Fondo di coesione che stanno trovando difficoltà nell'attuazione in questi Stati membri.

Tutto ciò si traduce nell'esecuzione di progetti e nella conservazione di posti di lavoro nella rete dell'Unione europea maggiormente toccata dalla crisi economica, senza intaccare in alcun modo il bilancio dell'Unione europea, ma dando un sostanziale contributo verso la crescita di questo continente.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa modifica regolamentare molto importante prende in considerazione gli interessi di quei paesi che vivono una situazione di maggiore difficoltà rispetto agli altri e che sono, in particolare, sottoposti a un programma di assistenza finanziaria.

Abbiamo sostenuto questa modifica regolamentare ritenendo importante che l'Unione europea garantisca la propria presenza nei momenti di difficoltà degli Stati e soprattutto che garantisca, in un momento di crisi finanziaria, la possibilità che le risorse importanti dell'Unione non vadano perse, perché con questa modifica regolamentare si ottiene il risultato di consentire a paesi che hanno difficoltà a spendere le risorse di poterle investire proficuamente.

Importante è soprattutto poi la modifica introdotta successivamente sulla proposta della Commissione che consente ai paesi che sono contribuenti netti di non avere timori, perché questa operazione rimarrà comunque neutra rispetto al bilancio dell'Unione europea.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, we are all aware that the current financial crisis has had an adverse impact on the macroeconomic stability of many Member States and has thus made it difficult to access finance. Whilst I understand that this lack of readily-available finance is making it difficult for many projects under the cohesion policy to continue, it can be argued that having this additional instrument alone, as proposed in the report, may not be entirely effective in addressing this difficulty.

Although this instrument does address the immediate problem of making funds available for investment, it does not tackle the underlying issue of why some projects are not as successful as they should be. The issue of how the project is being implemented has been entirely overlooked, and solely addressing the financial issues that Member States face will not guarantee the success of the projects.

A clear vision, a clear programme for implementation, and specific measurable outcomes which generate economic returns for the Member State in question need to be ensured, as well as full accountability and transparency on risk-sharing. Without these assurances I cannot support this report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la terza modifica del regolamento n. 1083/2006 presentata dalla Commissione europea nel giro di poco tempo contiene disposizioni volte a creare uno strumento europeo per la condivisione dei rischi.

L'obiettivo è infatti quello di far fronte alle difficoltà incontrate da alcuni Stati membri nel raccogliere i finanziamenti privati necessari per l'attuazione di progetti di investimento che possono essere finanziati solo in parte con l'utilizzo di fondi pubblici.

Nonostante il cammino per uscire dalla crisi economica sia ancora lungo, ritengo fruttuoso il lavoro fatto per giungere ad un testo di compromesso che ha fissato un massimale per i fondi destinabili allo strumento finanziario ed ha meglio definito gli strumenti di condivisione dei rischi.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, from the moment that the euro crisis struck, the leaders of the EU have been asking the wrong question. They have asked themselves, ‘how do we save the euro?’ rather than ‘how do we rescue the people who have to use the euro?’

It is now obvious that the single currency is a recessionary mechanism. By sustaining it in the way that they are, the leaders of the EU and in the palaces and chancelleries of the Member States are inflicting preventable poverty on the peoples of the eurozone.

This is obvious, not least in your country, Mr President, one which, as you know, I admire very deeply. There are many opportunities available to Spain in a clean default, a decoupling and a reissuing of a more competitive currency. But that debate is not even being contemplated, because people begin from the proposition that the euro is an end in itself, an absolute imperative.

A result of this is that, I am afraid to say, the leaders of the EU are now consciously working against the recovery because they know that, although Spain might begin to take off the day it left the single currency, their own credibility would not recover.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Mit Risikoteilungsinstrumenten kann die Beteiligung des privaten Sektors an der Finanzierung wichtiger Projekte in von der Krise betroffenen EU-Ländern verbessert werden, um Arbeitsplätze und Wachstum zu sichern. Das heißt, die Mitgliedstaaten beantragen, dass ein Teil der ihnen zugewiesenen Mittel aus der EU-Regionalförderung an die Kommission überwiesen und dann für die Risikoteilung verwendet wird.

Die Zuweisung der Mittel aus dem Kohäsionsfonds bzw. die mittelfristige Finanzplanung wird davon nicht beeinflusst. Ich finde das alles gut und sehe dies auch als Chance. Ich bitte nur darum, dass wir und die Kommission darauf achten, dass aus einem Risikoteilungsinstrument kein Risikoverlagerungsinstrument wird. Das heißt, wir müssen aufpassen, dass die Beteiligung des privaten Sektors auf einem soliden Fundament beruht.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to lodge this explanation of vote on behalf of the British Conservative delegation in the European Parliament.

Greece and those countries subject to the EFSM are not going to face an easy task exiting from the crisis. Naturally we would wish to support measures which would have a meaningful and long-term impact in terms of increasing the competitiveness of their economies through targeted structural reforms to sclerotic labour markets.

This proposal, whilst well meaning, does not address the underlining economic and financial difficulties in these countries and could possibly make the situation worse. In this period of austerity, taxpayers’ money must be well spent and we must seek to contribute to the employment and growth which will drive the EU out of crisis. Yet this top-down proposal has received only a lukewarm reception in those very Member States it seeks to support. Moreover, it is openly doubted whether some of the proposed projects to benefit from this scheme would pass the necessary EIB due diligence requirements before the risk-sharing instruments could be created. Whilst the proposal now contains a budgetary ceiling, it is still of great concern that public money will be used as the first loss in case of the failure of any other projects planned.

This continues. I will lodge the rest of it in writing.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho molto apprezzato la relazione dell'onorevole Hübner, che costituisce uno strumento utile per impedire che risorse fondamentali destinate a paesi in crisi vengano disimpegnate.

Si tratta di un regolamento di fondamentale importanza che permetterà, senza alcun intervento sul bilancio dell'Unione europea, di fornire un'alternativa al rischio di perdita di fondi già assegnati a titolo della politica di coesione a favore di paesi membri interessati da un programma di assistenza finanziaria che hanno difficoltà nel cofinanziamento.

Condivido in particolare la precisa definizione del massimale dello strumento e la scelta politica di privilegiare i progetti che hanno generato entrate e progetti che potrebbero contribuire alla realizzazione degli obiettivi strategici dello Stato membro, al fine di favorire la ripresa economica dello Stato interessato. Ritengo che questa misura contribuisca a bilanciare il bisogno di investimenti nello sviluppo e nella crescita con la troppo celebrata ricetta di austerità quale soluzione al male dei debiti sovrani.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący, Szanowni Państwo Eurodeputowani! Potrzebny jest każdy krok, który naszym zdaniem może pomóc państwom borykającym się z dzisiejszym kryzysem. Praktycznie każdy dzień przynosi informacje prasowe, informacje z instytucji finansowych, które pokazują, że wbrew często optymistycznym danym, jesteśmy jednak w dalszym ciągu dalecy od przezwyciężenia kryzysu. A więc poparłem tę propozycję, chociaż mam jednak wobec niej wątpliwości. Mam wątpliwości, ponieważ uważam, że gospodarka powinna być wolna od ideologii. Myślenie o ekonomii powinno być wolne od ideologii, ale to powinno działać w obie strony. Tak jak nie podoba mi się, kiedy zwolennicy euro uważają, że euro nie jest walutą, lecz niemalże Bogiem, tak samo nie podoba mi się stanowisko przeciwników euro, ponieważ czasami mam wrażenie, że życzą temu projektowi porażki wyłącznie z powodów ideologicznych. Poparłem tę propozycję i uważam, że w tym Parlamencie powinniśmy współpracować, aby kraje Unii Europejskiej wyszły jak najszybciej z kryzysu.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la crisi finanziaria mondiale senza precedenti e la recessione economica hanno intaccato seriamente la crescita e la stabilità finanziaria e hanno causato un grave deterioramento delle condizioni finanziarie, economiche e sociali di molti Stati membri.

Per attenuare questi problemi e accelerare l'esecuzione dei programmi operativi e dei progetti, oltre che per sostenere la ripresa economica, ritengo opportuno che le autorità di gestione degli Stati membri, che hanno beneficiato di un aiuto finanziario da uno dei meccanismi di assistenza finanziaria previsti, possano dedicare una parte delle risorse dei programmi operativi alla creazione di strumenti di condivisione dei rischi in grado di concedere prestiti o garanzie a favore dei progetti e delle operazioni previste da un programma operativo.

È doveroso da parte nostra rafforzare le sinergie tra i programmi di prestiti e i Fondi dell'Unione negli Stati membri che beneficiano dell'assistenza dell'Unione o del Fondo monetario internazionale. La realizzazione di uno strumento di condivisione dei rischi è per questo necessaria, in quanto fornirebbe risorse finanziarie aggiuntive per l'attuazione di progetti di infrastrutture e di investimento produttivo senza modificare la dotazione generale della politica di coesione per il periodo 2007-2013.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). - Pane předsedající, v současné době, kdy přetrvává hospodářská a finanční krize a bankovní instituce mají doslova odpor k riziku, dochází k problémům v oblasti poskytování úvěrů. Finanční instituce mají problémy s likviditou a dochází k omezování prostředků zainteresovaným stranám, které realizují příslušné projekty. Souhlasím proto s tím, že možnost využít nástrojů sdílení rizika ve spolupráci s Evropskou investiční bankou zajistí lepší přístup k finančním prostředkům a částečně vyřeší problém s likviditou, což by mělo v krátkodobém horizontu umožnit pokračování provádění programů politiky soudržnosti.

Obávám se ale, že v případě států, které mají značné problémy s finanční stabilitou a nejsou schopné s náležitou pečlivostí zachytit průběh realizace projektů, není pravděpodobné, že pomoc v této podobě bude mít okamžitý, pozitivní efekt na zvýšení ekonomického růstu a zvýšení zaměstnanosti v těchto státech. Proto jsem nemohla tento návrh usnesení podpořit.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I abstained on this report on risk-sharing instruments for those Member States suffering financial difficulty. While I believe that the text of the report has been improved following negotiations between Parliament and the Council, I still do not believe that the proposal is in any way viable.

The only Member State so far to express any desire in making use of a potential risk-sharing facility is Greece. While I would back the use of targeted investments under the EU cohesion policy in order to help those States that are in financial difficulty, Greece’s record – sadly – in implementing cohesion policy projects is particularly poor. Anyway, my view is that the structural funds need a complete review and, in many ways, repatriating. I would not, therefore, be convinced that investments under such a policy would have any immediate short-term effect on economic growth or employment, particularly in distressed states like Greece.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Spolufinancovanie projektov, ktoré sa uchádzajú o podporu zo štrukturálnych fondov, malo zvýšiť efektivitu používania európskych peňazí. Súkromná banka alebo iná spoločnosť, ktorá do projektu investuje vlastné peniaze, chce, aby sa jej peniaze nielen vrátili, ale aby dosiahla zisk. Starostlivo preto posúdi ziskovosť každého projektu, čím sa zníži riziko mrhania prostriedkov európskych daňových poplatníkov. Chápem, že Komisia hľadá spôsob, ako pokračovať vo financovaní štrukturálnych projektov aj v súčasnej zložitej situácii. Mechanizmus, ktorý navrhuje však oslabuje tlak na efektivitu vynaložených prostriedkov. Ak EÚ nielen zaplatí veľkú časť investície, ale zároveň poskytne garanciu na podnikateľské riziko, nič nebude brániť bankám a súkromným firmám, aby vstupovali aj do nezmyselných projektov. O svoje peniaze neprídu. Presne toto je cesta k nezodpovednému míňaniu, ktorého dôsledky dnes vidíme v každom štáte Európskej únie.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Podjąłem decyzję, zresztą wraz z moimi kolegami w grupie politycznej, że nie poprzemy tej propozycji, a wynika to z dość oczywistych względów. Uważamy bowiem, że takie projektowanie finansowe na szczeblu europejskim bez tak naprawdę poważnej, pogłębionej debaty publicznej w tej sprawie, decydowanie o podatnikach, o wyborcach, o obywatelach bez realnych konsultacji jest decyzją, która w gruncie rzeczy zamiast w sposób oczywisty przynosić skutki dla tychże podatników, może pokazać, że instytucje europejskie podejmują decyzje ponad głowami obywateli, jak to było wielokrotnie w przeszłości. Jestem też sceptyczny co do rozwiązań, które są proponowane, stąd moje głosowanie.

Dictamen del Tribunal de Justicia sobre la compatibilidad con los Tratados del Acuerdo entre los Estados Unidos de América y la Unión Europea sobre la utilización y la transferencia de los registros de nombres de los pasajeros al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio Nacional de los Estados Unidos B7-0200/2012

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this is a contentious area and it goes right to the heart of the public debate on preserving the freedoms of individuals, or groups of individuals, while maintaining the security of both individuals and wider society.

It is, as ever, a question of balance. I was happy to support this measure this time round because I believe that the actions and agreements on the passenger name records data as agreed are now proportionate and reasonable.

There has been significant improvement since the 2011 proposal, including in the areas of data protection, data retention, deadlines and redress. I will always jealously guard the liberties of my constituents whilst balancing the wider security benefits of measures such as this.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - Szanowni Państwo Deputowani! Jest to w istocie bardzo ważny moment dyskusji na temat walki z terroryzmem, w którym mówimy o tym, w jaki sposób mamy zabezpieczać wolność naszych obywateli. Często w takim przypadku dochodzi do paradoksu, w którym broniąc wolności obywateli i ich prawa do życia, ich prawa do bezpieczeństwa, jesteśmy zmuszeni w jakimś sensie ograniczać ich prawa obywatelskie. Wydaje mi się, że to, o czym dziś dyskutujemy, jest jedną z najważniejszych debat toczących się w świecie zachodnim.

Gdzie istnieje granica pomiędzy tym, co my, jako instytucje państwowe lub międzynarodowe musimy zrobić, żeby obronić naszych obywateli, a między ich prawem, prawem nas wszystkich jako obywateli do wolności, do zachowania swobód obywatelskich? Uważam, że w dzisiejszym świecie niestety zagrożenie terroryzmem jest tak duże, że ta granica, być może także dla mnie, jest zbyt niekomfortowo przesunięta w stronę prawa państwa, a przeciwko prawom obywateli. Jednak musimy zawsze dbać o przestrzeganie praw obywatelskich, zdając sobie sprawę z konieczności tego, co robimy.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in seguito agli attentati terroristici dell'11 settembre 2001 gli Stati Uniti hanno adottato una legislazione che impone ai vettori aerei che operano voli per, da, o attraverso il loro territorio di fornire alle autorità statunitensi i dati del codice di prenotazione PNR contenuti nei loro sistemi automatizzati. Un'iniziativa analoga è stata adottata da Australia e Canada.

Se il testo che arriva in votazione questa mattina è lontano dall'essere perfetto, la maggiore preoccupazione a mio avviso sta nei tempi di conservazione dei dati così come proposto nell'ultimo accordo del 2011. L'accordo del 2004 prevedeva infatti che i dati PNR fossero distrutti dopo tre anni e mezzo, se non utilizzati. L'accordo del 2007 estendeva il periodo di conservazione a un totale di 15 anni.

L'attuale progetto di accordo del 2011, invece, nonostante il mascheramento dei dati dopo sei mesi, prevede la conservazione dei dati PNR a tempo indeterminato, anche se l'accesso ai dati è progressivamente ristretto. Il rispetto del diritto alla privacy dei nostri cittadini europei – viene da chiedersi – come si concilia con una tale decisione?

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałem przeciwko tej propozycji z całą świadomością, że na pewno ci, którzy byli za nią, mieli jak najlepsze intencje i dobrze chcieli. Natomiast my musimy bardzo rozważnie wyważać kwestie z jednej strony praw, wolności, swobód jednostki, obywatela, a z drugiej strony bezpieczeństwa. I oczywiście zdaję sobie sprawę z tego, że niektórzy politycy i niektóre państwa mogą w sposób rozszerzający i niewłaściwy traktować kwestię bezpieczeństwa, aby zwiększyć kontrolę nad obywatelami. Przeciwko temu wszyscy powinniśmy być, ale z drugiej strony przecież terroryzm nie jest bajką, nie jest czymś z filmu, nie jest czymś, co jest political fiction. Terroryzm jest dla nas zagrożeniem. Musimy mieć instrumenty, żeby mu przeciwdziałać, stąd takie a nie inne głosowanie moje w tej sprawie.

Recomendación : Sophia in't Veld (A7-0099/2012)

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, forse c'è stato un errore di comunicazione, ma avevo chiesto di intervenire per la dichiarazione di voto. Nell'ultimo decennio abbiamo assistito a una serie di fatti drammatici a noi noti, che hanno portato a un conseguente aumento dei controlli e delle restrizioni negli spostamenti aerei.

Parallelamente, Unione europea, USA, Canada e Australia hanno siglato una serie di accordi internazionali per il trattamento e la conservazione dei dati sui passeggeri. Il Parlamento ha manifestato la volontà di rivedere questi accordi già nel maggio del 2010, quando decise di rigettare gli esiti del negoziato tra i paesi coinvolti.

Sono cosciente del fatto che la commissione parlamentare competente abbia giudicato tale accordo non idoneo, tuttavia ritengo sia più utile mantenere questo nuovo accordo piuttosto che fare riferimento alla legislazione vigente. Dal momento che non è possibile avviare un nuovo negoziato, sarebbe più congruo adottare queste nuove misure e migliorare il quadro precedente sotto il profilo della protezione dei dati e del rispetto dei diritti individuali. Il rigetto di questi nuovi risultati priverebbe l'Europa di una disciplina minima nel settore, così come di uno strumento efficace nella lotta al terrorismo e al crimine organizzato.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich habe es bedauert, dass man den Entschließungsantrag der Kollegin Ernst und ihrer Fraktion abgelehnt hat, weil dieser das Gutachten des Gerichtshofs eindeutig bewiesen und auch belegt hätte, dass das gegenständliche Abkommen im Widerspruch zu den Verträgen dieser Union steht.

Derzeit nutzt man alles Mögliche, um unter dem Titel der Bekämpfung der Gefahr des internationalen Terrorismus in die Bürgerrechte einzugreifen. Es ist kein wirklich gutes Signal, das Europa seinen Bürgern sendet, wenn man vor den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika in die Knie geht. Wir sind auf dem Weg zum gläsernen Menschen, es werden Daten verknüpft. Es geht ja nicht nur singulär um diese Daten, sondern es geht um die Verknüpfung von unglaublichen Datenmengen – auch von Banken –, so dass der gläserne Mensch in Wahrheit immer näher rückt. Es ist ein weiterer Ziegelstein in der Mauer gegen die bürgerlichen Freiheiten. Daher habe ich aus tiefer Überzeugung gegen dieses Abkommen gestimmt. Zumal auch keine Reziprozität vorhanden ist. Europa zahlt wieder drauf, wir ziehen wieder den Kürzeren, es ist keine Reziprozität vorhanden. Wir kriegen die Datenmengen, die Amerika zur Verfügung stehen, nicht übermittelt. Daher habe ich dieses Abkommen abgelehnt, und ich bedauere, dass dies die Mehrheit dieses Hauses nicht getan hat.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Mr President, as a liberal, I am not very fond of the mass collection of personal data; it is an instrument which is to be handled very carefully. However, I could not support the position of my own rapporteur. If we go to the bottom line of this dossier, it was all a question of whether the EU should stay in the picture or not. By not giving consent to the PNR Agreement, we would have left air carriers and passengers in a no man’s land, and – knowing that we would not get a new negotiation – I think that would have been irresponsible.

Finally, as a liberal, I want to compliment and congratulate our Commissioner on the result and the achievements of the last two years. This is not a perfect agreement, but we all know that a good political agreement is never perfect, so congratulations, Commissioner.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, this passenger name records agreement represents an attack on civil liberties and the right to privacy. It does so using the Trojan horse we have seen before of the threat of terrorism, the same Trojan horse that has been used to justify so-called ‘extraordinary rendition’ and what happens in Guantanamo Bay. The agreement will not only hand over the personal details of European citizens travelling to the US to the Department of Homeland Security, but it will in effect give this agency free rein to access information on passengers as they see fit. It will allow for data to be stored indefinitely and to be used in court cases even if they are not related in any way to terrorism.

The complete lack of democratic checks and balances in this agreement will leave citizens with no right to access, correct or control the data which this agency holds. The Commission has in no way demonstrated that these measures are proportionate or even useful in combating terrorism, nor have any guarantees been given that the US will not forward the data to third countries. I, together with my political group, will continue to fight to have this agreement revoked.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, the sharing of passenger name record data has become a controversial issue, as we are hearing today. However, I have decided to support this report, since I feel that the recommendations made are necessary and entirely proportionate.

The agreement between the US and the EU on the transfer of passenger name records has undergone significant improvement through negotiations, particularly in relation to increasing protection and to the retention period of passenger data, which has been one of the main concerns for my constituents back home in Wales.

It is also worth noting that this sharing of data has already proven to be instrumental in providing vital information on a number of criminal activities, including illegal drug trafficking, and in assisting in the capture of those responsible for the atrocious 7/7 London bombings in my own Member State.

As long as there are adequate safeguards on protecting personal information, it is a justified and worthwhile agreement that should be supported by all.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I am sorry that our colleague from Ireland, Mr Murphy, has left the Chamber because, like his predecessor here, he continues to jump on the populist bandwagon.

I support the US-EU PNR agreement, given that it concerns the transfer and use of personal data and the specific and detailed provisions dealing with their privacy, the processing of personal data, data security, transparency and accountability. It also makes provision for redress for breaches of the agreement’s provisions. These provisions have been developed very carefully and are the result of extensive cooperation between the US and the EU authorities, something which is very welcome.

These forms of protection build on the additional protection which we have in place, and I agree with Ms Swinburne. We have had no terrorist attacks since 9/11, Madrid and London because of these forms of protection, which build on the existing mechanism while at the same time having transparency and protecting the rights of the public in relation to their personal data. I greatly welcome the agreement, and this is a very significant day in terms of combating terrorism.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, since the attacks on 9/11 we have seen a barrage of dangerous, disproportionate and declamatory legislation: measures designed not to be proportionate with the need to address the threat but rather to be proportionate with the imagined level of public concern; measures designed in order to signal what very serious people the legislators are; or, indeed, measures designed simply to agglomerate more powers at EU level.

This particular measure is a very rare example of where specific criticisms have been addressed and where a lot of the problems that provoked my group to vote against the first draft of this bill have now been looked at and improved. It is now a much more proportionate measure. A number of the concerns we had about privacy and data retention have been dealt with. It is therefore very sad to see a number of people in this House who are normally the first to demand measures of this kind opposing it, I have to say, simply because it involves the United States.

Ask yourself: if this were a proposal to share data with Switzerland, would there have been any row about it at all?

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe gegen das PNR-Abkommen gestimmt, weil mir die Sicherheit der Flugpassagiere ein wichtiges Anliegen ist. Dieses Abkommen wiegt uns nämlich in falscher Sicherheit. Es gibt vor, dass dies durch die Ansammlung von riesigen Datenmengen möglich ist. Die Schaffung solcher Datenungetüme gefährdet vielmehr die Sicherheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Es wird die Möglichkeit zu vielfältigen statistischen Datenanalysen geschaffen, die nichts mehr mit dem ursprünglichen Ziel zu tun haben. Terrorismusbekämpfung erfordert vor allem Sicherheitskräfte, die möglichst nahe am Bedrohungspotential dran sind. Der Attentäter von Toulouse beispielsweise war auf einer no fly-Liste der Amerikaner. Trotzdem konnte er seine fürchterliche Tat ausführen.

Ich habe aber auch gegen das Abkommen gestimmt, weil mir die transatlantischen Beziehungen wichtig sind. Diese sollten vom Geist der Partnerschaft getragen werden und den vermisse ich in diesem Zusammenhang.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho votato a favore dell'accordo che risponde alla necessità di rinforzare la cooperazione transatlantica nella lotta al terrorismo dopo gli attentati dell'11 settembre.

Non condivido la posizione intransigente adottata dalla relatrice la quale, nonostante l'opinione positiva del servizio giuridico della commissione e del gruppo di lavoro sulla protezione dei dati, ha continuato a sostenere che l'accordo fosse inutile e sproporzionato.

Pur nella consapevolezza dei limiti e della perfettibilità dell'accordo, ritengo che le condizioni sotto il profilo della protezione dei dati siano notevolmente migliorate. L'intesa obbliga le autorità statunitensi a condividere le analisi dei dati con le autorità giudiziarie dell'Unione europea, chiarendo in maniera dettagliata gli utilizzi consentiti, ovvero lotta al terrorismo e al crimine transnazionale. Ritengo quindi che sarebbe inutile e deleterio avviare una nuova negoziazione, con il rischio che un eventuale rigetto dell'accordo privi l'Europa di una disciplina minima nel settore.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe für das Fluggastdatenabkommen gestimmt, weil ganz einfach ein Abkommen für Datenschutz und Rechtssicherheit besser ist als gar kein Abkommen. Auch wenn wir Europäer nicht alles durchsetzen konnten, haben die Vereinigten Staaten einen großen Schritt auf uns zu gemacht, insbesondere bei der Speicherzeit, dem Anwendungsbereich, dem Rechtsschutz und der Methode des Datentransfers, und vor allem bei der Behandlung von sensiblen Daten.

Wer gegen das Abkommen gestimmt hat, lässt sowohl die Bürgerinnen und Bürger als auch die Fluggesellschaften in einem Nebel von Rechtsunsicherheit zurück. Es wäre völlig falsch zu glauben, dass ohne das Abkommen keinerlei Daten mehr übertragen werden würden. Wir können lediglich den Rahmen der Datenschutzstandards bestimmen, und der wäre ohne das Abkommen weitaus niedriger gewesen. Deshalb habe ich, wie schon gesagt, mit gutem Gewissen für das Abkommen gestimmt.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - Szanowny Panie Przewodniczący, Koleżanki i Koledzy! Z pełnym przekonaniem głosowałem za , pamiętając, jak wiele razy miałem możliwość rozmawiać z amerykańskimi politykami różnych poglądów politycznych, którzy wielokrotnie pytali mnie, dlaczego ciągle istnieje ten problem dotyczący tzw. ochrony danych osobistych pasażerów lotów transatlantyckich, dlaczego Europa nie może dogadać się z USA. Powiem szczerze, że nie sposób nie zgodzić mi się z moim czcigodnym przedmówcą, kolegą z frakcji posłem Hannanem, że jest to ewidentny przykład panującego na tej sali w niektórej jej kręgach antyamerykanizmu. Uważam, że Europa powinna współpracować z USA – to nasz naturalny partner w bardzo wielu obszarach – ale szczególnie powinna współpracować z USA tam, gdzie mówimy o tragicznej walce toczącej się dzisiaj przeciwko naszej cywilizacji, gdzie terroryści chcą podważyć fundamenty, na których zbudowana jest nasza Wspólnota, a także USA. Dziękuję.

  Pavel Poc (S&D). - Uznávám význam boje s mezinárodním terorismem i mezinárodním zločinem. Chápu, že je nutné mít k tomu určité nástroje, ale tato dohoda, kvůli které jsem byl lobbován i lidmi z americké ambasády v mé vlastní zemi, takovým nástrojem není.

Když pomineme všechny právnické obraty, tak faktem zůstává, že na základě této dohody je umožněno americké straně stahovat osobní údaje o evropských občanech a tyto citlivé údaje pak budou ve Spojených státech amerických k dispozici bez reálné kontroly nad jejich dalším osudem. Mezi těmi údaji je třeba vaše adresa domu, číslo mobilního telefonu, informace o letech, e-mail, číslo kreditní karty nebo účtu a také příslušnost k etnické skupině nebo k národu.

Zdůvodnění, že smlouva je dobrá proto, že bilaterální smlouvy členských států jsou horší, je bizarní. Zdůvodnění, že smlouva je dobrá proto, že si jinak Spojené státy vynutí data pasažérů na evropských leteckých společnostech samy, je děsivé. Jestli někdo chce budovat policejní stát, ať tak činí sám. Evropská unie by měla být svobodná a demokratická. Proto jsem zprávu ani dohodu nepodpořil a bývalé zpravodajce děkuji za její osobní statečnost.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, kyseessä on erittäin vaikea kysymys, jossa vastakkain ovat yhtäältä kansalaisten henkilötietosuoja ja toisaalta terrorismin torjunta ja kansalaisten oikeus turvallisuuteen. On ehdottoman tärkeää, että EU tekee vahvaa ja pitkäjänteistä yhteistyötä USA:n kanssa. Terrorismin ja muiden vakavien kansainvälisten rikosten torjumista koskevien keinojen tulee olla tehokkaita. Samaan aikaan on kuitenkin muistettava kansalaisten perus- ja ihmisoikeuksien kunnioittaminen.

Äänestin sopimusta vastaan, sillä sopimuksessa esiintyy puutteita, joita en voi mitenkään hyväksyä. Näen ongelman ensinnäkin matkustajarekisteritietojen laajasti määritellyssä käyttötarkoituksessa. Esimerkiksi terrorismia ei ole määritelty riittävän tarkasti sopimustekstissä. Puutteita esiintyy lisäksi tietojen säilyttämisajoissa sekä henkilötietosuojan porsaanreiässä, mikäli tietoja toimitetaan edelleen kolmansiin maihin.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, as political representatives, what greater duty have we than to do our utmost to ensure the safety of our constituents? Faced with the terrorist threat across Europe and the US, which remains dangerously high, I believe that we must give careful consideration to any measure deemed helpful in assisting in that daily battle to protect the lives of our constituents from those who seek to inflict murder and mayhem.

The exchange of passenger name records is but a tool in this fight. Therefore, while we weigh up concerns around data protection and privacy, we must balance that against the benefit to global security and the fight against international crime. It is my view that the benefits of this agreement outweigh the concerns and, while improvements can and should be made, it represents progress. I am content to support it on this basis.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Tento Parlament sa často snaží vyjadrovať k záležitostiam, ktoré nie sú v jeho kompetencii, mnohokrát spôsobom, ktorý považujem za škodlivý. Pri osobných údajoch je dobré, že Európsky parlament dôsledne stráži slobodu občanov Únie. Boj proti medzinárodnému terorizmu a organizovanému zločinu totiž nesmie viesť k tomu, aby sa z každého stal podozrivý. Prevencia je dôležitá, ale rovnako dôležitá je ochrana občianskych práv. Správu som podporila, lebo keď sú ohrozené životy miliónov ľudí, je prevencia dôležitejšia než represia. Nič už nevráti život obetiam teroristického útoku na newyorské dvojičky a mnohým ďalším. No môžeme zabrániť podobným aktom násilia tým, že budeme sledovať podozrivých a vymieňať si informácie o nich. Musíme však úzkostlivo dbať o to, aby informácie o súkromí občanov boli využívané len za presne vymedzených podmienok. Aby využívanie bolo kontrolované a kontrolovateľné. Inak sa stane presne to, o čo ide teroristom – slobodu a demokraciu vymeniť za diktatúru.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this report on the transfer of passenger name records data to the US Department of Homeland Security. I believe that the agreement is a proportionate measure and is a necessary one for US security. Various safeguards have been secured so that the processing of PNR data can only happen if they are used for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and transnational crime.

The agreement is particularly pertinent to me as an MEP for London, as PNR data were used in the capture of the 7/7 London bombers, following the attacks on my city in 2005. There are several other examples of their successful use, not only in terrorist cases but also in the capture of other serious criminals caught whilst trying to leave the United Kingdom.

For these reasons I would strongly oppose any arguments put forward by other groups claiming that the necessity of this agreement has not yet been proven. The USA is our indispensable ally in the fight against international terrorism.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Eu am votat pentru încheierea acordului, deoarece el reprezintă un pas înainte în cooperarea dintre UE şi SUA în combaterea terorismului. Documentul actual oferă mai multe garanţii pasagerilor faţă de textul din 2007, asigurând o protecţie sporită datelor cu caracter personal. De exemplu, cei interesaţi au acces la informaţiile stocate şi pot opera, la nevoie, modificări. Mai mult, se menţionează posibilitatea ştergerii unei părţi a informaţiilor de către pasagerii vizaţi. Subliniez totodată că au fost incluse principiile proporţionalităţii şi reciprocităţii. Astfel, autorităţile americane au obligaţia de a transmite datele relevante părţii europene. Se asigură respectarea dreptului la viaţă privată prin definirea clară a condiţiilor în care este acordat accesul la informaţii, iar stabilirea unor praguri diferenţiate de pedeapsă reprezintă o îmbunătăţire semnificativă faţă de textul anterior.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, this agreement has been a long time in the making. Because of concerns regarding civil liberties and how passenger name record data are used, it is important that we get it right – and I believe we have got it right. We must carefully balance the interest of individual privacy with the need for collective security. We must not forget that PNR data helped identify associates of the 2005 London bombers. PNR helped bring to justice those who plotted in the 2008 Mumbai attacks. PNR led to a number of arrests – some murderers, paedophiles and rapists – and it helps keep drugs out of Europe.

Clear and strict rules have been prepared on how PNR is handled. It can only be used in the fight against terrorism and serious transnational crimes. With these safeguards in place, I am pleased to be able to vote for this report.

Informe : Marianne Thyssen (A7-0080/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, I firmly believe that tax policy is a matter for Member States and should not be regulated at EU level. Yet this proposal from the Commission, in its original form, took an approach that would have been optional for companies and perhaps might have made it easy for companies to operate across the single market. It could, furthermore, have been adjusted by the Council to ensure that it did not step on their sovereign rights.

However, this Parliament has gone from this original optional mechanism to the extreme of arguing for a mandatory tax that would end up covering all Member States and all companies, except for their SMEs.

This report is a prime example of why I am glad that this Parliament does not have codecision powers over taxation, and that – rightly – any new proposals require a unanimous decision by the Council in order to be enacted. Taxation is a fundamental power of each sovereign Member State and should remain so.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, tax harmonisation is really a euphemism for higher tax. I mean, hands up anybody who thinks that tax harmonisation means that it is going to be harmonised downwards. Tax harmonisation removes the external competition which is the usual curb on a government wanting to raise more money. It is bizarre that this becomes our solution to every problem. We are in the mess we are in because the government was spending too much and we will not get out of this mess by raising even more money, transferring even more resources from the private sector into the public.

Of course, the reality is that the reason we want tax harmonisation is because the EU wants to give itself a dedicated revenue stream so that it does not need to come cap in hand and beg from the Member States. Behind all this talk about spending money at Brussels level (so you do not have to spend it at national level) is the need to keep fuelling the bureaucracy that has grown up at the top of the EU. That of course is what is going to choke the system; it is going to bring us down as it has brought down every over-centralised and over-taxed imperium in the past. Generations from now, when archaeologists are looking for the last documents from our era, I suspect that the most recent one they are going to find is some tax demand from some Brussels official.

  Ивайло Калфин (S&D). - Уважаеми г-н Председател, аз гласувах против доклада на г-жа Thyssen за облагане на консолидираната данъчна основа. Подкрепям опростяването на икономическата среда и създаването на повече прозрачност. Действително една подобна стъпка би подпомогнала някои от многонационалните компании.

В доклада обаче има два основни проблема. В първия от тях се говори за хармонизиране на данъчните ставки и аз съм напълно съгласен с колегите, че не е възможно Европейският съюз да налага данъчни ставки на отделните страни членки. Това не е нормално и е извън всякаква икономическа логика.

Вторият проблем е свързан с формулата за разпределение на данъка от холдинговите компании. Той е основан върху критерии, макар и малко подобрени от Парламента, които са далеко от всякаква икономическа логика и които не създават условия за по-добра конкурентоспособност на предприятията и за по-справедливо разпределение на данъците.

Общо събиране на данъците има смисъл само тогава, когато има и фискални трансфери, а такива не се предлагат.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, once again this Commission is straying out of its remit. This is the first attempt by the EU to enter into the realms of corporate taxation. This report is being sold as a positive step towards the single market and as enhancing competitiveness. In reality, this report oversteps the mark and impinges on Member States’ sovereignty. The UK Government has opposed this report from the very beginning. I stand by my government and I, too, am here standing against this report today.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho condiviso pienamente questa relazione con cui il Parlamento cerca di lanciare un importante segnale in materia di semplificazione e armonizzazione nel settore della fiscalità societaria.

L'esistenza di 27 normative diverse di imposizione del reddito di impresa comporta, oltre a costi elevati e oneri amministrativi per le imprese che operano in più paesi, gravi rischi di evasione e discriminazione fiscale. Questo intervento è essenziale per ridurre i costi delle imprese operanti in più Stati e favorire la crescita e la ripresa economica all'interno del mercato interno.

Infine, il carattere opzionale della misura, che lascia alle imprese la scelta di valutare i vantaggi e i costi al momento della scelta del nuovo sistema, neutralizza le ritrosie di alcuni Stati membri che vedono minacciata la propria sovranità in materia fiscale o di gettito dell'erario. Mi auguro quindi che il Consiglio riesca a trovare un accordo senza il ricorso alla cooperazione rafforzata, nell'interesse dei cittadini e delle imprese e non esclusivamente sulla base di calcoli di egoismi nazionali.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against this measure to give a clear and visible signal that I do not support the mandatory introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base. I do not agree with the view that it is a vital measure to complete the single market. If companies operating cross-border between Member States wish to consolidate their results and follow a common formula, that should not be excluded, but I do not support the proposal, as agreed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON), to set out a roadmap making this mandatory after five years.

Yet again, those elected by the citizens of Europe and given the privilege of the responsibility to lead us out of the mess we are in into recovery and growth are leading us down a blind alley of political dogma and harmonisation. It will get us nowhere. It is unnecessary regulation and will not help to increase business or GDP in Europe.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I wish to give an explanation on my own behalf and on behalf of Mr Higgins and Miss McGuinness. I would like to thank Mrs Thyssen for this report, but we have concerns about its contents.

While Ireland has constructively engaged in the CCCTB process, the Treaty requires unanimity in matters of taxation policy, and the principle of subsidiarity allows Member States to keep taxation under national legislation.

My main concern is that this is transgressing on national competence. While the report does not specifically call for the harmonisation of tax rates – although Amendment 10 comes close – the introduction of common rules across all Member States for the calculation of the tax of companies is nonetheless a matter for Member States.

I would also like to point out that Rule 38a (1) of this Parliament’s Rules of Procedure states that ‘during the examination of a proposal for a legislative act, Parliament shall pay particular attention to respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.’ I do not believe in this case that this report meets that.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo ancora molto lontani da un pieno compimento del mercato unico, in particolare 27 normative diverse di imposizione del reddito d'impresa comportano tre ostacoli principali: elevati costi e oneri amministrativi per le imprese che operano in più paesi, una maggiore possibilità di evasione, come anche di doppie imposizioni e discriminazioni fiscali, un incentivo a politiche imprenditoriali di "shopping normativo", con potenziali distorsioni economiche e, in relazione a tale fenomeno, un incentivo a politiche nazionali di progressivo spostamento della tassazione da basi mobili a basi meno mobili, con evidenti distorsioni socioeconomiche.

L'armonizzazione delle modalità di calcolo degli utili imponibili in modo che le imprese dei 27 Stati membri siano soggette alle medesime norme, indipendentemente dallo Stato membro in cui sono tassate, è quindi una misura necessaria. È per questo motivo che mi sono espresso a favore del testo, nonostante le ritrosie di alcuni Stati membri che vedono minacciata la propria sovranità in materia fiscale.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). - Pane předsedající, hlasovala jsem proti tomuto návrhu usnesení, neboť se domnívám, že systém konsolidovaného základu daně by měl být i dlouhodobě dobrovolný. Pokud by měl být povinný pro všechny společnosti působící na evropském území, pak způsobí zbytečnou administrativní zátěž těm společnostem, které provádí svou činnost v jedné zemi a musely by se na tento systém přeorientovat. Povinný systém může také způsobit růst nákladů, a snížit tak konkurenceschopnost na evropském trhu, zejména u malých a středních podniků. Proto by systém konsolidovaného základu daně měl být dobrovolný a dostatečně výhodný tak, aby se k němu připojilo co nejvíce společností.

S tímto návrhem usnesení nemohu souhlasit také proto, že svými pravidly postupně vede ke sjednocení daňových sazeb, a to tlumí daňovou konkurenci, která je pro trh velmi dobrá. Mezi členskými státy je mnoho zásadních rozdílů v daňových předpisech i sazbách a mělo by záviset výlučně na rozhodnutí vnitrostátních parlamentů členských států, jak vysokou sazbou zatíží své poplatníky.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - M-am abţinut la acest raport, deoarece ţara mea are o poziţie rezervată cu privire la această propunere de directivă. O bază de impozitare unitară este foarte importantă pentru dezvoltarea integrării economice. Numai aşa poate exista o concurenţă loială în domeniul fiscal. Totodată, armonizarea întăreşte competitivitatea UE şi are efecte benefice asupra economiei şi pieţei muncii.

Propunerea de directivă prevede iniţial aplicarea facultativă a taxei şi fiecare stat membru va putea stabili propria rată de impozitare. Cu toate acestea, mai multe parlamente naţionale, printre care şi parlamentul ţării mele, au invocat încălcarea principiului subsidiarităţii. În plus, România a solicitat clarificări cu privire la definirea principiilor şi a noţiunilor legate de baza de impozitare. Consider că avem nevoie de o competitivitate corectă în domeniul fiscal, care să permită protejarea bazei naţionale de impozitare.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, as we see, the guise for this proposal is to lay down the rules for the cancellation of the tax base for corporates. It is supposed to be concerned with the calculation of taxation, not necessarily the rates, but this is clearly an infringement of Member States’ rights in taxation policy and also the start of a slippery slope to stopping tax competition.

First of all you harmonise the calculation base and then you start to harmonise the tax itself under the guise of a single market and getting rid of this unnecessary tax competition that we have heard about so many times.

But what are we doing during this crisis, at a time when countries want to attract foreign investment and create jobs? Why are we using measures such as this to harmonise taxation and start on the slippery slope, when we should be focusing on measures that create jobs and growth?

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, mhínigh ár gceannaire ar Fheisirí Fhine Gael, Gay Mitchell, gur vótálamar i gcoinne ár ngrúpa maidir leis an dtuarascáil seo. Go bunúsach, mar a dúirt a lán Feisirí eile, is é cumhacht na mBallstát é córas cánach a leagadh síos, agus ní féidir é sin a athrú gan iad go léir a bheith ag labhairt d’aon ghuth. Is fada uainn an lá sin.

B’fhéidir amach anseo go mbeidh coinníollacha ann lenar féidir linn córas comónta a leagadh síos, nuair a bheidh caighdeán ard maireachtála timpeall na hEorpa ar fad. B’fhéidir nuair a bheidh an Conradh Fioscach i bhfeidhm go mbeidh seans ansin againn féachaint arís ar na moltaí maithe atá anseo. Ach go dtí sin, táimid ina choinne agus tá sé róluath chun rudaí mar sin a thabhairt isteach.

  President. − Mr Jahr, you asked for the floor. I will give you the floor but before I do, I want to remind you that, according to Rule 170, a request to give an explanation of vote cannot be accepted once the first explanation has started. I will give you floor anyway because I am a very good person but, according to the Rules, I should not. I will give you the floor, but do not tell anybody!

  Peter Jahr (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich möchte nur noch zu meiner Ehrenrettung sagen, dass hier etwas schiefgegangen sein muss, denn ich hatte versucht, diese Stimmerklärung elektronisch anzumelden. Wahrscheinlich ist gerade diese verloren gegangen, ich weiß nicht, warum. Ich mache es im Folgenden aber auch ganz kurz.

Ich bin zu 50 Prozent derselben Ansicht wie mein Kollege Kelly und trotzdem habe ich diesem Bericht zugestimmt, weil ich ganz einfach mithelfen wollte, dass die Debatte dazu eröffnet wird. Wir wollen einen gemeinsamen Binnenmarkt, wir wollen, dass sich nicht nur die Menschen, sondern auch die Unternehmen frei bewegen können. Hierbei geht es nicht nur um die Steuersätze in Prozent, sondern es geht auch um die Bemessungs- und Berechnungsgrundlagen. Gerade ein kleines mittelständisches Unternehmen hat natürlich riesige Schwierigkeiten, sich in Steuersysteme hineinzuversetzen, die grundsätzlich unterschiedlich sind. Wenn wir schon die Debatte zu diesem Punkt angestoßen haben, halte ich das für eine ganz wichtige Geschichte.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I have raised this issue in the past. If you read the wording of the rule, it is not at all clear that it means that. It could equally well mean before the actual ‘explanation of votes’ item comes up within the sitting rather than at the beginning of the entire sitting. The previous time this rule was interpreted by one of your colleagues, he offered to refer it to the Legal Service for a definitive interpretation of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.

You interpret it this way, but you could equally well interpret it another, more generous way. So could we have clear guidance on what the rule actually means? It makes no sense in my view if it is just restricted to those who apply before the entire sitting begins. It should be at any stage before that actual explanation of vote comes up for debate.

  President. − Thank you, Mr Tannock, but you have seen that my nature is to be benevolent.

(Applause)

Informe : Astrid Lulling (A7-0052/2012)

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho sostenuto con forza questa relazione dell'onorevole Lulling, perché ha voluto dare una risposta a una proposta da parte della Commissione europea che non era sicuramente in linea con il periodo di grande difficoltà che vive il nostro continente europeo e tutti paesi europei.

Credo che quanto contenuto negli emendamenti apportati da questo Parlamento vada incontro a quella che è la situazione attuale. Voglio sottolineare l'importanza del voto che abbiamo fatto a favore del mondo agricolo per poter mantenere la detassazione dei carburanti destinati all'agricoltura, ma in particolar modo voglio evidenziare quanto importante sia stato il voto di questo Parlamento per continuare con la distinzione tra gasolio commerciale e non commerciale, che potrà ovviamente vedere un vantaggio fiscale anche per gli autotrasportatori delle aree più distanti dal centro dell'Europa, che potranno così avere una riduzione del carico fiscale nel trasporto delle loro merci, a vantaggio di un mercato libero e concorrenziale.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Hr. formand! Jeg tror, at der er mange europæiske borgere, der i dag skal være glade for, at der lige om lidt er valg i Frankrig, og at der også snart er Bundestagsvalg i Tyskland, for ellers så havde vi risikeret, at der havde været et flertal for, at man skulle lave proportionalitet i beskatningen mellem benzin og diesel. Det viste sig så alligevel, at det turde man ikke binde an med på nuværende tidspunkt, hvilket også er ganske klogt, fordi det ganske enkelt ville betyde en kraftig fordyrelse af eksistensvilkårene for mange virksomheder og for mange borgere. Enhver ved jo, at hvis man påtvinger, at der skal være en ligelig beskatning mellem diesel og benzin, så er det jo ikke sådan, at man i medlemslandene så sætter afgifterne på benzin ned. Nej, så hæver man afgifterne for diesel, og så får man ekstra penge i statskassen! Jeg håber, at Kommissionen i dag fik det meget meget klare signal med sig - og forstår det signal - at denne form for beskatning er en meget dårlig idé.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, I have voted against this report on the taxation of energy products and electricity as I do not support a number of the proposals that it makes.

These include the introduction of proportionality and the removal of exemptions for certain sectors, which Member States were previously able to introduce at their discretion. The latter include agricultural fluids, known in the UK as red diesel, and the principle that all calculations on this should be based on energy consumption and CO2 emissions. I believe that is actually not correct.

Taxation needs to remain an issue solely for Member States. At a time when businesses and farmers across the EU are struggling to make ends meet, I think that it is wholly unjustifiable to impose additional new requirements on them to meet emission targets. The proposals in the report would require the measures to be implemented too quickly and would be burdensome upon my businesses and farmers in Wales.

Whilst I support the EU’s endeavours to reduce emissions, I do not believe that taxation of energy products and electricity is the right way to achieve this. It would perhaps be more prudent to encourage businesses to invest in modernising technology in order to make it more effective and efficient.

  Ивайло Калфин (S&D). - Уважаеми г-н Председател, искам да кажа от името на моите колеги от българската делегация в Групата на социалистите, че гласувахме против този доклад за увеличаване на акцизните ставки за някои горива, тъй като смятаме, че в него няма достатъчно икономическа логика.

В период, в който пазарните цени на горивата растат – и тази тенденция ще се запази в бъдеще – изравняването на ставките и увеличаването на ставките върху дизела, макар и в дългосрочен план, ще доведе до няколко негативни ефекта: до по-висока инфлация, до по-ниска конкурентоспособност на фирмите и до много по-ниско качество на живот. Това особено ще се отрази в страни, в които има по-ниски доходи и относителната цена на горивата е много по-висока.

Какво би станало, ако се увеличат акцизите пропорционално на доходите в отделните страни? Тогава ще видим, че действително някои страни ще бъдат много по-зле засегнати. Заради това смятам, че Съветът не трябва да допусне това решение.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, on behalf of my Irish colleagues, Seán Kelly, Gay Mitchell and Mairead McGuinness, I want to commend the work done by Astrid Lulling in relation to this particular report. I have to say she has done a commendable job. She has managed to dilute a considerable number of proposals from the Commission which are totally unacceptable.

As has been said by other speakers, it would play havoc with agriculture, public transport and the exports of my own country, which is a 90% export country: an island off an island. I am delighted that Amendment 53 was accepted, and by a huge majority – 524 for and 140 against. The rejection of the harmonisation of taxes on the purchase of cars is totally unacceptable.

What has happened here is that we are now seeing the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty. In their acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty, the Irish people were given assurances that taxation would not be interfered with by the EU and therefore, as Mr Kelly has said previously, the proposal to interfere with taxation is totally unacceptable to us. As Mrs Swinburne has said, a good balance needs to be struck between the environment on the one hand and consumers and industry on the other. The EU should not try to interfere with taxation. This is matter solely for individual Member States.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri sono stati da sempre promotori dello sviluppo sostenibile e della tutela sia dell'ambiente sia della salute umana.

La firma del protocollo di Kyoto e la strategia Europa 2020 sono tra le sfide più importanti che l'Unione si è posta. La tassazione relativa alle emissioni di CO2 è per gli Stati membri un modo efficace sotto l'aspetto dei costi per ottenere una riduzione dei gas a effetto serra nell'ambito dei parametri della decisione n. 406/2009/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio.

Approvo la proposta presentata dall'onorevole Lulling circa la necessità di garantire un ottimale funzionamento del mercato, in particolare nel contesto delle nuove prescrizioni relative al contrasto dei cambiamenti climatici, all'uso di fonti energetiche rinnovabili e al risparmio energetico. Dobbiamo garantire un trattamento uniforme delle fonti di energia, così da creare condizioni eque per i consumatori, indipendentemente dalla fonte utilizzata.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, immediately before the vote today a friend in the EPP challenged me to say something positive about the economy in Europe. He said he was sick and tired of my explanations of vote always focusing on what we were doing wrong. So let me have a go.

There are a number of positive ways that you can jolt economies into growth. You can cut tax, you can deregulate, you can – paradoxically – make it easier to fire people so that you encourage employers to hire people in the knowledge that they will not be lumbered with employees in the hard times. One thing that always boosts economic growth, in every country and in every age, is cheaper energy. It worked in the Industrial Revolution, it worked in the oil boom. It always causes factory prices to fall; it causes an export boom and it causes people to be able to buy things – with less energy put into it, if you like.

That is why it would be crazy for us, at a time like this, when we are struggling to grow our economies, to burden ourselves with fuel taxes which will depreciate the one thing which is always, literally and figuratively, the fuel of growth.

Here is the good news: here is the upbeat ending. Just as the US has now started to nose out of its decline because of this massive increase in shale gas deposits, so we have the same opportunities in Europe. We have 120 years of gas supplies under the soil and seas of the United Kingdom alone. Energy crisis? What energy crisis?

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, las fuentes energéticas que utilizamos para la movilidad en Europa van a cambiar en las próximas décadas. Sin embargo, alcanzar ese objetivo es incompatible con la penalización del consumo de gasóleo para la automoción. Este ha sido el sentido de mi voto en la votación de la Directiva sobre la imposición de los productos energéticos y de la electricidad.

Gracias a las inversiones europeas en investigación y desarrollo, los motores diésel consumen hoy un 30 % menos y contaminan de un 20 a un 25 % menos que los equivalentes de gasolina. Europa es líder mundial en tecnologías diesel. Por eso, penalizar el gasóleo es contradictorio con la Estrategia 2020. Agravaría la crisis, incidiría negativamente en el empleo de la industria europea y restaría recursos para la I+D+i que necesita la movilidad eléctrica. En definitiva, unos perjuicios que hemos evitado con la votación de hoy.

También he apoyado las compensaciones para el uso profesional del gasóleo, tanto en el transporte como en el sector primario, para preservar el empleo en estos sectores y evitar la inflación.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, I recognise that climate change is a serious issue, but I often worry that those who want to save the world are actually living on a different planet.

In the middle of an economic crisis, families are feeling the pinch. Does the EU really want to tax citizens further just for driving their children to school or for turning on the heating?

I am glad this House recognised what is going on in the real world, and that it understands how ordinary families are struggling to make ends meet. The EU needs to be reminded that it should focus on economic growth and on making citizens’ lives easier, not more difficult during a downturn.

I voted against this report. My group, the ECR, voted against this report, and I am pleased that most of the House followed my group and voted against it.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I voted against this report on a number of grounds. Not a day goes by when I do not hear from a constituent who is unhappy with the increases in their energy bills. They are very unhappy to find themselves paying to subsidise renewables without any real public debate: no acceptance of the concept or the financial hardship behind it.

I do, however, believe that it is time for a fundamental review of taxation on energy products and particularly electricity: not a review which says the EU should take more interest but one that would end up with the view that we should take far less interest from here.

This particular report ranges across a number of areas too numerous to talk about here, but I would just like to mention one: harmonised car purchase tax and harmonised CO2 emission taxes. How will this help change behaviour and reduce energy consumption? Each Member State has its own personality and traditions and, if we are serious about making progress here, Member States’ flexibility must be retained and taxation left firmly in their own bailiwick.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). - Acest raport este o dovadă cu privire la rolul pozitiv al Parlamentului, pentru că o serie de amendamente, care vizau în principal principiul proporţionalităţii, au fost adoptate de Parlament şi, în felul acesta, s-a reuşit atenuarea unei propuneri fundamental greşite pe care Comisia Europeană a făcut-o în acest moment. Cred că această indexare automată a preţurilor care s-a reuşit a fi evitată, impozitarea pe baza emisiilor de CO2 şi a conţinutului energetic al produsului erau fundamental greşite, introduceau o anumită birocraţie, duceau la creşterea preţurilor, ceea ce nu dovedeşte deloc că există o viziune foarte clară cu privire la reforma economică şi la relansarea economică în principal. Cred că în momentul în care aceste amendamente au fost admise raportul doamnei Lulling poate fi privit ca acceptabil.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałem przeciwko tej dyrektywie, bo ma ona niezwykle szkodliwy wpływ na gospodarczy rozwój Europy. Ostatni szczyt klimatyczny w Durbanie jednoznacznie wskazał światowe tendencje dotyczące podejścia do problemu ocieplenia klimatu, a najdobitniejszym przykładem jest zachowanie niezwykle ekologicznej Kanady, która w ostentacyjny sposób wystąpiła z Protokołu z Kioto.

Nagrodą za to, że jesteśmy Europejczykami, będzie podatek, który dodatkowo podniesie i tak astronomiczne ceny paliw i energii elektrycznej. I to podobno ma zwiększyć ilość miejsc pracy. Polityka podatkowa jest zarezerwowaną domeną należącą do kompetencji poszczególnych państw, a powstający precedens wspólnego opodatkowania to próba finansowego drenażu niektórych państw Unii Europejskiej, a to właśnie doprowadzić może do zaburzenia konkurencji.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, in my view, Member States should have the right to set their own fuel VAT and CO2 taxation levels, as long as these are compliant with the unanimously-agreed EU legislation already in place, such as the rules on minimum VAT levels.

Taxation is clearly a sovereign matter for each Member State, and efforts to transfer this power to the EU as a Community competence contravene the EU Treaties and will both hamper the competitive free market and play into the hands of increasing numbers of critics who claim that the EU is determined to build a federal superstate without acquiring first any consent from the people of the Member States.

Some Members of this House are keen to harmonise and raise taxes at Member State and EU level, but they often seem to forget the fact that they are actually very keen on spending other people’s hard-earned money.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, inside this Chamber, the last report, this report, and the next report are all talking about taxation under various guises of how we can raise taxation or harmonise it, whereas outside, in the real world, people are worried about rising costs and about job creation. They want more jobs to be created; they want people to get back to work. One of the most social things that Europe and politicians could do across Member States is create jobs for people.

What do we do instead? We talk about taxation and about increasing taxation. We know that when you increase taxation on energy products, those costs are not only passed on to companies – which means they have less money to employ more people – but those companies then pass it on to consumers, who then find it more difficult to struggle with their weekly and monthly household bills.

Now is the time to take stock of where we are. Giving money to governments, who spent it very badly in the first place and overtaxed us, caused the problems we are now facing. Let us reduce the rates of taxation, allow jobs to be created and get citizens in European countries back to work.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). - Monsieur le Président, voilà comment une bonne idée peut se transformer en punition pour les salariés et leur famille. Comment s'opposer, en effet, à l'idée de réduire la production de CO2, ce gaz mortel? Comment s'opposer à la volonté de maîtriser la consommation d'énergie, à la chasse au gaspi? Mais pourquoi donc, dans ces conditions, ne s'en prendre exclusivement qu'aux petits?

En effet, les grands secteurs d'activité comme le transport aérien, le transport maritime, l'agriculture, le transport bénéficieront d'exonérations jusqu'en 2023. Ainsi, la grande entreprise de transport bénéficiera-t-elle d'exonérations quand son chauffeur routier, lui, paiera plein pot? Ainsi, la grosse entreprise agricole bénéficiera-t-elle d'exonérations quand le salarié agricole, qui a un petit salaire, paiera plein pot. Des petits qui n'ont pas d'autre choix parce que, depuis des années, on leur montre que le diesel est le carburant le moins cher et qu'ils sont prisonniers de leur voiture car ils n'ont pas les moyens d'en changer.

Alors s'il fallait trouver de l'argent, j'ai quelques pistes, je vous les donne rapidement: on aurait pu prendre sur les bénéfices des grandes compagnies pétrolières, prendre sur les gaspillages d'argent public, prendre sur les bénéfices des grands groupes automobiles et aussi, pourquoi pas, prendre sur les bénéfices des organismes de crédit qui prêtent l'argent pour acheter les voitures.

Solicitud de medidas concretas para combatir el fraude y la evasión fiscales B7-0203/2012

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, as I have to give a radio interview at two o’clock, Mrs Swinburne has agreed that I can swap with her and speak first. Is that alright? She is okay with this. Thank you very much.

I voted against the joint motion for a resolution put forward by the S&D Group on concrete ways to combat tax fraud and tax evasion. There are many problems with this report, starting with the simple fact that taxation is primarily a Member State prerogative. But I was particularly concerned by the identical treatment given to tax evasion and tax avoidance. The report calls for measures to be taken against both at EU level. Not differentiating between the two seems nonsensical and smacks of the politics of envy, given that one is a wilful criminal breaking of the law and the other is perfectly legal.

While I would agree that tax fraud and tax evasion should be curtailed, my group does not agree with the premise that tax avoidance within the law is detrimental to tax collection. Another worrying aspect of the report is its consideration that the implementation of country-by-country reporting requirements for cross-border companies in all sectors is essential. I believe that such requirements will be too onerous a burden if applied to all EU companies in all sectors, as the report seems to propose. I would instead back a sector-specific approach, which is a far more reasonable way of doing things.

  President. − These explanations of vote are a monopoly of the British Conservatives because all of you – with the exception of Mr Kelly, who is not a British Conservative – are British Conservatives!

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). - Mr President, to remove any possible doubt, I fully support the motion title that we need to find pan-European ways of combating tax fraud and tax evasion. And indeed, I believe that we should find global ways of doing that.

However, beyond the title, this report has addressed many issues which I believe are not helpful, including preventing Member States from engaging in bilateral negotiations with non-EU countries on taxation matters, which presumably was aimed at addressing the recent UK-Swiss agreement on bank accounts.

It also suggests that tax competition is to be avoided as it stifles economic recovery in some countries, something I fundamentally disagree with. Tax competition is healthy and should be encouraged.

The report also suggests clamping down on tax havens but redefines them rather than using the globally-accepted OECD definition. I therefore could not support this report, despite being committed to tackling tax evasion and tax fraud globally.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, we would of course be delighted to have Mr Kelly in our group, maybe not as a British Conservative, but he is a great European and a great patriot and we would be very happy to have him alongside us in the ECR Group.

The way to maximise revenue from taxation is through lower, flatter and simpler tax rates. It is all very well to say, as some have in this Chamber, that we need to find ways of getting these rich tax evaders to pay their share, but the ultimate forms of tax evasion – or rather tax avoidance – that they practice are emigration and early retirement. The sad truth is that the rich do not have enough money to do all the things that modern governments want.

So when taxes on the rich are introduced, they very quickly become generalised through the population. It works every time. It worked when Ronald Reagan cut the top rates and it worked when Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson did so. If you lower the rates of tax, you maximise the revenue and you also get the top decile in society to pay a much higher proportion.

People say, ‘oh, that’s only because they’re earning more’. Well yes, that is the idea – and they are thereby generating more revenue for the government to spend on things that the rest of us use.

So yes, I agree: make the rich pay more. Cut their rates.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, thank you for catching me by surprise, and I thank Mr Kamiński for not being here to allow me to speak earlier. What is very interesting about this whole debate about tax – we have spent the last three reports talking about taxation – is that there are two different philosophies on taxation. If you are on the Left, you believe that the government has first recourse to your money. You earn your money, but the government itself decides how much to give to you while it takes the money. If you are on the conservative Right – as we are – you believe that individuals should be allowed to keep as much of their money as possible in their pocket, and that governments should really take only what is necessary for government and state services. But what do we see? In proposal after proposal, we see an increase and an attack on people who are trying to maximise the amount of their income that they can spend on their families and themselves.

The other thing we see in this place is the attack on so-called tax havens. When countries set themselves up to be tax-neutral – not to double and triple tax in order to generate revenue and to attract foreign investment – immediately that is a tax haven and is condemned. And when developing countries do it, what do we do? We try to condemn them, to make sure that they go back to poverty so that they can rely on our aid rather than trying to create wealth through tax competition. What a skewed world we are living in here in the European Parliament. It is time to ensure that tax competition is healthy in order to create jobs and attract investment.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, mar a dúirt Kay Swinburne, ag féachaint ar theideal na tuarascála seo cheapfá go vótálfadh gach Feisire ina fabhar, mar tá súil againn ar aon nós go bhfuil gach Feisire i bhfabhar troid i gcoinne mímhacántacht chánach agus daoine a bheith ag éalú ó cháin dhleathach a íoc.

Cén fáth mar sin nár vótálamar i bhfabhar? Cé go bhfuil meas againn ar Jean-Paul Gauzès, is dóigh linn go ndeachaigh sé thar fóir leis na moltaí; go háirithe ag tabhairt isteach moltaí nach raibh baint againn leo, cosúil le cáin chomónta nó ‘CCCTB’, comórtas cánach agus socruithe idir tíortha éagsúla. Ní féidir linn glacadh leis na moltaí sin agus vótálamar i gcoinne na tuarascála dá bharr sin. Leanaimis ar aghaidh leis an troid i gcoinne na mímhacántachta agus éalú.

Mar fhocal scoir, in ionad domsa dul isteach le mo chairde ón mBreatain, b’fhéidir go dtiocfadh siadsan – go háirithe na Conservatives – ar ais san EPP mar a raibh siad tráth. Tá cuireadh rompu.

  President. − Ms Girling, do you want to speak? I see that your interpretation of Rule 170 is the same as Mr Tannock’s.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, there is a material difference. I have written confirmation of my request to speak from this morning on the system so I have followed the Rules, but thank you for your patience and good humour.

I would simply like to say that, like everybody else, I welcome the title of this, but when I looked at some of the detail I found myself unexpectedly unable to support it. There are many reasons; I would just mention a couple.

Firstly, why invent an EU definition of a tax haven when we have a perfectly adequate, well-used OECD definition already adopted by this Parliament? It is almost really contemptuous of this House to try and reinvent that particular wheel and serves no purpose whatsoever. Also I do not accept that all sectors need a complex cross-border reporting arrangement. There should be a proportionate approach which minimises all of the burdens on business.

Lastly, I would like to mention something which is very important for my Member State. I cannot under any circumstances agree with the proposal that prohibits the UK Government from entering into bilateral arrangements with non-EU countries which are to the clear benefit of the British taxpayer.

Explicaciones de voto por escrito

Recomendacíon: Elisabeth Köstinger (A7-0082/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), par écrit. – En tant que grande consommatrice des produits dérivés du bois, l'Union européenne a définit un plan d'action relatif à l'application des règlementations forestières, à la gouvernance et aux échanges commerciaux (FLEGT). Ce plan d'action est mis en œuvre par le biais d'accords de partenariats avec les pays producteurs tel que la République centrafricaine. J'ai voté en faveur de cet accord qui permettra de mettre en place un ensemble de mesures visant à lutter contre l'exploitation clandestine des forêts en surveillant la chaîne d'approvisionnement et en promouvant des pratiques durables.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo, porque acredito que uma ferramenta de parceria pode melhorar a governação das florestas. Os países parceiros e a Comissão Europeia irão ter de se coordenar para uma implementação eficaz deste acordo. O estabelecimento desta parceria é mais um passo para a proteção dos parâmetros de qualidade exigidos aos europeus relativamente a produtos importados de países terceiros, cuja maioria não cumpre a mesma legislação que os produtores europeus. Neste sentido, este é um acordo que pode conduzir ao estabelecimento de outros acordos com países terceiros, que devem abranger diferentes setores económicos de atividade.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – En décembre 2005, le Conseil des Ministres a autorisé la Commission européenne à négocier des accords de partenariat avec les pays producteurs de bois afin de mettre en œuvre le plan d’action de l’UE relatif à l’application des réglementations forestières, à la gouvernance et aux échanges commerciaux (FLEGT) et, en particulier, d’encourager le commerce et les importations dans l’Union de bois légal vérifié en provenance de ces pays partenaires. 31 % du territoire de la République centrafricaine est recouvert de forêts tropicales. L’activité forestière est le premier employeur privé du pays, à l’origine de 4 % du PIB et de 40 % du total des recettes d’exportation du pays. C’est pourquoi l’Union européenne a grand intérêt à signer ces accords. Par contre, nous ne voulons pas participer involontairement aux activités illégales ou parallèles qui pourraient avoir cours en République centrafricaine. Il nous importe de veiller à ce que les petites entreprises forestières présentes sur le marché national soient professionnelles, profitables et durables. C’est tout ce que prévoit cet accord, qui garantit le libre échange tout en posant des conditions.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Pritariau savanoriškam Europos Sąjungos ir Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos susitarimo dėl miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir prekybos į Europos Sąjungą importuojama mediena (FLEGT) sudarymui. 60 proc. Centrinės Afrikos medienos eksportuojama į Europą. Centrinėje Afrikos Respublikoje miškai nyksta daugiausiai dėl netinkamo teisės aktų vykdymo ir stebėsenos, nes trūksta žmogiškųjų, materialinių ir finansinių išteklių, dėl to neteisėtai kertami miškai ir naudojama mediena bei deginami krūmai. Šiuo susitarimu yra siekiama užkirsti kelią neteisėtam miškų kirtimui bei parengti teisės aktų rinkinius, kuriais būtų užtikrinamas medienos bei medienos produktų, kurie bus eksportuojami į ES rinką, atsekamumas, teisėtumo tikrinimas ir licencijavimas bei numatyta stebėsena ir nepriklausomas auditas. Pritariu Europos Parlamento rekomendacijoje išsakytiems raginimams daugiau dėmesio skirti veiksmingam SPS įgyvendinimui laiku ir reguliariai teikti ataskaitas apie pažangą įgyvendinant SPS.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea încheierii acestui acord, deoarece apreciez că el va contribui la promovarea bunei guvernanţe forestiere şi consolidarea legislaţiei în domeniu în Republica Centrafricană, inclusiv din perspectiva sustenabilităţii, responsabilităţii şi a bunei gestionări a pădurilor. • Pentru acest stat, comerţul cu produse din lemn reprezintă 4% din PIB, iar 60% din exporturile în acest sector sunt realizate în Uniunea Europeană. Noul acord va crea oportunităţi şi mai mari pe piaţa europeană pentru lemnul provenit din Republica Centrafricană, permiţând, totodată, o gestionare responsabilă şi echilibrată a resurselor forestiere. Apreciez procesul lărgit de consultare realizat cu sectorul privat şi societatea civilă pentru elaborarea definiţiilor legalităţii pentru lemnul şi produsele din lemn din Republica Centrafricană. Salut faptul că acest model de implicare a tuturor actorilor interesaţi va fi continuat, prin comisia naţională multipartită care va contribui la implementarea şi monitorizarea acordului. Semnalez că drepturile la teren şi proprietate funciară ale comunităţilor indigene care depind de utilizarea resurselor forestiere trebuie clarificate prin reforme legislative la nivel naţional. Atrag atenţia asupra importanţei intrării în vigoare la timp a acordului, pentru a contribui în mod eficient la creşterea sustenabilităţii şi stoparea degradării pădurilor, generată de exploatarea ilegală şi comerţul ilicit cu produse din lemn.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Sono favorevole all'accordo volontario tra UE e Repubblica centrafricana sull'applicazione delle normative nel settore forestale, perché ritengo che possa portare un aiuto concreto allo sviluppo del paese africano, sostenendo un settore economico molto importante come quello forestale che rappresenta il 4% del PIL e il 40% delle sue entrate derivanti dalle esportazioni; inoltre, il 60% del legname centrafricano viene esportato in Europa.

Così come l'accordo con la Repubblica di Liberia, sostengo gli scopi dell'accordo e ritengo che possa apportare benefici per tutte le parti coinvolte. L'UE, ad esempio, potrà contare sull'impegno della Repubblica centrafricana a commercializzare nell'Unione soltanto i derivati del legno la cui legalità sia stata appurata.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šią Europos Parlamento rekomendaciją dėl Europos Sąjungos ir Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos savanoriško partnerystės susitarimo dėl miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir prekybos į Europos Sąjungą importuojama mediena ir medienos produktais sudarymo projekto, kadangi šiame susitarime aptarti visi medienos produktai, kurie bus eksportuojami, įskaitant kurui naudojamas medžio drožles, rąstus, pjautinę medieną, fanerą ir medinius baldus. Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos medienos ir medienos produktų teisėtumo tikrinimo sistema taikoma visiems eksportuojamiems produktams, ne tik skirtiems ES. Be to, ji apims medieną, kuri importuojama iš trečiųjų šalių ir apdorojama Centrinės Afrikos Respublikoje, rengiant ją eksportui. Šiame savanoriškos partnerystės susitarime ne tik nustatyta gerinti miškų sektoriaus valdymo standartus, tvarumą ir atskaitomybę, tačiau susitarimas gali turėti teigiamą poveikį bendram Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos vystymuisi ir ekonomikos augimui, be kita ko, užtikrinant pajamas, gaunamas eksportuojant medieną į ES ir kitas tarptautines rinkas. Miškų valdymo forumas, sudarytas iš nevyriausybinių organizacijų ir pilietinės visuomenės atstovų, stebės šio susitarimo įgyvendinimo veiksmus ir savo pastabas praneš Europos Sąjungos ir Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos jungtiniam Susitarimo įgyvendinimo komitetui, kad būtų kontroliuojama visa susitarimo taikymo sritis.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I chose to abstain from this vote as, on principle, ensuring the import of legally felled timber products is vital both for environmental sustenance and the preservation of fair trade. However, I do not advocate EU legislation as the mechanism for these controls. It is also important to highlight that several third country negotiations with the EU in the past have been disadvantageous for the country concerned. With the propensity for corruption and liability of the timber trade to black-market negotiations, I am not confident that the EU will ensure a system that is both watertight and effective.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − A exploração e o comércio de madeira ilegal prejudicam a competitividade das indústrias florestais lícitas, tanto nos países de exportação como de importação, limitando a capacidade destas indústrias realizarem operações que promovam uma gestão sustentável das florestas, bem como o desenvolvimento sustentável, sendo a República Centro-Africana (RCA) um desses exemplos. O acordo de parceria voluntário que é hoje votado e o qual apoio, reveste-se de grande importância na medida que oferece um instrumento de resolução deste problema, melhora a regulamentação, a governação e a aplicação da legislação no setor florestal, comprometendo-se a RCA a implementar sistemas de verificação da conformidade jurídica e da rastreabilidade em toda a cadeia de abastecimento desde o abate à emissão de licenças de exportação FLEGT.

Se, por um lado, ganha o desenvolvimento sustentável florestal, a União Europeia reforça também novas oportunidades de mercado para produtos de madeira da RCA. 60% da madeira é exportada para a Europa num setor que representa 4% do PIB da RCA. Reforço que, na aplicação deste Acordo deverão, no entanto, ser envidados esforços no sentido de promover soluções justas e que não tenham consequências para os setores da sociedade mais carenciados, tais como as populações rurais que vivem desta atividade, deixando incólumes os mais poderosos.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório por considerar que os acordos de parceria voluntários são a base de um plano de ação da UE relativamente à aplicação da legislação florestal, governação e comércio (FLEGT), já que estabelecem parcerias com produtores de madeira e exportação entre países com a intenção de deter o corte ilegal. Considero os APV um instrumento de parceria que promove uma melhor governação florestal.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O Acordo de Parceria voluntário entre a União Europeia e a República Centro-Africana (RCA) é imperativo para a importação ou não de madeiras preciosas daquele país africano. A RCA tem mais de 30% do seu território coberto por florestas tropicais. Não é de estranhar, portanto, que a exportação de madeiras represente cerca de 40% das exportações daquele país. O acordo de parceria chega em boa hora para desincentivar a comercialização ilegal de madeiras, além da destruição injustificada e perda irreparável de florestas que são devastadas por produtores e comerciantes informais e ilegais. O acordo será também uma garantia para os países da UE de que compram madeira colhida dentro dos trâmites da sustentabilidade e do equilíbrio florestal e que não estarão a contribuir, ainda que involuntariamente, para a destruição de florestas tropicais.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − As alterações climáticas que, nas últimas décadas, têm afetado o Planeta através de catástrofes naturais inesperadas colocaram, na ordem do dia, a problemática da desflorestação em grande escala, sobretudo na região da Amazónia, considerada o pulmão do Planeta, e no continente africano. O texto em apreciação versa sobre o projeto de decisão do Conselho em relação à assinatura de um acordo de parceria voluntário (APV) entre a União Europeia (EU) e a República Centro-Africana (RCA) relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal no que respeita à madeira e aos produtos derivados importados pela UE no âmbito do plano de ação FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade). Trata-se de uma iniciativa da UE que pretende impedir a entrada na Europa de madeiras exploradas ilegalmente. Para que o acordo de parceria voluntário, assinado em 28 de novembro de 2011, entre a UE e a RCA possa entrar em vigor, é necessário que seja, previamente, aprovado pelo Parlamento Europeu. Votei favoravelmente esta recomendação porque considero fundamental a existência de legislação que promova a sustentabilidade do setor florestal e impeça o abate indiscriminado de madeira. Além disso, este APV contribuirá para o desenvolvimento global e sustentável da RCA.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Os objetivos do Acordo de Parceria voluntário FLEGT com a República Centro-Africana (RCA) passam pelo combate ao problema da exploração madeireira ilegal e pela ajuda à melhoria da regulamentação, da governação e da aplicação da legislação no setor florestal na RCA. A exploração madeireira ilegal contribui para destruir e degradar ecossistemas de grande importância, tanto do ponto de vista funcional como do ponto de vista dos valores naturais que abrigam. Mas uma abordagem correta das causas deste problema exige o reconhecimento de que ele é indissociável da enorme debilidade das economias destes países, assim como dos significativos níveis de pobreza entre as suas populações, sendo esta atividade, por vezes, a única fonte de rendimento de muitas famílias.

A própria relatora refere que muitas comunidades indígenas, que vivem nas florestas tropicais da RCA, dependem da utilização dos recursos florestais. Daqui decorre que só será possível pôr termo à exploração madeireira ilegal ou insustentável se for devidamente enfrentada e resolvida a terrível situação social e económica existente em países como a RCA, se for invertido um modelo económico assente na dependência elevada da exploração e exportação de um número restrito de matérias-primas para os países industrializados.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Akčný plán EÚ z roku 2003 pre vynútiteľnosť práva, správu a obchod v lesnom hospodárstve predpokladá ustanovenie partnerstiev s krajinami produkujúcimi a vyvážajúcimi drevo s cieľom zaistiť, aby sa predávalo len legálne vyťažené drevo, a podporiť dobrú správu v oblasti lesného hospodárstva. Obchodná dohoda so Stredoafrickou republikou podpísaná v novembri 2011 je štvrtou takouto dobrovoľnou dohodou o partnerstve, o ktorej EÚ rokovala s africkou krajinou. Poskytuje nástroj na riešenie problému nelegálnej ťažby dreva, na podporu zlepšenia regulácie, ako aj na podporu trhových príležitostí, čo sa týka obchodu s výrobkami z dreva zo Stredoafrickej republiky v Európe. Môžeme očakávať, že dobrovoľná dohoda o partnerstve pozitívnym spôsobom prispeje k celkovému rozvoju a rastu v Stredoafrickej republike vrátane zabezpečenia príjmov z vývozu dreva do EÚ a na ďalšie medzinárodné trhy. V budúcnosti by z daňových výnosov z priemyselného využívania lesov mali mať väčší prospech aj miestne ekonomiky a spoločenstvá v Stredoafrickej republike. Domnievam sa, že je vhodné, aby Parlament vyslovil súhlas s touto dohodou. Zároveň ale vláda Stredoafrickej republiky, ako aj Európska komisia budú musieť venovať dostatočnú pozornosť jej účinnému a včasnému uplatňovaniu vrátane budovania kapacít, účasti miestnych spoločenstiev, ochrany domorodého obyvateľstva či všeobecného zvýšenia informovanosti o tejto dohode medzi rôznymi zainteresovanými stranami.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − La lotta al disboscamento illegale, la definizione del sistema di controllo e tracciabilità, il rafforzamento delle possibilità commerciali del legno importato in Europa e dei suoi derivati ed il miglioramento della regolamentazione e della sua applicazione nel settore forestale, sono solo alcuni dei pregevoli obiettivi che il presente accordo vuole raggiungere. Considerando che esso è stato stipulato tenendo conto degli interessi di tutte le parti, e che la Repubblica Centrafricana si dichiara già pronta a dare attuazione a ciascuno degli impegni definiti nell’accordo, il mio voto è stato favorevole.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I supported this report and welcome the VPA with the Central African Republic. The forestry sector accounts for 40% of the CAR's export revenue. It is clearly an important industry, and it is equally important that the EU only imports wood from a properly regulated sector.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau susitarimo sudarymui, nes nustatoma partnerystės priemonė siekiant gerinti miškų sektoriaus valdymo standartus, tvarumą ir atskaitomybę. Susitarimas gali turėti teigiamą poveikį bendram Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos vystymuisi ir ekonomikos augimui, be kita ko, užtikrinant pajamas, gaunamas eksportuojant medieną į ES ir kitas tarptautines rinkas. Ateityje mokestinės pajamos iš pramoninio miškų kirtimo turėtų teikti vis didesnę naudą vietos ekonomikai ir bendruomenėms. Tuo pačiu metu įpareigoja šalį partnerę parengti teisės aktų leidimo sistemą ir medienos bei medienos produktų, kurie bus eksportuojami į ES rinką, atsekamumo, teisėtumo tikrinimo ir licencijavimo sistemas ir numatyti stebėseną bei nepriklausomą auditą.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Kontynent afrykański to region bardzo biedny. Wiele ludzi cierpi tam z powodu ubóstwa, a głód i choroby występują na każdym kroku. Jednak Afryka to także region z bardzo bogatymi zasobami surowców naturalnych, a racjonalne zarządzanie nimi może poprawić sytuację jej ludności. W Republice Środkowoafrykańskiej 31% powierzchni zajmują lasy tropikalne, życie ludzi zamieszkujących ten kraj jest w dużym stopniu uzależnione właśnie od nich, a głównym źródłem zatrudnienia w sektorze prywatnym jest leśnictwo. Uważam, że najważniejsze kwestie w dziedzinie leśnictwa powinny zostać uregulowane, a produkty z drewna trafiające na rynek Unii Europejskiej powinny pochodzić z legalnych źródeł. Odpowiedni monitoring procedur wprowadzania towarów do obrotu jest niezbędny. Warto także przyjrzeć się rynkowi krajowemu, który został wyłączony z tej umowy.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − In December 2005, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate a series of voluntary partnership agreements (VPA) with timber-producing and exporting countries in order to encourage trade in legally harvested timber on the EU market and to improve forest governance in partner countries. I believe that these bilateral agreements are a cornerstone of the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade to halt illegal logging. For this reason, I voted in favour of this recommendation.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), na piśmie. − Parlament Europejski wyraził dzisiaj zgodę na zawarcie umowy partnerskiej z Republiką Środkowoafrykańską. Ta dobrowolna umowa o partnerstwie zobowiązuje kraj partnerski do określenia ram prawnych, szczególnie zezwoleń na drewno i produkty z drewna, które mają zostać przywiezione na rynek UE, oraz do ustanowienia systemu monitorowania i niezależnego audytu.

Aż 60% drewna środkowoafrykańskiego jest przedmiotem eksportu do UE. W związku z tym, że sektor ten jest jednym z głównych źródeł dochodu tego kraju, eksploatacja zasobów leśnych prowadzi do degradacji środowiska. Głównymi przyczynami są tutaj brak instrumentów egzekwowania prawa, a także nieudolny monitoring, co prowadzi do nielegalnego pozyskiwania drewna. Jednocześnie ponad 3 mln hektarów lasów w Republice Środkowoafrykańskiej podlega koncesjom przemysłowym, z których korzystają głównie przedsiębiorcy europejscy, a firmy te muszą dysponować zezwoleniami na pozyskiwanie drewna, dlatego odpowiednie środowisko prawne jest również dla tych firm, jak i dla rozwoju handlu niezbędne.

Aby zadbać o zrównoważoną gospodarkę leśną i uniknąć degradacji lasów, na podstawie umowy Republika Środkowoafrykańska zobowiązuje się do handlu wyłącznie legalnymi produktami z drewna. Uważam za bardzo istotne, że umowa wraz z innymi instrumentami prawnymi, takimi jak rozporządzenie UE w sprawie drewna, które ma wejść w życie w 2013 r., przyczyni się do zahamowania nielegalnej eksploatacji lasów, konieczne będzie jednak sprawne jej wdrożenie.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai apporté mon soutien à ce rapport qui vise à mettre en œuvre le plan d'action de l'Union européenne en matière d'application des règlementations forestières, de gouvernance et d'échanges commerciaux de produits du bois vers l'Union. Le Parlement européen a ainsi donné son approbation à la conclusion de cet accord, qui se réfère au contrôle de la chaîne d'approvisionnement, au régime de conformité légale et aux conditions d'audit.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the Central African Republic (CAR). Along with establishing a partnership tool for improving management standards, sustainability and accountability in the forestry sector, the VPA can be expected to contribute positively to overall development and growth in the Central African Republic, including by safeguarding income generated by timber exports to the EU and other international markets. In future, tax revenues from industrial forest exploitation should increasingly also profit the local economy and communities in the CAR. While the VPA offers steps towards better forest governance and the agreement has met wide support, the challenges lie with effective implementation. The CAR is currently engaged with implementation activities, including the development of the legality verification, new legislation and the institutional framework, in parallel with the ratification process. The EU’s technical and financial support for implementation of the VPA will be crucial. Furthermore, while forestry provides a significant share of the CAR’s export earnings, addressing legal verification of timber exports should go hand in hand with domestic market regulation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Em 2003 a UE elaborou um plano de ação relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal (FLEGT). Este previa o estabelecimento de parcerias com países produtores e exportadores de madeira, de modo a garantir que apenas a madeira abatida legalmente fosse comercializada e a fomentar uma sólida governação florestal. Tal como os acordos de parceria voluntários FLEGT, o acordo com a República Centro-Africana oferece um instrumento para resolver o problema da exploração madeireira ilegal, para ajudar a melhorar a regulamentação, a governação e a aplicação da legislação no setor florestal do país, bem como para reforçar as oportunidades de mercado para produtos de madeira centro-africana na Europa.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − These Voluntary Partnership Agreements are a cornerstone of the EU’s Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. They establish partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries aimed at halting illegal logging, promoting sound forest governance and ensuring that only legally-harvested timber reaches the EU market. I am sure the agreements are a partnership tool for improving forest governance. Partner countries and the Commission will thus need to devote sufficient attention to effective and timely enforcement. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Tropen- bzw. Regenwaldholz aus der Zentralafrikanischen Republik ist ein kostbares Gut. Um den Handel mit dem Holz zu kontrollieren und ein illegales Schlagen einzudämmen, hat die EU bereits mit einigen afrikanischen Staaten freiwillige Partnerschaftsabkommen geschlossen – darunter Ghana, Kongo und Kamerun. Nun soll ein solches Abkommen ebenfalls mit der Zentralafrikanischen Republik zustande kommen. Ein entscheidender Vorteil des Abkommens sind die Rückverfolgbarkeit des Holzes, die rechtliche Überprüfung sowie die Lizenzierung von Holz und dessen Erzeugnissen. Etwa 60 % der Hölzer aus der Zentralafrikanischen Republik werden nach Europa exportiert. Der Bericht hat meine Stimme erhalten, da ich mit der Berichterstatterin insofern konform gehe, dass das freiwillige Partnerschaftsabkommen positive Auswirkungen auf die Waldbewirtschaftungen in Zentralafrika haben wird. Ich habe mich meiner Stimme enthalten, da noch nicht restlos geklärt werden konnte, ob das Partnerland zu einer fristgerechten Umsetzung des Abkommens im Stande sein wird, da noch Maßnahmen im Bereich Aufbau der Kapazitäten, Einbindung der lokalen Gemeinschaften, Schutz der indigenen Gemeinschaften, sowie einer generellen Schärfung des Bewusstseins unter den verschiedenen Akteuren gesetzt werden müssen.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariu šiai rezoliucijai. Siekiant užtikrinti, kad būtų prekiaujama tik teisėtai iškirsta mediena ir skatinamas patikimas miškų valdymas, yra būtinas efektyviai funkcionuojantis savanoriškas partnerystės susitarimas. Manau, kad šis susitarimas turės milžinišką naudą Centrinės Afrikos Respublikos vystymuisi ir ekonomikos augimui. Pažymėtina, kad šis susitarimas sudarys palankias sąlygas Centrinės Afrikos Respublikai įgyvendinti savo įsipareigojimus pagerinti atskaitomybę ir didinti skaidrumą.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. − La posizione presa dal Parlamento per quanto riguarda l'accordo sul partenariato tra UE e Repubblica Centrafricana mi trova d'accordo. Sostenere questa iniziativa, oltre a costituire uno strumento che porterà ad una evoluzione positiva per quanto riguarda il piano forestale, sicuramente andrà anche a migliorare la condizione di sviluppo complessivo della Repubblica Centrafricana. Quello dell'esportazione del legname è un commercio in crescita in questo Paese che, trovandosi a più stretto contatto con l'Unione, non potrà che giovarne, approfittando anche di un incremento delle esportazioni a livello non solo europeo ma anche internazionale. Il compito dell'applicazione della normativa, per quanto accettata e sostenuta, è quello più arduo, soprattutto per quanto riguarda la legalità del mercato del legname, quindi l'appoggio europeo è di fondamentale importanza.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente a recomendação do Parlamento Europeu sobre o projecto de decisão do Conselho relativa à assinatura de um Acordo de Parceria voluntário entre a União Europeia e a República Centro-Africana relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no sector florestal no que respeita à madeira e aos produtos de madeira importados para a União Europeia (FLEGT). Fi-lo por acreditar que este instrumento de parceria pretende melhorar as normas de gestão, sustentabilidade e responsabilização no sector florestal e porque se prevê que o APV venha a contribuir positivamente para o desenvolvimento global e o crescimento na República Centro Africana, nomeadamente salvaguardando as receitas geradas pelas exportações de madeira para a UE e outros mercados internacionais. Fica igualmente previsto neste instrumento que, num futuro, as receitas fiscais da exploração florestal industrial beneficiem cada vez mais a economia e as comunidades locais.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − O acordo de parceria com a República Centro-Africana (RCA), assinado em 28 de novembro de 2011, surge no âmbito do plano de ação da UE de 2003 relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal (FLEGT), que prevê o estabelecimento de parcerias com países produtores e exportadores de madeira, de modo a garantir que apenas a madeira abatida legalmente seja comercializada e a fomentar uma sólida governação florestal. Este acordo constitui um instrumento para resolver o problema da exploração madeireira ilegal, para ajudar a melhorar a regulamentação, a governação e a aplicação da legislação no setor florestal do país, bem como para reforçar oportunidades de mercado para produtos de madeira centro-africana na Europa. Para além de constituir um instrumento de parceria tendente a melhorar as normas de gestão, a sustentabilidade e a responsabilização no setor florestal, prevê-se que o APV contribua positivamente para o desenvolvimento global e o crescimento na República Centro-Africana, nomeadamente, salvaguardando as receitas geradas pelas exportações de madeira para a UE e outros mercados internacionais. Pelo exposto, o meu voto foi em sentido favorável.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), per iscritto. − Si stima che nel mondo una foresta delle dimensioni di un campo da calcio sia distrutta ogni due secondi, causando danni per 12 miliardi di euro l'anno.

In una relazione pubblicata a marzo, la Banca mondiale afferma che il disboscamento illegale in alcuni paesi rappresenta ben il 90% delle attività di disboscamento e genera fra 10 e 15 miliardi di dollari all'anno di proventi illegali. Su larga scala, le operazioni di disboscamento illegale sono spesso legate alla corruzione ad alto livello e a reti della criminalità organizzata.

Gli accordi approvati oggi sono un importante passo in avanti per promuovere un commercio sostenibile del legname, ma anche per sensibilizzare il pubblico sulla questione. Sono fiducioso che i proventi della vendita di legname liberiano non saranno più usati per finanziare lo spargimento di sangue. Dobbiamo anche assicurare che i diritti e le preoccupazioni dei popoli indigeni siano pienamente presi in considerazione dalle autorità della Repubblica centrafricana.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Much of the positive impact of a VPA depends on how much local communities have been involved in the process and how the implementation is monitored. If these two criteria are not sufficiently addressed, the entire VPA/FLEGT policy could become the fig leaf for an even more aggressive exploitation of the remaining large forests areas. The VPA with the Central African Republic (CAR) falls somewhat short on both, especially since the CAR also maintains a REDD process (the UN programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries); hence the implementation of the VPA needs to be especially carefully monitored.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), per iscritto. − Ritengo fondamentale la sottoscrizione dell'accordo commerciale con la Repubblica centrafricana, perché costituisce un ottimo punto di partenza per affrontare il grave problema del disboscamento illegale, rafforzando contemporaneamente le opportunità commerciali dei derivati del legno centrafricano importati in Europa.

Questo accordo contribuirà positivamente allo sviluppo complessivo e alla crescita della Repubblica centrafricana, anche mediante la salvaguardia delle entrate prodotte con l'esportazione di legname verso l'Unione europea.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), par écrit. – Tout comme je m'étais prononcée en faveur des accords FLEGT avec le Ghana, le Congo et le Cameroun, j'ai soutenu celui avec la République centrafricaine lors de cette session plénière. Ce système de partenariat volontaire permet en effet un suivi de l'ensemble de la chaine d'approvisionnement et, dès lors, une véritable amélioration des conditions commerciales du secteur du bois et des produits dérivés du bois. En pratique, l'accord renforce la transparence et la participation de la société civile, et vise à mettre fin à l’exploitation illégale. Les effets de cet accord seront d'autant plus importants que l’activité forestière est le premier employeur privé du pays, à l’origine de 4 % du PIB et de 40 % du total des recettes d’exportation du pays. Cet accord sera par ailleurs l’occasion d’évaluer sur le terrain la bonne application des droits des peuples indigènes, puisque les communautés locales et la société civile ont exigé avec force le respect du droit de consultation inscrit dans la convention n° 169 de l’OIT, qui a été ratifiée par le pays en 2010.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), per iscritto. − Come per l'analogo provvedimento relativo alla Liberia, il mio voto a questo accordo è positivo. Resto però dubbioso circa la possibilità concreta della sua attuazione da parte della Repubblica centrafricana.

Sarà responsabilità della Commissione europea vigilare affinché il patrimonio forestale di questo paese non subisca danni irreversibili e che si ponga un limite al disboscamento illegale, vera piaga che affligge l'intero continente africano.

Ad ogni modo, il mio voto positivo vuole essere un voto di fiducia nei confronti delle due parti contraenti. Spero vivamente che i provvedimenti FLEGT si dimostreranno efficaci e utili per preservare la natura e creare sviluppo in certe aree del pianeta.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), per iscritto. − Oltre a costituire uno strumento di partenariato per migliorare le norme di gestione, la sostenibilità e rendicontabilità nel settore forestale, l'accordo volontario di partenariato può contribuire positivamente allo sviluppo complessivo e alla crescita della Repubblica centrafricana.

Questo anche mediante la salvaguardia delle entrate prodotte con l'esportazione di legname verso l'Unione europea e altri mercati internazionali. In futuro anche l'economia e le comunità locali della Repubblica centrafricana dovrebbero beneficiare maggiormente del gettito fiscale derivante dallo sfruttamento industriale delle foreste.

Dopo questo voto la Repubblica centrafricana si impegnerà maggiormente per definire un quadro legislativo e sistemi per la tracciabilità, la verifica legale e le autorizzazioni a esportare il legname e i suoi derivati nel mercato dell'Unione europea nonché per determinare attività di controllo e di audit.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − Para além de constituir um instrumento de parceria tendente a melhorar as normas de gestão, a sustentabilidade e a responsabilização no setor florestal, prevê-se que o Acordo de Parceria Voluntário entre a União Europeia e a República Centro-Africana contribua positivamente para o desenvolvimento global e o crescimento nesta última, nomeadamente, salvaguardando as receitas geradas pelas exportações de madeira para a UE e outros mercados internacionais. É de realçar que, apesar de o Acordo de Parceria Voluntário prever medidas para uma melhor governação florestal e ter granjeado amplo apoio, os principais desafios residem agora na sua implementação efetiva. O apoio técnico e financeiro da UE para a implementação do APV será, para o efeito, crucial.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru raportul privind încheierea unui Acord de parteneriat voluntar între Uniunea Europeană şi Republica Centrafricană cu privire la aplicarea legislaţiei în domeniul forestier, guvernanţa şi schimburile comerciale cu lemn şi produse derivate care intră în Uniunea Europeană. Acordul cu Republica Centrafricană oferă un instrument pentru combaterea exploatării forestiere ilegale, pentru sprijinirea în vederea îmbunătăţirii normelor, guvernanţei şi aplicării legislaţiei în sectorul forestier al acestei ţări, precum şi pentru consolidarea oportunităţilor pe piaţă pentru produsele din lemn din Republica Centrafricană care intră in Europa. Pădurile acoperă aproximativ 8,7 % din suprafaţa Republicii Centrafricane, iar sectorul forestier reprezintă 4 % din PIB-ul ţării şi 40 % din veniturile provenite din exporturi. 60 % din lemnul centrafrican se exportă către Europa. Acordul reglementează toate produsele din lemn care vor fi exportate, inclusiv aşchii de lemn pentru combustibil, buşteni, rumeguş, mobilă din lemn şi furnir. Sistemul Republicii Centrafricane de verificare a legalităţii lemnului şi a produselor din lemn se va aplica tuturor exporturilor, nu doar celor destinate Uniunii Europene. Noul regulament al UE privind exploatarea lemnului, ce urmează să intre în vigoare în martie 2013, va interzice vânzarea pe piaţa UE a lemnului recoltat ilegal sau a produselor obţinute din lemn recoltat ilegal.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), schriftlich. − Ich habe diesem freiwilligen Abkommen zugestimmt, da es ein erster Schritt auf einem Weg in eine nachhaltige und wertvolle Holzwirtschaft in diesem afrikanischen Land bedeutet. Holz und seine Erzeugnisse sind der Wirtschafts- und Handelsfaktor Nummer 1 in Zentralafrika. Umso wichtiger ist eine logistische und agrikulturelle Unterstützung, um Bestandsschutz, Wiederaufforsten, Abholzpläne usw. auf einem hohen Niveau zu gewährleisten. Die EU ist für diese Maßnahmen der geeignete Partner.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The EP welcomes the conclusion of this Agreement because it seeks to: fight against illegal logging and forest degradation; eliminate inadequate law enforcement and monitoring; establish systems for verification of legal compliance; improve forest governance and sustainable use of its timber; and provide a home to many indigenous communities who depend on the use of forest resources. For all these reasons I voted in favour of the recommendation.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho espresso il mio voto favorevole su questo accordo che consente all'UE di operare maggiori controlli sul legname proveniente dalla Repubblica Centrafricana ed ha il chiaro obiettivo di porre un limite allo sfruttamento illegale delle foreste.

Mi auguro che tale accordo, che interessa le sole esportazioni di legname verso l'Unione europea, possa estendersi anche alle esportazioni verso altri paesi.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O Acordo de Parceria voluntário FLEGT com a República Centro-Africana (RCA) tem como propósito principal o combate ao problema da exploração madeireira ilegal, pela ajuda à melhoria da regulamentação, da governação e da aplicação da legislação no setor florestal na RCA. Mas como se resolve verdadeiramente o problema do abate ilegal no setor florestal destes países? Combatendo a fragilidade das economias destes países, nomeadamente erradicando a pobreza, que é uma das causas do abate ilegal de recursos florestais, única forma de subsistência de várias famílias e comunidades. Para tal, é imperioso inverter o modelo económico assente na dependência elevada da exploração e exportação de um número restrito de matérias-primas para os países industrializados, o que saqueia estes países das suas principais riquezas.

Recomendacíon: Elisabeth Köstinger (A7-0081/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), par écrit. – En tant que grande consommatrice de produits dérivés du bois, l'Union européenne a défini un plan d'action relatif à l'application des réglementations forestières, à la gouvernance et aux échanges commerciaux (FLEGT). Ce plan d'action est mis en œuvre par le biais d'accords de partenariats avec les pays producteurs tel que le Liberia. J'ai voté en faveur de cet accord qui permettra de mettre en place un ensemble de mesures visant à lutter contre l'exploitation clandestine des forêts en surveillant la chaîne d'approvisionnement et en promouvant des pratiques durables.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo este relatório. As florestas exigem parcerias para uma melhor gestão dos seus recursos. É importante que, à semelhança do acordo do mesmo âmbito com a República Centro-Africana, a União Europeia adote critérios exigentes na importação de produtos de países terceiros, de modo a que cumpram os mesmos parâmetros de qualidade exigidos aos europeus. Este acordo pode ser um bom modelo para outros projetos de parceria com países terceiros, para diversos setores de atividade.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – En décembre 2005, le Conseil a autorisé la Commission à négocier des accords de partenariat avec les pays producteurs de bois afin de mettre en œuvre le plan d’action de l’UE relatif à l’application des réglementations forestières, à la gouvernance et aux échanges commerciaux (FLEGT) et, en particulier, d’encourager le commerce et les importations dans l’Union de bois légal vérifié en provenance de ces pays partenaires. Comme avec la République centrafricaine, la Commission a entamé des négociations avec le Liberia. De la même manière, nous souhaitons veiller à la légalité des importations de bois dans l’Union européenne, et c’est pourquoi l’accord prévoit des contrôles de la chaîne d’approvisionnement, un cadre pour le contrôle de la conformité légale et des exigences en matière d’audit indépendant.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Pritariau savanoriškam Europos Sąjungos ir Liberijos susitarimo dėl miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir prekybos į Europos Sąjungą importuojama mediena (FLEGT) sudarymui. Beveik 45 proc. Liberijos teritorijos sudaro miškai, šalyje taip pat yra daugiau nei pusė Vakarų Afrikos atogrąžų miškų. Užsitęsus pilietiniam karui 1997–2003 m. iš medienos gaunamos pajamos buvo naudojamos konfliktams šalies viduje kurstyti, todėl JT Saugumo Taryba nustatė sankcijas medienos iš Liberijos importui. Pasikeitus politinei situacijai bei reformavus miškininkystės sektorių 2006 m. sankcijos buvo panaikintos. Šis savanoriškas partnerystės susitarimas ir licencijavimo sistema padės užtikrinti Liberijos medienos teisėtumo garantijas ir įtikinti tarptautinę rinką, kad Liberijos mediena pagaminta teisėtai. Pritariu Europos Parlamento rekomendacijoje išsakytiems raginimams daugiau dėmesio skirti veiksmingam SPS įgyvendinimui laiku, įskaitant pajėgumų stiprinimą ir vietos bendruomenių dalyvavimą, ir reguliariai teikti ataskaitas apie pažangą įgyvendinant SPS.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea încheierii acestui acord, deoarece consider că va contribui la încurajarea comerţului pe piaţa UE, precum şi la îmbunătăţirea guvernanţei forestiere. Apreciez faptul că aceste acorduri de parteneriat voluntare vor duce la creşterea transparenţei, la întărirea participării societăţii civile şi la oprirea exploatării forestiere ilegale. Doresc să semnalez faptul că aproximativ 45 % din suprafaţa Liberiei este acoperită de păduri. În plus, ţara deţine mai mult de jumătate din pădurile tropicale existente încă în Africa de Vest. Salut eforturile ce urmăresc transformarea sectorului forestier într-unul sustenabil şi responsabil, precum şi implicarea directă atât a societăţii civile, cât şi a industriei şi a comunităţilor care locuiesc în pădure. Consider că acordul de parteneriat voluntar cu Liberia va contribui în mod pozitiv la dezvoltarea şi creşterea economică în această ţară, ajutând totodată la combaterea degradării forestiere care are consecinţe asupra schimbărilor climatice.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho espresso voto favorevole alla conclusione di un accordo di partenariato tra l'UE e la Repubblica di Liberia sul settore forestale, perché ritengo che tale accordo abbia obiettivi molti positivi che riguardano un settore particolarmente sensibile per la Repubblica di Liberia, dato che le entrate derivanti dal legname erano utilizzate per alimentare il conflitto durante la guerra civile del paese, conclusasi nel 2003.

La Repubblica di Liberia si è impegnata infatti a garantire che tutti i prodotti del legno esportati dal paese siano realizzati in modo legale. Auspicando che la Commissione vigili sull'effettivo rispetto dell'accordo da parte del governo liberiano, sostengo i contenuti dell'accordo stesso: lotta al disboscamento illegale, miglioramento della regolamentazione e dell'applicazione delle norme nel settore forestale, definizione di sistemi per la tracciabilità e l'attività di controllo.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šią Europos Parlamento rekomendaciją dėl Europos Sąjungos ir Liberijos Respublikos savanoriškos partnerystės susitarimo dėl miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir prekybos į Europos Sąjungą importuojamais medienos produktais sudarymo projekto, kadangi šiame susitarime Liberija įsipareigojo sukurti sistemą, kuria būtų užtikrinama, kad visi iš Liberijos eksportuojami medienos gaminiai būtų pagaminti teisėtai. Be to, Liberijoje vartojama teisėtos medienos apibrėžtis taikoma ne tik savanoriškos partnerystės susitarime išvardytiems gaminiams, ji taip pat taikoma medienos skiedroms, rąstams ir mediniams baldams, taip pat apima įvairius medienos gamybos aspektus, įskaitant teisių kirsti suteikimą, darbuotojų teises ir su aplinka susijusius įsipareigojimus. Liberijoje savanoriškos partnerytės susitarimo sudarymo procese buvo laikomasi ypač aktyviu įvairių suinteresuotųjų subjektų dalyvavimu pagrįsto požiūrio, procese tiesiogiai dalyvavo pilietinės visuomenės ir pramonės atstovai, taip pat pirmą kartą dalyvavo miškuose būstus turinčių gyventojų bendruomenės, į kurių susirūpinimą ir interesus buvo ypač atsižvelgiama šiame savanoriškos partnerystės susitarime. Be to, savanoriškos partnerystės susitarimo sudarymo procese ypatingas dėmesys buvo skiriamas teisėtumo tikrinimo sistemai, nepriklausomam auditui, pilietinės visuomenės vaidmeniui stebint susitarimo įgyvendinimą, taip pat skaidrumui ir keitimuisi informacija. Taigi, ES ir Liberijos savanoriškos partnerystės susitarimas parengtas skaidriai, procese aktyviai dalyvaujant iki šiol daugiausiai dalyvių, įskaitant visus svarbiausius suinteresuotuosius subjektus, susijusius su miškų sektoriumi.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − La Repubblica di Liberia si sta rapidamente allontanando dalle pagine meno felici della sua storia, grazie in particolare a una serie di riforme fiscali e del diritto di impresa.

Pur restando tra i paesi meno prosperi dell’area subsahariana, la Liberia ha comunque dimostrato sensibili miglioramenti della sua economia, cresciuta intorno a valori medi del 6% annuo. In questo contesto, l’AVP FLEGT può determinare effetti positivi particolarmente marcati, perché investe un settore importante dell’economia liberiana, anche nelle sue implicazioni di carattere sociale, istituzionale e politico.

Dal punto di vista della costruzione di un quadro più robusto di legalità, di un sistema di opportunità diffuse (a cominciare dalle comunità residenti nei territori di produzione), di una maggiore integrazione della Liberia nei mercati internazionali, che vale come garanzia di stabilità politica, certamente l’accordo costituisce un contributo importante e positivo. Non posso pertanto che esprimere un voto favorevole al testo proposto.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I chose to abstain from this vote as, on principle, insuring the import of legally felled timber products is vital both for environmental sustenance and the preservation of fair trade. However, I do not advocate EU legislation as the mechanism for these controls. It is also important to highlight that several third country negotiations with the EU in the past have been disadvantageous for the country concerned. With the propensity for corruption and liability of the timber trade to black-market negotiations, I am not confident that the EU will ensure a system that is both watertight and effective.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − A exploração e o comércio de madeira ilegal prejudicam a competitividade das indústrias florestais lícitas, tanto nos países de exportação como de importação, limitando a capacidade destas indústrias realizarem operações que promovam uma gestão sustentável das florestas, bem como o desenvolvimento sustentável. No caso liberiano reveste uma particular importância dado que recaíram sobre este país durante bastante tempo sanções da ONU à importação de madeira devido ao envolvimento do setor no financiamento da guerra civil.

Note-se que aproximadamente 45% do território é coberto por florestas permitindo, este acordo de parceria voluntário com a UE, à Libéria responder simultaneamente aos problemas associados ao abate e ao comércio ilegal, melhorar a sustentabilidade florestal e alargar as oportunidades de mercado com a União no setor da madeira. Considero de igual modo positivo o facto de o acordo de parceria com a Libéria ter assistido a uma abordagem multilateral com um elevado índice de participação da sociedade civil, das indústrias e das comunidades com áreas florestais, tendo sido dada especial atenção ao novo sistema de verificação da legalidade, às auditorias independentes, à transparência do processo e à troca de informações e à criação de um comité misto de execução que supervisionará o Acordo.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei a favor deste relatório por considerar que estes acordos de parceria voluntários são a base de um plano de ação da UE relativamente à aplicação da legislação florestal, à governação e ao comércio (FLEGT). A Libéria apresenta um contexto muito particular, uma vez que aproximadamente 45% do seu território é coberta por floresta. Os esforços deste país no sentido de reformar o setor florestal devem ser reconhecidos e incentivados.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Tendo em conta que cerca de 45% da República da Libéria é coberta por floresta e que o país alberga metade das florestas tropicais ainda existentes na África Ocidental e atendendo a que, grande parte destas florestas foram esventradas durante os 14 anos de guerra civil para financiamento da própria guerra, só posso saudar os esforços da atual Presidente da Libéria no sentido de estruturar o setor florestal e criar um quadro legal que permita a comercialização sustentável das madeiras daquele país. Neste contexto vejo com bom grado o Acordo de Parceria voluntário entre a União Europeia e a República da Libéria no que diz respeito aos produtos da madeira.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Cerca de 45% do território da Libéria está coberto por floresta tropical cuja madeira serviu para financiar o conflito armado entre 1997 e 2003, o que levou o Conselho de Segurança da ONU a decretar o embargo de madeira proveniente deste país até 2006. O texto em apreciação versa sobre o projeto de decisão do Conselho em relação à assinatura de um acordo de parceria voluntário (APV) entre a União Europeia (EU) e a Libéria relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal no que respeita à madeira e produtos derivados importados pela UE no âmbito do plano de ação FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade). Trata-se de uma iniciativa da UE que pretende impedir a entrada na Europa de madeiras exploradas ilegalmente. Para que o acordo de parceria voluntário, assinado em 27 de julho de 2011, entre a UE e a Libéria possa entrar em vigor, é necessário que seja, previamente, aprovado pelo Parlamento Europeu. Votei favoravelmente esta recomendação porque considero fundamental a existência de legislação que promova a sustentabilidade do setor florestal e impeça o abate indiscriminado de madeira. Além disso, este APV contribuirá para o desenvolvimento global e sustentável da Libéria.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório recomenda a celebração do Acordo de Parceria Voluntário (APV) FLEGT com a Libéria. Tal como os outros acordos FLEGT, o objetivo passa por resolver o problema da exploração madeireira ilegal, ajudar também a melhorar a regulamentação, a governação e a aplicação da legislação no setor florestal nesses dois países e reforçar as oportunidades de mercado para os produtos de madeira na Europa. Os APV visam dotar os países terceiros de regulamentos a nível nacional, de forma a implementar sistemas de verificação da conformidade e da rastreabilidade em toda a cadeia de abastecimento, de normas de abate e controlos de expedições destinadas à exportação. Com isto, a UE garante um acesso favorável aos produtos da madeira oriunda da Libéria.

Toda esta abordagem não está isenta de contradições. Estes acordos não são, por si só, a resolução para o combate ao abate ilegal de madeira. A Libéria, como outros países africanos, é um país extremamente pobre. Por esta razão, importa, antes de mais, promover o desenvolvimento destes países, apoiando a diversificação das suas economias, invertendo um modelo económico assente na dependência elevada da exploração e exportação de um número restrito de matérias-primas para os países industrializados, sustentando relações neocoloniais de dependência e subjugação, que levam à exaustão dos recursos.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − V decembri 2005 Rada splnomocnila Komisiu, aby prerokovala niekoľko dobrovoľných dohôd o partnerstve s krajinami produkujúcimi a vyvážajúcimi drevo s cieľom podporiť obchod s legálne vyťaženým drevom a zlepšiť správu lesného hospodárstva. Tieto dvojstranné dohody sú základom akčného plánu EÚ a sú zamerané predovšetkým na zastavenie nezákonnej ťažby dreva. Partnerské krajiny sa nimi zaväzujú dovážať do EÚ iba produkty z dreva pochádzajúceho z overených zákonných zdrojov. Zároveň vytvoria za podpory EÚ vlastné systémy na overovanie zákonnosti vývozu dreva do EÚ. V júli 2011 bola podpísaná dohoda s Libériou ako šiesta dohoda o partnerstve tohto druhu, o ktorej sa malo rokovať. Podobne ako v prípade predchádzajúcich dobrovoľných dohôd o partnerstve sa i od dohody s Libériou očakáva, že pomôže zlepšiť správu a vynútiteľnosť práva v odvetví lesného hospodárstva tejto krajiny. Okrem zriadenia nástroja partnerstva, ktorý umožní Libérii zastaviť nelegálne odlesňovanie a degradáciu lesov, by sa touto dohodou mali zlepšiť príležitosti trhu pre výrobky z libérijského dreva na európskom trhu a ďalších medzinárodných trhoch. Prikláňam sa k udeleniu parlamentného súhlasu s uzatvorením tejto dohody. Považujem však za potrebné zdôrazniť, že Libéria aj Európska komisia budú musieť venovať dostatočnú pozornosť jej účinnému a včasnému presadzovaniu vrátane budovania kapacít a zapojenia miestnych spoločenstiev.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I supported this report and welcome the VPA with Liberia. However, I echo the rapporteur’s comments and reiterate that ethical logging will only take place if there is adequate enforcement.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau susitarimo sudarymui, nes tikimasi, kad, kaip ir ankstesni savanoriškos partnerystės susitarimai, šis su Liberija sudarytas susitarimas padės pagerinti šalies miškininkystės sektoriaus valdyseną ir teisės aktų įgyvendinimą. Savanoriškos partnerystės susitarimas ne tik padėjo sukurti partnerystės priemonę, sudarysiančią Liberijai sąlygas užkirsti kelią miškų naikinimui ir alinimui, kuris prisideda prie klimato kaitos, bet ir turėtų pagerinti galimybes Liberijos medienos gaminiams įsitvirtinti Europos ir kitose tarptautinėse rinkose. Todėl galima tikėtis, kad šis susitarimas turės teigiamą poveikį Liberijos vystymuisi ir augimui.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport qui vise à mettre en œuvre le plan d'action de l'Union européenne en matière de règlementations forestières, de gouvernance et d'échanges commerciaux. Le Parlement européen a ainsi donné son approbation à cet accord. Cet accord avec le Liberia a pour but de développer la gestion des forêts et de lutter contre l'exploitation illégale.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I believe that the VPA with Liberia is all the more important because almost 45% of Liberia is covered by forest and the country hosts over half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. The objective pursued through this VPA is to contribute to the protection of intact forest landscapes and to ensure that the local forestry sector engages in an environmentally and socially sustainable pathway, and that regular and efficient monitoring is put in place with respect to the VPA's implementation. For this reason, I voted in favour of this recommendation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Like the previous voluntary partnership agreements, the hope is that the one with Liberia will help improve governance and law enforcement in the country’s forestry sector. Along with establishing a partnership tool to enable Liberia to halt illegal deforestation and forest degradation contributing to climate change, the VPA should improve market opportunities for Liberian timber products in European and other international markets, thereby also enabling it to contribute positively to Liberia’s overall development and growth. The EU-Liberia VPA is considered to have been developed in a transparent manner with, so far, the strongest participation, involving all key forest stakeholders. The various stakeholders will continue to be involved in the implementation and monitoring of the VPA and will thereby contribute to transparency, accountability and good governance in the sector. The challenges lie, however, with effective implementation and monitoring. In Liberia, the agreement is in the implementation stage yet is proceeding slowly. For Liberia, a critical point is capacity building, for which support from the EU and its Member States is needed.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Em dezembro de 2005, o Conselho autorizou a Comissão a negociar uma série de acordos de parceria voluntários (APV) com países produtores e exportadores de madeira, de modo a fomentar a comercialização de madeira abatida de forma legal para o mercado da UE e a melhorar a governação florestal em países parceiros. Estes acordos bilaterais constituem uma pedra angular do plano de ação da UE relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal (FLEGT) para pôr fim à exploração madeireira ilegal. Os APV obrigam os países parceiros a comercializar para a UE apenas produtos de madeira legal verificada. Para verificar a legalidade das exportações de madeira, os acordos estabelecem um quadro, instituições e sistemas de um regime de licenciamento, definindo também controlos da cadeia de abastecimento, um quadro para controlo da conformidade jurídica e requisitos de auditoria independente. Os países parceiros desenvolvem, nos termos dos APV e com o apoio da UE, os seus sistemas de verificação da legalidade das suas exportações de madeira para a UE. Este acordo com a Libéria é mais um passo no sentido de acabar com a importação de madeira ilegal dos países africanos.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − These Voluntary Partnership Agreements are a cornerstone of the EU’s Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. They establish partnerships with timber-producing and exporting countries aimed at halting illegal logging, promoting sound forest governance and ensuring that only legally-harvested timber reaches the EU market. I am sure the agreements are a partnership tool for improving forest governance. Partner countries and the Commission will thus need to devote sufficient attention to effective and timely enforcement. I voted in favour.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šią rezoliuciją, kuria pritariama ES ir Liberijos savanoriškos partnerystės susitarimo dėl miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir prekybos į ES importuojamais medienos produktais sudarymo. Visų pirma, susitarimas užtikrins teisėtą Liberijos medienos gamybą, kadangi dėl tam tikrų ankstesnių pažeidimų Liberijos medienos reputacija tarptautinėje rinkoje yra prasta. Be to, yra būtina stiprinti teisinę sistemą, siekiant skatinti tvarų miškų valdymą ir įtraukti vietos bendruomenes į sprendimų priėmimo procesą.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente a recomendação do Parlamento Europeu sobre o projeto de decisão do Conselho relativa à celebração do Acordo de Parceria voluntário entre a União Europeia e a República da Libéria relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal no que respeita aos produtos de madeira importados para a União Europeia. Fi-lo por acreditar que este instrumento de parceria irá contribuir positivamente para o desenvolvimento e crescimento globais da Libéria e porque se prevê que permitirá à Libéria pôr fim à desflorestação ilegal e à degradação florestal, que contribuem para as alterações climáticas.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − Estes acordos bilaterais constituem uma pedra angular do plano de ação da UE relativo à aplicação da legislação, à governação e ao comércio no setor florestal para pôr fim à exploração madeireira ilegal. À semelhança de anteriores acordos de parceria voluntários, espera-se que o acordo com a Libéria ajude a melhorar a governação e a aplicação da lei no setor florestal do país. Além de criar um instrumento de parceria que permita à Libéria pôr fim à desflorestação ilegal e à degradação florestal, que contribuem para as alterações climáticas, o APV deve melhorar as oportunidades de mercado para os produtos de madeira liberiana nos mercados europeus e noutros mercados internacionais. Desta forma, e por considerar que o acordo pode contribuir positivamente para o desenvolvimento e crescimento globais da Libéria, votei em sentido favorável.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Bilateral Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with the main wood-producing countries are the cornerstone of the EU Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) to halt illegal logging. So far, the EU has concluded VPA/FLEGTs with Ghana, Congo, Cameroon and the Central African Republic. An agreement with Indonesia is pending. VPAs commit the partners to trade only in verified legal timber products imported into the EU. In order to verify the legality of timber exports, the VPA establishes the framework, institutions and systems of a licensing scheme and sets out supply chain controls. It also devises a framework for monitoring implementation. Liberia is an important partner. 45 per cent of the country is covered with forest and is home to half of West Africa’s remaining rain forests. During the civil war (1997-2003), timber revenues were used to fuel the conflict, which in turn led to UN sanctions against the Liberian timber trade. In 2006, Liberia reformed the forestry sector. Hence it already has in place a national wood traceability system on which the VPA is built. A joint implementation committee will be established to oversee the implementation of the agreement.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), par écrit. – Tout comme je m'étais prononcée en faveur des accords FLEGT avec le Ghana, le Congo et le Cameroun, j'ai soutenu celui avec le Liberia lors de cette session plénière. Ce système de partenariat volontaire permet un suivi de l'ensemble de la chaine d'approvisionnement et, dès lors, une véritable amélioration des conditions commerciales du secteur du bois et des produits dérivés du bois. En pratique, l'accord renforce la transparence et la participation de la société civile, et vise à mettre fin à l’exploitation illégale. Il faut toutefois souligner que le gouvernement du Liberia doit faire preuve d’une volonté politique ferme en complétant les moyens financiers apportés par les autres donateurs de l’Union européenne pour soutenir les communautés et les organisations de la société civile et en adoptant un décret afin de conférer un statut juridique au comité directeur prévu par l'accord.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), per iscritto. − Il mio voto a questo accordo è positivo e decisamente favorevole.

Restano tuttavia i dubbi circa la possibilità concreta della Liberia di poter rispettare l'impegno preso con l'Europa. Sarà compito e dovere della Commissione europea vigilare affinché il patrimonio forestale di questo paese resti intatto e che si ponga un limite al disboscamento illegale, vera piaga che affligge il continente africano. Quindi, il mio voto positivo vuole essere un voto di fiducia nei confronti delle due parti contraenti.

Spero vivamente che i provvedimenti FLEGT, tra cui questo, siano efficaci e utili per preservare la natura e creare sviluppo in certe aree del mondo.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), per iscritto. − Le foreste coprono circa il 45% del territorio della Liberia, Paese che ospita oltre la metà delle restanti foreste pluviali dell'Africa occidentale. La lunga guerra civile, che è durata dal 1997 al 2003 ha coinvolto profondamente il settore forestale: le entrate derivanti dal legname sono state usate per alimentare il conflitto, inducendo il Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite a imporre sanzioni sulle importazioni di legname liberiano. Oltre a costituire uno strumento di partenariato atto a consentire alla Liberia di fermare la deforestazione illegale e il degrado delle foreste, che contribuiscono al cambiamento climatico, l'Accordo volontario di partenariato dovrebbe migliorare le opportunità di mercato dei prodotti del legno in Europa e in altri mercati internazionali. In questo modo esso potrà contribuire positivamente anche allo sviluppo generale e alla crescita della Liberia.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − O Acordo de Parceria voluntário entre a União Europeia e República da Libéria deverá ajudar a melhorar a governação e a aplicação da lei no setor florestal do país. Além de criar um instrumento de parceria que permite à Libéria pôr fim à desflorestação ilegal e à degradação florestal, o Acordo deve melhorar as oportunidades de mercado para os produtos de madeira liberiana nos mercados europeus e noutros mercados internacionais. Os principais desafios residem agora na sua efetiva implementação e monitorização, pois, para a Libéria, um ponto crítico é o reforço das capacidades, em relação ao qual é necessário o apoio da UE e dos seus Estados-Membros.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru proiectul de decizie a Consiliului privind încheierea Acordului de parteneriat voluntar între Uniunea Europeană şi Republica Liberia cu privire la aplicarea legislaţiei în domeniul forestier, la guvernanţă şi la schimburile comerciale cu produse din lemn care întră în Uniunea Europeană. Aproape 45 % din suprafaţa Liberiei este acoperită de păduri, iar ţara deţine mai mult de jumătate din pădurile tropicale existente încă în Africa de Vest. Regulamentul privind lemnul, care va intra în vigoare în martie 2013, are ca scop facilitarea comerţului legitim al produselor din lemn şi asigurarea unor condiţii de egalitate pentru toţi participanţii la piaţă. Acesta va interzice vânzarea în UE a lemnului recoltat ilegal şi a produselor fabricate din acest lemn, în conformitate cu normele ţării de origine. Regulamentul stabileşte obligaţiile pentru operatorii care plasează lemn sau produse conexe pe piaţa UE. El va avea drept scop garantarea accesului pe pieţele europene al produselor provenite din surse legale şi stoparea, în acelaşi timp, a despăduririi în Liberia. Solicit Comisiei să prezinte în mod regulat Parlamentului progresele în ceea ce priveşte implementarea acordurilor voluntare de parteneriat existente şi negocierea şi implementarea noilor acorduri.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − This agreement has been set up in order to boost the legal and fair trade in harvested timber on to the EU market and improve legal and sustainable forest governance in partner countries. Almost 45 % of Liberia is covered by forest and the country hosts over half of West Africa’s remaining rainforests. Therefore it is in our common interest to protect this area against deforestation and I voted in favour of this recommendation.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho espresso il mio voto favorevole all'accordo UE-Liberia sull'applicazione delle normative nel settore forestale, sulla governance e sul commercio del legname e dei suoi derivati perché è un importante passo in avanti per porre un limite allo sfruttamento illegale delle foreste.

L'accordo, infatti, oltre ad offrire garanzie sulle quantità di legname importato, offre una maggiore trasparenza specie sulle caratteristiche della produzione.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório recomenda a celebração do Acordo de Parceria Voluntário (APV) FLEGT com a Libéria. Os APV visam dotar os países terceiros de regulamentos a nível nacional, de forma a implementar sistemas de verificação da conformidade e da rastreabilidade em toda a cadeia de abastecimento, de normas de abate e controlos de expedições destinadas a exportação, neste caso em relação ao setor florestal. No entanto, consideramos que a verdadeira solução para o combate ao abate ilegal de madeira é a supressão da pobreza nestes países, a promoção do seu desenvolvimento, apoiando a diversificação das suas economias, invertendo um modelo económico assente na dependência elevada da exploração e exportação de um número restrito de matérias-primas para os países industrializados, sustentando relações neocoloniais de dependência e subjugação, que levam à exaustão de recursos.

Informe: Danuta Maria Hübner (A7-0067/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport Hübner qui permettra aux pays en crise de mobiliser l'instrument de partage des risques. Grâce à cet instrument, ces pays peuvent réorienter une partie des fonds régionaux qui leur sont alloués. Ces fonds seront confiés à la Commission européenne qui conclura un partenariat de partage des risques avec la BEI. L'objectif est de garantir les risques encourus par les investisseurs privés qui participent aux projets financés partiellement par les fonds régionaux.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo a presente proposta, pois é particularmente útil neste momento de grave crise económica e social que afeta toda a Europa e especialmente os países que atualmente recebem ajuda externa, como Portugal, Grécia e Irlanda. Há também que perspetivar aqueles Estados-Membros que estão ameaçados na sua estabilidade financeira como a Espanha e a Itália que podem depois afetar toda a estabilidade macroeconómica da União Europeia. Deste modo, considero também que está claro que países como os que referi não poderão sair da crise sem uma utilizaççao eficaz da Política de Coesão, sendo o cofinanciamento europeu essencial para gerar projetos de investimento reprodutivos. Como sempre defendi, esta proposta permitirá a transferência de parte das alocações financeiras disponíveis para a Política de Coesão para estes Estados-Membros no período 2007-2013, o que pode cobrir os riscos relacionados com os empréstimos e garantias dadas aos promotores dos projetos, e porque como está proposto tal não implicaria mudanças na alocação global da Política de Coesão no período 2007-2013.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho appoggiato questa proposta perché mira a rendere possibile la prosecuzione dei programmi cofinanziati dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR) e dal Fondo di coesione, che stanno incontrando difficoltà di attuazione negli Stati membri che sono interessati da programmi di assistenza finanziaria e fronteggiano problemi di liquidità in conseguenza del perdurare della crisi economica e finanziaria.

Con questa proposta per i sei Stati membri che soddisfano le condizioni (Grecia, Irlanda, Portogallo, Ungheria, Romania e Lettonia), anche se la situazione di maggiore urgenza si manifesta attualmente in Grecia, sarà garantita l'esecuzione dei programmi finanziati dai Fondi strutturali e dal Fondo di coesione, da un lato, e dall'altro il mantenimento dell'accesso ai finanziamenti a favore dei progetti.

La proposta contiene disposizioni che finalmente permetterebbero la creazione di uno strumento di condivisione dei rischi. L’operazione riguarderebbe, senza alcun incremento, le risorse già assegnate allo Stato membro interessato all’inizio del periodo di programmazione 2007-2013 a titolo della politica di coesione, quindi senza alcun impatto aggiuntivo per il bilancio comunitario.

Si tratta di un intervento neutrale per il bilancio UE e di uno degli interventi per fronteggiare la situazione di emergenza determinatasi in Grecia, per la quale è importante anche una tempestiva entrata in vigore del regolamento al fine di poter sbloccare i progetti potenzialmente interessati.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – L'instrument de partage des risques peut accroître la participation du secteur privé au financement d'importants projets dans des pays européens particulièrement touchés par la crise afin de créer des emplois et de la croissance. J’ai donc donné mon accord pour que la Grèce, puis les autres pays en difficultés, puissent relancer des grands projets d'infrastructures bloqués par manque de liquidités, et par la frilosité des banques et des investisseurs privés. Mon expérience des fonds de la politique de cohésion me permet d’affirmer que l’argent du Fonds Européen de Développement Régional (FEDER) non engagé sera une garantie solide pour la Grèce pour couvrir une partie des risques associés aux prêts privés. C'est donc un instrument de partage des risques, entre la Commission et la Banque européenne d'investissement. « Les paquets d'austérité dans les économies les plus affectées par la crise n'ont pas généré de croissance à cause des dysfonctionnements des secteurs bancaires et de la peur de trop grands risques. Il y a par conséquent une urgente nécessité de débloquer des prêts de la BEI et des garanties pour permettre une implication du secteur privé dans des projets porteurs de croissance et d'emploi » a très justement souligné ma collègue en charge du rapport, Danuta Hübner.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Pritariau šiam pranešimui. Labiausiai nuo finansų ir ekonomikos krizės nukentėjusiose valstybėse narėse, t. y Graikijoje, Airijoje, Portugalijoje ir Rumunijoje, kilo pavojus, jog kai kurie strateginiai projektai, kurie buvo atrinkti bendram finansavimui pagal sanglaudos politikos programas, nebus įgyvendinti, nes privataus sektoriaus investuotojai ir bankai arba neturi pakankamo likvidumo, kad skolintų projektams ir projektų vystytojams, arba nebenori prisiimti investavimo esamomis sąlygomis rizikos. Šiuo reglamentu bus suteikiama išskirtinė išimtis sanglaudos politikos srities projektų įgyvendinimui, siekiant užtikrinti nuoseklų minimų valstybių narių ekonominį augimą ir vystymąsi ateityje įgyvendinant infrastruktūros ir investicijų projektus.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Appoggio la relazione dell'onorevole Danuta Maria Hübner, con la quale si modifica il regolamento sul Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, sul Fondo sociale europeo e sul Fondo di coesione a causa della crisi economica globale.

Con tale modifica si apre infatti la possibilità per i paesi dell'Unione che hanno incontrato gravi difficoltà, di poter utilizzare parte delle risorse finanziarie di questi fondi per creare strumenti in grado di garantire una maggiore ripresa economica.

Gli Stati membri che ne facciano richiesta dovranno fornire adeguate garanzie e presentare concreti progetti di investimento, inoltre la supervisione sarà affidata alla BEI che garantirà quindi ulteriori controlli nella gestione. Questa è una misura dai connotati eccezionali e temporanei, che non comporta aumenti di stanziamenti rispetto a quelli già previsti dalla politica di coesione e che vede la sua naturale fine col rientro dalla situazione di crisi.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą, kadangi Europos Komisijos pasiūlymu siekiama užtikrinti Europos regioninės plėtros fondo ir Sanglaudos fondo finansuojamų programų įgyvendinimo tęstinumą, siekiant finansinę paramą gaunančių valstybių narių ekonomikos atgaivinimo. Šiuo metu Europos Sąjunga patiria nuolatinę ekonomikos ir finansų krizę, kuri ne tik veikia daugelio valstybių narių makroekonominį stabilumą, bet ir galimybę gauti finansavimą visoje Europos Sąjungoje. Tai kelia grėsmę sanglaudos politikos programų įgyvendinimui, nes likvidumo problemos, kurių patiria finansų įstaigos, riboja lėšų sumas, kurias jos galėtų skirti viešiesiems ir privatiesiems subjektams, vykdantiems projektus pagal šias programas. Taikant Komisijos pasiūlymo nuostatas dėl rizikos pasidalijimo priemonės sukūrimo ketinama šalinti rimtas kliūtis, su kuriomis susiduria kai kurios valstybės narės, ypač Graikija, siekdamos gauti privačių lėšų, reikalingų įgyvendinant infrastruktūros ir produktyvių investicijų projektus, kurie gali būti tik iš dalies finansuojami valstybinėmis lėšomis. Siūloma priemonė yra įprastos sistemos, kurioje įgyvendinama sanglaudos politika, išimtis, kurią pateisina tik išskirtinės, dėl krizės atsiradusios aplinkybės. Tad šia priemone siekiama padengti dalį rizikos, susijusios su skolinimu bankams ar projektų vystytojams valstybėse narėse, kurios turi didelių finansinio stabilumo sunkumų arba kurioms gresia tokie sunkumai, siekiant išsaugoti privačių investuotojų dalyvavimą ir įveikti svarbias kliūtis, su kuriomis susiduriama įgyvendinant sanglaudos politikos programas.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − La relazione individua chiaramente le ragioni di questa ulteriore modifica del regolamento (CE) n. 1083/2006 del Consiglio nella situazione venutasi a creare in alcuni paesi interessati dall’assistenza dell’UE o del FMI.

Le istituzioni europee devono impegnarsi a decifrare le evoluzioni della vicenda della crisi e ad adottare rapidamente misure efficaci utili a far fronte alle nuove situazioni; soprattutto nel caso in cui importanti operazioni di stabilizzazione siano messe a rischio dal mutare del quadro generale e soprattutto dalla sopravvenuta indisponibilità di finanziamenti privati, necessari ad investimenti per la ripresa.

Non intervenire adeguatamente comporta il rischio di vanificare l’intera strategia di risanamento, significa anche mancare agli obblighi morali verso i cittadini degli Stati membri che sopportano le ricadute sociali negative delle azioni di stabilizzazione, adottate in termini di riforme strutturali imposte in una logica di estrema urgenza, senza adeguati processi di mediazione politica e culturale.

Questo ulteriore intervento di modifica, nella disciplina degli strumenti di condivisione del rischio, rappresenta pertanto un’espressione di vitalità e di azione politica tempestiva ed efficace, e prudente nella natura e nella finalità delle misure contemplate. La relazione incontra il mio parere favorevole.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − Uniunea Europeană se confruntă în prezent cu o criză economică şi financiară persistentă, care afectează nu numai stabilitatea macroeconomică a multor state membre, ci şi accesul la finanţare peste tot în Uniunea Europeană. Scopul acestei măsuri este de a găsi o soluţie pentru problemele grave cu care se confruntă anumite state membre, în ceea ce priveşte obţinerea finanţărilor private necesare pentru realizarea unor proiecte de infrastructură şi de investiţii productive, care pot fi finanţate din fonduri publice doar parţial. Propunerea Comisiei se referă numai la proiectele care generează venituri, deoarece costurile de investiţii acoperite din venituri nu sunt eligibile pentru cofinanţare din partea UE. În statele membre care sunt cel mai grav afectate de criza financiară şi economică există riscul ca o serie de proiecte strategice care au fost selectate pentru a fi cofinanţate prin programele politicii de coeziune să nu fie realizate, deoarece investitorii din sectorul privat şi băncile fie nu dispun de lichidităţi pentru a acorda împrumuturi pentru proiecte şi responsabililor de proiecte, fie nu mai doresc să-şi asume riscurile unor investiţii în condiţiile actuale.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against the creation of a risk-sharing instrument to enable the full absorption of regional funds through private match funding, although it is not objectionable in its purposes. What concerns me is the fact that the Commission has had to resort to the creation of such a facility to underwrite loans from the private sector due to the ongoing crisis in the eurozone. This is yet another example of the Commission seeking to equip themselves with a legal tool to fight a particular battle, while the war still rages because the bigger issues are not being addressed. As a result the risk sharing instrument enables the Commission to blindly pursue European ideals through regional funding that may or may not reflect the best interests of the Member States concerned, while failing to address the endemic ideological problems that are the authors of the ongoing fiscal crisis.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – L'adoption du rapport Hübner est une très bonne nouvelle pour le retour à la croissance au sein de l'Union. Je suis satisfait de l'introduction du nouvel instrument de partage des risques liés à l'octroi de prêts. Ce dernier devrait permettre de débloquer de nouveaux financements en provenance du secteur privé. Je partage l'avis du rapporteur sur la nécessité de renforcer les dispositifs d'aides financières de manière à faciliter les investissements productifs. Ce rapport présente des mesures de bon sens face aux difficultés rencontrées par la Grèce, l'Irlande, le Portugal ou encore la Roumanie. Je note que le Conseil approuve la position du Parlement européen. Cela démontre une nouvelle fois que ce rapport est équilibré et qu'il répond à une nécessité.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − This report is welcomed as a flexible solution to problems posed by financial instability. It would make little sense, either to the EU or Member States, for infrastructural projects which are currently under construction, and part-funded by EU funds to go uncompleted. Though the Irish Government does not intend availing of the new risk-sharing provisions, the more flexible solution sought and achieved on this occasion is noted and welcome.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), per iscritto. − La relazione si propone di aiutare gli Stati membri più colpiti dalla crisi finanziaria e incapaci di garantire il finanziamento privato necessario al completamento di infrastrutture producenti entrate. I partner privati non sono in grado di investire a causa di problemi di liquidità e delle difficoltà di accedere ai prestiti, per questo si trasferisce una parte delle dotazioni finanziarie dei singoli Stati membri alla Commissione, per creare un fondo per coprire rischi legati ai prestiti. Questo significa che, per consentire il completamento di opere in fase di realizzazione, alcuni Stati, di fatto, si privano di una parte delle loro dotazioni. Per parte nostra - nonostante il sostegno allo strumento, avremmo preferito un intervento, in qualche modo strutturale, per affrontare l'endemica carenza di liquidità di un gran numero di Stati membri, al fine di garantire un miglioramento nelle performance di spesa, evitando, quindi di dover far ricorso a misure drastiche che possano comportare una riduzione delle risorse. A questo proposito, siamo convinti che queste difficoltà possano essere superate attraverso l'introduzione di una deroga al patto di stabilità e crescita, per consentire il cofinanziamento nazionale di progetti ritenuti particolarmente rilevanti ai fini della ripresa economica e della creazione di posti di lavoro.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Salut propunerea Comisiei și consider că scopul acesteia este de a asigura continuarea punerii în aplicare a programelor cofinanțate prin Fondul european de dezvoltare regională (FEDER) și prin Fondul de coeziune în contextul redresării economice a statelor membre care primesc asistență financiară.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai soutenu l’adoption de ce rapport qui permettra aux nations dont la stabilité financière est menacée par les spéculateurs d’obtenir des aides leur permettant de regagner la confiance des prêteurs et de maintenir ainsi leurs projets d’investissements. Je me félicite de l’introduction d’un plafond limitant les risques pour les prêteurs. Ainsi, l’Union soutient ses pays face à cette crise tout en s’engageant afin de regagner la confiance des marchés.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − Az elhúzódó gazdasági és pénzügyi válság megkérdőjelezi egyes országok makroökonómiai stabilitását.

Az érintett tagállamok költségvetési és adósságválsága olyan rendkívüli helyzeteket eredményezett, hogy azok a kohéziós és strukturális politika keretein belül nem tudnak végrehajtani fontos projekteket. A bankszektor kevés hajlandóságot mutat a finanszírozásra, ugyanakkor magánbefektetők sem állnak rendelkezésre.

A súlyosan érintett országok nem tudnak növekedést generálni, és egyes országokban a magán társfinanszírozások hiánya miatt leálltak a beruházások.

A magánszektort mindenképp be kell vonni az infrastrukturális projektek megvalósításába. Európának növekedésre van szüksége, amely csak úgy képzelhető el, ha mint kockázatmegosztó eszköz biztosítjuk az Európai Unió régióiban a Regionális Fejlesztési Alap és Kohéziós Alap pénzeinek abszorpcióját.

Erősíteni kell a szinergiákat az alapok között, mert csak így érhetjük el a hatékony felhasználást.

A társfinanszírozás és állami finanszírozás szabályai rendkívül merevek. Az hogy 95%-ra emelték a társfinanszírozás arányát némi segítséget jelent, azonban ez még mindig nem elégséges. A kohéziós politikák végrehajtási keretét újra kell gondolni, és azokban az esetekben ahol válság áltál indokolt problémák lépnek fel, alkalmazni kell ezeket a kockázatmegosztási lehetőségeket.

Ez a jogalkotási javaslat nem csak Görögországon segít, hanem számos, a válság által érintett tagállamon is. Ez a kockázatmegosztó eszköz lehetővé teszi a tagállamok számára a gyors, hatékony végrehajtást, és a már megkezdett projektek megvalósításának folytatását. A kockázatmegosztás ugyanakkor azt jelenti, hogy az Európai Bizottság és az Európai Beruházási Bank közösen tudnak majd fellépni annak érdekében, hogy a magánszektor befektetéseit is hatékonyabban be tudják vonni a projektek végrehajtásába.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório uma vez que tem por objetivo ajudar os Estados-Membros mais afetados pela crise financeira, possibilitando-lhes a execução dos programas financiados pelos fundos estruturais e de coesão. Esta proposta irá permitir a transferência de dotações financeiras disponíveis para a política de coesão para estes Estados-Membros de modo a cobrir os riscos relativos aos empréstimos e dar garantias aos promotores dos projetos.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Atualmente existem vários países a ser objeto de ajuda por parte da União Europeia e do Fundo Monetário Internacional. O que se pretende nesta revisão do Regulamento, a terceira desde o início da crise económica, é assegurar a prossecução da implementação dos programas cofinanciados pelo Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) e pelo Fundo de Coesão no contexto de recuperação económica dos Estados-Membros sob assistência financeira.

Assim, visa-se a criação de um regime de exceção temporário ao quadro destes dois programas através da criação de um mecanismo de partilha de riscos, de modo a evitar a paralisação total de projetos de infraestruturas, por falta de captação de cofinanciamento privado. Cumpre dizer que só serão elegíveis projetos para financiamento a título do mecanismo de partilha de riscos, os projetos relativamente aos quais o Banco Europeu de Investimento ou instituições análogas tenham tomado uma posição favorável, salvaguardando-se assim que apenas projetos geradores de receitas e economicamente viáveis estejam abrangidos. Por fim, felicito a iniciativa que espero que venha a ter o mesmo sucesso que outras anteriores de cariz semelhante.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O relatório em análise versa sobre a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que altera o Regulamento (CE) n.º 1083/2006 do Conselho no que respeita a algumas disposições que se aplicam aos mecanismos de partilha de riscos para os Estados-Membros que se encontram afetados, ou ameaçados, por graves dificuldades quanto à sua estabilidade financeira. Trata-se de uma medida muito importante e que tem em consideração as necessidades dos Estados-Membros em dificuldades uma vez que vai promover o desenvolvimento económico e a criação de emprego. Há projetos de desenvolvimento muito importantes que se encontram bloqueados devido à falta de liquidez. Votei favoravelmente esta proposta, inócua para o orçamento comunitário dado não exigir um reforço da respetiva dotação, porque considero que a União Europeia deve apoiar os Estados-Membros que, devido à crise económica e financeira que vivemos, se encontram em situação de dificuldade para cofinanciar projetos de investimento apoiados pelos fundos comunitários e correm o risco não só de terem de devolver o dinheiro, mas também de sofrerem penalizações. Por último, faço votos para que o Banco Europeu de Investimento e a Comissão finalizem, rapidamente, todas as questões processuais para que os Estados-Membros possam beneficiar desta medida.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Esta proposta contém disposições que permitem a criação de um mecanismo de partilha de riscos, baseado numa autorização de transferência de capital dos Fundos Estruturais e de Coesão, dos Estados-Membros para a Comissão Europeia, ou seja, a transferência de uma parte das dotações financeiras disponibilizadas aos países em dificuldades - que assim vêm encurtadas as dotações globais remanescentes. O objetivo é concentrar este capital no Banco Europeu de Investimento para cobrir os prejuízos, previstos e imprevistos, resultantes de empréstimos e garantias.

A denominada partilha de riscos é estabelecida entre o BEI e outras instituições financeiras nacionais ou internacionais, públicas ou privadas, que concederão os empréstimos a patrocinadores de projetos e à banca, com vista a fornecer cofinanciamento privado para projetos executados com as contribuições dos Fundos Estruturais e do Fundo de Coesão. Como afirmámos durante o debate, outros caminhos existiam para ultrapassar as limitações existentes do lado do investimento privado. Caminhos que não passassem por uma diminuição, na prática, do envelope financeiro global destes países, mas antes pelo seu reforço. Assim, estamos perante mais um exercício sui generis de solidariedade europeia. Por outro lado, em relação ao cariz dos projetos a financiar, é elucidativo o exemplo dado pela relatora, de financiamento da construção de autoestradas com portagens, exploradas por privados.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Rozsiahla svetová finančná kríza a hospodársky útlm závažným spôsobom narušili hospodársky rast a finančnú stabilitu a vyvolali výrazné zhoršenie finančných a hospodárskych podmienok v niekoľkých členských štátoch. Hoci už boli prijaté dôležité opatrenia zamerané na vyváženie negatívneho vplyvu krízy, pretrváva závažný vplyv na reálne hospodárstvo, pracovný trh a občanov. Členskému štátu, ktorý má ťažkosti alebo mu hrozia ťažkosti z dôvodu výnimočných okolností mimo jeho kontroly, môže byť poskytnutá finančná pomoc Únie. Po dvoch predchádzajúcich návrhoch na zmenu a doplnenie zodpovedajúceho nariadenia predložených v rámci reakcie na súčasnú hospodársku a finančnú krízu Komisia navrhuje tretiu zmenu a doplnenie obsahujúcu ustanovenia, ktoré by umožnili vytvorenie nástroja s rozdelením rizika. Podľa predkladaného návrhu by sa v záujme uplatňovania nástroja s rozdelením rizika umožnil prevod časti pridelených finančných prostriedkov poskytnutých členským štátom, ktoré majú alebo ktorým hrozia ťažkosti v súvislosti s finančnou stabilitou, späť Komisii. Zároveň je jeho cieľom zabezpečiť pokračovanie realizácie programov spolufinancovaných z Európskeho fondu regionálneho rozvoja a Kohézneho fondu v kontexte oživenia hospodárstva členských štátov prijímajúcich finančnú pomoc. Domnievam sa ale, že na financovanie v rámci nástroja s rozdelením rizika sú oprávnené iba projekty, v prípade ktorých Európska investičná banka alebo podobné inštitúcie prijali kladné rozhodnutie o financovaní.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), írásban. − Az Európai Unió jelenleg egy tartós gazdasági és pénzügyi válsággal néz szembe, amely nem csupán számos tagállam makrogazdasági stabilitására, hanem Unió-szerte a finanszírozáshoz való hozzáférésre is kihatással van. Ez veszélyezteti a kohéziós politika programjainak végrehajtását is, mivel a pénzügyi intézmények likviditási problémái korlátozzák az érintett projekteket végrehajtó állami és magánszereplők rendelkezésére álló finanszírozási összegeket. A jelentés előadójával egyetértésben úgy vélem, hogy a pénzügyi ágazat által tapasztalt likviditáshiány nem korlátozódik azokra az országokra, amelyek az európai pénzügyi stabilizációs mechanizmusból vagy a fizetésimérleg-mechanizmusból pénzügyi segítségben részesültek. Ezért is tapasztalhatjuk azt, hogy az infrastrukturális és termelő beruházások vezetői valamennyi tagállamban a finanszírozási források apadását tartják az egyik legfőbb problémának. Megítélésem szerint a létrehozandó kockázatmegosztó mechanizmusok valamennyi tagállamra történő kiterjesztési lehetősége Unió-szerte növelni fogja a növekedésbe és a munkahelyteremtésbe való befektetések mennyiségét a strukturális és kohéziós alapok azon forrásainak felhasználása révén, amelyeket a jelenlegi programozási időszak végéig máskülönben nem használnának fel. Mivel mindezt magam is fontosnak tartom, szavazatommal támogattam a jelentést.

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – La politique de cohésion est le seul réel mécanisme de redistribution des richesses dont l'Union dispose. Les pays les plus riches participent par le biais de ces fonds au développement et aux programmes de développement des régions les plus pauvres. Cette politique doit être maintenue pour remplir l'objectif qui lui a toujours été assigné: lutter contre la disparité des richesses des régions d'Europe.

La crise économique qui frappe l'Union frappe de manière plus prégnante les régions les plus pauvres et les plus en retard de développement. Ces régions ont plus que jamais besoin de poursuivre leurs investissements publics afin de lutter contre les effets néfastes de la crise. Nous demandons depuis le début de la crise à ce que la Commission renonce au principe de cofinancement pour les régions les plus pauvres et les plus en difficulté de l'Union, à savoir qu'elle finance à 100 % les programmes prévus depuis 2007 par les régions les plus en difficulté.

Malheureusement, ce n'est pas la solution qui a été choisie. C'est par le prêt, donc par la poursuite de l'endettement des États et régions les plus en difficulté, que la Commission souhaite faire poursuivre le financement des projets qui devaient être conduits grâce à la politique de cohésion. Nous le réfutons vivement.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), par écrit. – Le Parlement a approuvé le règlement modificatif destiné à lutter contre la crise en intervenant financièrement, au moyen des fonds structurels, auprès des Etats membres touchés ou menacés par de graves difficultés financières. Il s'agit des Etats actuellement sous assistance financière, en particulier la Grèce. Ce dispositif de partage de risques doit permettre de mobiliser les financements privés qui sont nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de projets d'investissements productifs et d'infrastructures qui ne peuvent être que partiellement financés par des fonds publics. En période de crise, le risque de désengagement des investisseurs privés est fort. C'est pourquoi l'Union européenne se propose, avec le concours de la Banque européenne d'Investissement (BEI), de couvrir partiellement les risques que comportent les prêts aux banques et aux promoteurs de ces Etats défaillants, pour permettre aux projets générateurs de recettes d'être menés à leur terme. Ce dispositif d'aide n'est pas sans conditions. Le plafond budgétaire de l'instrument de partage des risques est précisé à l'avance, et seuls les projets qui font l'objet d'une décision favorable de la BEI peuvent bénéficier de ce soutien.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I was disappointed that my own group’s amendment encouraging renewable energy projects was not adopted. My own party is committed to supporting the development of such projects, and Scotland stands to become a global leader in the renewables revolution.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau šiam dokumentui, kadangi siekiama užtikrinti bendrai Europos regioninės plėtros fondo ir Sanglaudos fondo finansuojamų programų įgyvendinimo tęstinumą siekiant finansinę paramą gaunančių valstybių narių ekonomikos atgaivinimo. Taikant priemonę ketinama šalinti rimtas kliūtis, su kuriomis susiduria kai kurios valstybės narės, siekdamos gauti privačių lėšų, reikalingų įgyvendinant infrastruktūros ir produktyvių investicijų projektus, kurie gali būti tik iš dalies finansuojami valstybinėmis lėšomis. Labiausiai nuo finansų ir ekonomikos krizės nukentėjusiose valstybėse narėse, kilo pavojus, jog kai kurie strateginiai projektai, kurie buvo atrinkti bendram finansavimui pagal sanglaudos politikos programas, nebus įgyvendinti, nes privataus sektoriaus investuotojai ir bankai arba neturi pakankamo likvidumo, kad skolintų projektams ir projektų vystytojams, arba nebenori prisiimti investavimo esamomis sąlygomis rizikos. Siūloma priemonė yra įprastos sistemos, kurioje įgyvendinama sanglaudos politika, išimtis, kurią pateisina tik išskirtinės, dėl krizės atsiradusios aplinkybės. Todėl šia priemone siekiama padengti dalį rizikos, susijusios su skolinimu bankams ar projektų vystytojams valstybėse narėse, kurios turi didelių finansinio stabilumo sunkumų arba kurioms gresia tokie sunkumai, siekiant išsaugoti privačių investuotojų dalyvavimą ir įveikti svarbias kliūtis, su kuriomis susiduriama įgyvendinant sanglaudos politikos programas.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport relatif à la création d'instruments de partage des risques en faveur des États membres touchés ou menacés par de graves difficultés quant à leur stabilité financière. La création de tels instruments peut développer la participation du secteur privé dans le financement de projets dans les pays européens en difficulté afin de relancer l'emploi et la croissance. Ainsi, des pays comme l'Irlande, la Grèce ou le Portugal pourront bénéficier de ces dispositifs.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), rakstiski. − Es atbalstīju rezolūciju par priekšlikumu regulai, ar ko groza Padomes Regulu (EK) Nr. 1083/2006 attiecībā uz dažiem noteikumiem, kuri skar riska dalīšanas instrumentu dalībvalstīm, kurām ir finanšu stabilitātes problēmas. Regula attiecas uz tām Eiropas Savienības valstīm, kuras saņem starptautisko aizdevēju finansējumu. Tā paredz dalībvalstīm iespēju iegūt papildu līdzekļus, kurus tās vairs nevar piesaistīt ekonomikas lejupslīdes un banku sektora sasaluma dēļ, struktūrfondu un kohēzijas fonda projektiem. Esmu aktīvi strādājis pie šīs regulas izstrādes — biju Eiropas Tautas partijas (ETP) frakcijā atbildīgs par viedokļa sagatavošanu šai regulai, kurš tika iesniegts Ekonomikas un monetāro lietu komitejai, kurā esmu biedrs. Strādājot ar citām politiskajām grupām, panācu, ka visus manis iesniegtos grozījumus komitejā balsošanas procesā atbalstīja.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho espresso voto favorevole alla relazione dell’On. Hubner perché ritengo che, in un periodo di crisi come quello che stiamo attraversando, l’istituzione di uno strumento per la condivisione dei rischi a livello europeo, sia quanto mai un’iniziativa necessaria. La definizione di tale strumento passa attraverso la definizione di specifiche regole e criteri che dovranno essere rispettati per poter accedere al fondo di condivisione dei rischi, regole individuate in stretta cooperazione con la Banca europea per gli investimenti. Altrettanto regolamentata è la capacità, per ogni Stato membro, di partecipare a questo strumento attivato sul piano europeo. Non vi è dubbio che tale iniziativa, portata avanti in un periodo storico di crisi economica ma anche sociale, rafforzi il ruolo e il significato del Parlamento, sia a livello democratico ma, sopratutto, restituendogli il ruolo di garante della solidarietà tra Stati membri, che è indispensabile per uscire dalla crisi finanziaria che stiamo vivendo.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), par écrit. – En raison d'une stabilité financière précaire, de nombreux Etats de l'Union européenne peinent à mobiliser les financements privés indispensables à la mise en œuvre d'infrastructures et d'investissements productifs sans lesquels il ne peut y avoir de croissance. Aussi je me réjouis que le Parlement européen ait adopté cette proposition de la Commission visant à créer un instrument de partage de nature à rassurer les opérateurs privés et ainsi à les conduire à participer à la relance de l'économie.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai soutenu ce rapport. A travers ce texte, le Parlement européen prouve qu’il a pleinement pris conscience des crises successives que nous venons de vivre et qu'il se montre créatif en ce qui concerne les voies et les moyens d'en sortir. Je me réjouis également de la création d’un mécanisme de partage des risques visant à couvrir une partie du risque associé à l’octroi de prêts aux banques. Cela pourrait permettre d'accroître la participation du secteur privé au financement de projets menés dans des Etats-membres touchés par la crise et ainsi de favoriser l'emploi et la croissance. Les pays européens les plus touchés par la crise vont pouvoir bénéficier de ce soutien macroéconomique.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui raport deoarece susţin propunerea privind crearea de sinergii între programele pentru împrumuturi şi fondurile UE din statele membre aflate sub asistenţa financiară a Uniunii sau a Fondului Monetar Internaţional. Statele membre se confruntă cu obstacole serioase în ceea ce priveşte atragerea de finanţare privată pentru implementarea proiectelor de investiţii şi de infrastructură care pot fi doar parţial finanţate din fonduri publice. În acest context, raportul este foarte important deoarece prezintă un cadru menit să amelioreze riscurile asociate cu împrumuturile către bănci sau cu promotorii de proiecte în statele membre cu stabilitate financiară problematică. Este vital ca implicarea investitorilor privaţi să fie menţinută şi trebuie să ne asigurăm că sunt minimizate toate obstacolele în implementarea programelor de coeziune. Raportul reprezintă un pas important în acest sens.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome the proposal and note that the aim is to ensure the continuation of the implementation of the programmes co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) in the context of economic recovery of the Member States under financial assistance. I consider that some elements of the proposal should be clarified and amendments tabled aimed at clarifying the text, with the addition of a definition of a risk-sharing instrument (in line with the recent compromise proposal for a Financial Regulation text) together with a detailed description of the procedure to be applied in order to establish and implement a risk-sharing instrument based on the legal patterns of existing risk-sharing instruments in other Union policies. Furthermore, the rapporteur suggests inserting a new Article 36a for better legal drafting purposes, as well as structuring the article in paragraphs and sub-paragraphs.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), per iscritto. − Negli Stati membri maggiormente colpiti dalla crisi economica e finanziaria, diversi progetti strategici selezionati per il cofinanziamento a titolo dei programmi della politica di coesione rischiano di non essere attuati perché gli investitori e le banche del settore privato non dispongono della liquidità necessaria per concedere prestiti ai progetti e ai promotori di progetti, oppure perché non sono più disposti a sostenere i rischi di investimento nel contesto attuale.

Lo strumento di condivisione dei rischi rappresenta, dunque, un'eccezione al normale quadro di attuazione ed ha l'obiettivo di coprire parte dei rischi associati alla concessione di prestiti alle banche o ai promotori di progetti negli Stati membri che subiscono o rischiano di subire gravi difficoltà in merito alla loro stabilità finanziaria.

Valutiamo positivamente questa proposta che intende assicurare che si continui a dare esecuzione ai programmi cofinanziati dal Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale (FESR) e dal Fondo di coesione. Riteniamo, però, ammissibili al finanziamento dello strumento di condivisione dei rischi esclusivamente i progetti per i quali la BEI o altre istituzioni simili hanno adottato una decisione di finanziamento positiva e quelli che generano entrate ed i progetti di aiuti di Stato già inclusi nei programmi operativi degli Stati membri interessati.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte, qui est une réponse supplémentaire à la crise économique et financière actuelle. En effet, dans ce contexte exceptionnel, ce texte constitue une exception par rapport aux règles de mise en œuvre de la politique de cohésion. Les nouvelles dispositions permettront aux Etats membres qui en font la demande de transférer une partie de leur financement régional directement à la Commission. Ainsi, un partage de risques concernant un projet régional pourra être conclu entre une institution financière et la Commission. Cette disposition a pour but de convaincre les investisseurs privés, afin qu'ils prennent part à des projets de développement régional.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − This proposal aims to assist Member States in receipt of financial assistance under programmes (currently Portugal, Romania and Ireland as well as Greece) in addressing serious obstacles in raising the private financing needed in order to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects which can only be part-financed by public funds. I voted in favour of the report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Em julho de 2011, os Chefes de Estado e de Governo da área do euro solicitaram à Comissão e ao BEI que reforçassem as sinergias entre os programas de concessão de empréstimos e os fundos da União nos Estados-Membros que estiverem a ser objeto de assistência da União e do Fundo Monetário Internacional na altura em que a modificação entrar em vigor. A medida destina-se a tentar ultrapassar os importantes obstáculos com que alguns Estados-Membros se defrontam para mobilizar o financiamento privado necessário para realizar investimentos infraestruturais e produtivos que apenas podem ser parcialmente financiados por fundos públicos. Julgo ser esta uma boa medida para que os Estados-Membros intervencionados possam continuar a investir em projetos infraestruturais e produtivos.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The purpose of this amendment is to help those Member States most affected by the financial crisis to continue with the implementation of programmes under the Structural and Cohesion Funds. With the financial and economic crisis increasing the pressure on national financial resources and Member States consolidating their budgets, a smooth implementation of cohesion policy programmes is a tool for injecting funds into the economy. In reality some countries are forgiven their debts while others have to pay them back with interest.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Nach den beiden vorausgegangenen Vorschlägen zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1083/2006 des Rates, die eine Reaktion auf die derzeitige Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise darstellten, schlägt die Kommission nunmehr eine dritte Änderung vor, durch die die Verordnung um Vorschriften zur Schaffung eines Risikoteilungsinstruments ergänzt werden soll. Damit sollen noch mehr Gelder in die Mitgliedstaaten, die derzeit schon großzügige Kredite erhalten wie Irland, Griechenland, Portugal und Rumänien, gepumpt werden. Angeblich will man so Kreditklemmen zur Durchführung von Infrastruktur- und Investitionsprojekten, die nur zum Teil mit öffentlichen Mitteln finanziert werden können, überwinden. Dies ist unter der Maßgabe, dass bereits hunderte Milliarden Euro an diese Staaten bzw. an deren Banken geflossen sind, und den Umstand, dass die EU-Zuschüsse für Infrastrukturprojekte bereits von 50 % auf 85 % angehoben wurden, nicht zu goutieren. Irgendwann muss man hier eine Grenze ziehen, insbesondere dann, wenn man sich in Erinnerung ruft, dass die Gelder in den genannten Staaten in der Vergangenheit nicht immer korrekt verwendet wurden. Angesichts der stark defizitären Haushalte der Nettozahler, die selbst zu drastischen Sparmaßnahmen gezwungen sind, ist das den dortigen Bürgern auch nicht weiter zumutbar. Daher habe ich gegen den Bericht gestimmt.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Prin acest raport, UE creează un instrument de partajare a riscului pentru ţările cu asistenţă financiară, dotându-se astfel cu un instrument pentru a facilita viitoarele investiţii în ţări cu probleme financiare. Utilizarea fondurilor structurale ca un fond de garanţie pentru a facilita finanţarea proiectelor de infrastructură şi atragerea de investitori privaţi este o măsură corectă din punct de vedere economic, care ar putea folosi în viitor unui număr important de state aflate în dificultate.

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – La politique de cohésion est le seul réel mécanisme de redistribution des richesses dont l'Union européenne dispose. Les pays les plus riches participent par le biais de ces fonds au développement des régions les plus pauvres. Cette politique doit poursuivre l'objectif qui lui a toujours été assigné: lutter contre la disparité des richesses des régions d'Europe.

La crise économique frappe de manière plus prégnante les régions les plus pauvres et les plus en retard de développement. Ces régions ont plus que jamais besoin de poursuivre les investissements publics afin de lutter contre les effets néfastes de la crise.

Nous demandons depuis le début de la crise que la Commission européenne renonce au principe de cofinancement pour les régions les plus en difficulté de l'Union européenne. Nous demandons que la Commission européenne finance à 100% les programmes qui étaient prévus depuis 2007 par les régions les plus en difficulté. Malheureusement ce n'est pas la solution choisie. C'est par le prêt et par la poursuite de l'endettement des États et régions les plus en difficulté que la Commission européenne souhaite poursuivre le financement des projets qui devaient être conduits grâce à la politique de cohésion. Je le réfute.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šią rezoliuciją. Šiuo kritišku finansinių išteklių trūkumo laikotarpiu būtina padėti valstybėms narėms įgyvendinti struktūrinių fondų programas ir infrastruktūros projektus, galinčius turėti greitą realų poveikį ekonomikai ir didinti užimtumą. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad Europos investicijų bankas ar kitos tarptautinės institucijos galės lengviau patvirtinti paskolas, skirtas viešiesiems projektams su privačiu indėliu bendrai finansuoti, tuo metu, kai dėl valstybių narių finansinio stabilumo problemų tokių paskolų gauti neįmanoma. Manau, kad turėtų būti užtikrinama, jog tinkamais gauti finansavimą iš rizikos pasidalijimo priemonės būtų laikomi tik tie projektai, kurie turi akivaizdų teigiamą poveikį vietos ekonomikai ir darbo rinkai ir dėl kurių finansavimo EIB priėmė palankų sprendimą.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − The economic crisis became a challenge for the European Union. Member States do not face it independently one from another; it threatens the whole Union. That is why we have to be flexible to respond efficiently. I welcome efforts by the Commission and the rapporteur in this direction. The new measure proposed is designed to respond to specific problems in specific circumstances. Previous measures have foreseen austerity for Member States in difficulties. But it is not enough. In Greece there is 50% youth unemployment. To tackle this and other social and economic problems, the countries in crisis need growth. And the EU should help them; it should reform its instruments in order to be able to boost economies.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. Grecia, Irlanda, Portogallo, Ungheria, Romania e Lettonia. Sono questi i Paesi dell'Unione interessati da programmi di assistenza finanziaria a causa della crisi economica ed è per questi Stati che la Commissione ha avanzato la proposta, approvata dal Parlamento anche grazie al mio voto, che delinea gli "strumenti di condivisione dei rischi" per portare avanti l'esecuzione dei programmi finanziati dai Fondi strutturali e dal Fondo di coesione per il periodo 2007 - 2013. Il testo prevede la possibilità di trasferire alla gestione diretta della Commissione i fondi assegnati allo Stato membro affinché si possano concludere, senza spese aggiuntive, accordi con istituzioni finanziarie (BEI) che garantiscano le risorse per tutelare gli investimenti. In questo modo si limiterà il rischio di perdita dei Fondi, già assegnati agli Stati membri in difficoltà, per la politica di coesione.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση στηρίζοντας το συμβιβασμό που έχει επιτευχθεί με το Συμβούλιο έπειτα από την αποτυχία των δύο προηγούμενων προτάσεων της Επιτροπής. Η συμφωνία αυτή προβλέπει ενίσχυση των συνεργειών ανάμεσα στα προγράμματα δανεισμού και τα κονδύλια της Ένωσης στα κράτη μέλη που λαμβάνουν βοήθεια από την Ένωση ή από το Διεθνές Νομισματικό Ταμείο τη στιγμή της έναρξης ισχύος της τροποποίησης, σημείο σημαντικό για την Ελλάδα. Το μέτρο αυτό έχει ευθεία αναφορά στην χώρα μας, καθώς διευκολύνει την συγκέντρωση της αναγκαίας ιδιωτικής χρηματοδότησης για την υλοποίηση έργων υποδομής και παραγωγικών επενδύσεων τα οποία μπορούν να χρηματοδοτηθούν μόνο εν μέρει από δημόσια κονδύλια. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο μεγάλα έργα, όπως οι αυτοκινητόδρομοι, μπορούν και πάλι να ξεκινήσουν και να ολοκληρωθούν.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório referente a determinadas disposições aplicáveis a mecanismos de partilha de riscos para Estados-Membros afetados ou ameaçados por graves dificuldades no que diz respeito à sua estabilidade financeira por estar de acordo com o objetivo do presente instrumento que é o de assegurar a prossecução da implementação dos programas cofinanciados pelo Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (FEDER) e o Fundo de Coesão (FC) no contexto da recuperação económica dos Estados-Membros sob assistência financeira.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Abstention. The risk-sharing instrument shall be applicable for the rest of the cohesion policy programming period 2007-2013. The risk-sharing instrument shall only be applicable in Member States that have been granted financial assistance according to one of the mechanisms set out in Article 77(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1311/2011. Currently, this applies to four Member States: Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Romania. The Commission is reported as stating that Greece is the only country which has so far expressed interest in the instrument and that the Commission would also not have enough administrative capacity to cope with projects from more than one Member State. The instrument is only applicable as long as the Member States fall within the financial assistance mechanism. Our group has considered as problematic a first-reading agreement text in trilogues before even the official compromise negotiations for the vote in the Committee on Regional Development started.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore di questo testo perché considero prioritaria la creazione di uno strumento finanziario di questo genere.

Ritengo sia necessario un impegno per far fronte alle gravi difficoltà incontrate da alcuni Stati membri nel raccogliere i finanziamenti privati necessari per l'attuazione di progetti d'investimento nelle infrastrutture e nella produzione, che possono essere finanziati solo in parte mediante fondi pubblici.

Occorre evidenziare che la misura proposta rappresenta un'eccezione al normale quadro di attuazione della politica di coesione ed è giustificata esclusivamente alla luce delle circostanze eccezionali imposte dalla crisi odierna. Il suo obiettivo rimane infatti quello di coprire parte dei rischi associati alla concessione di prestiti alle banche o ai promotori di progetti negli Stati membri.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), per iscritto. − La recente crisi finanziaria ha colpito molti stati dell'Unione europea, alcuni in particolare hanno risentito contraccolpi maggiori.

Ho votato a favore della relazione dell'onorevole Hübner e sostengo pienamente le linee guida del testo, le quali hanno come obiettivo primario quello di aiutare e sostenere i paesi in difficoltà. Le suddette norme sono di fondamentale importanza in questo periodo di crisi; permetteranno, infatti, l'esecuzione di importanti progetti infrastrutturali, di basilare importanza per le entrate degli Stati ed il mantenimento dei posti di lavoro.

In questo modo l'Unione europea garantisce il suo sostegno agli Stati membri in difficoltà, assicura che i suoi aiuti non siano persi e fornisce garanzie agli Stati membri che sono contribuenti netti.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), písomne. − Nástroje s rozdelením rizika sú určené členským štátom, ktoré najviac postihla hospodárska kríza a sú ohrozené mnohé strategické projekty vybrané na spolufinancovanie programov v rámci politiky súdržnosti – programy financované z Európskeho fondu regionálneho rozvoja alebo Kohézneho fondu. Cieľom opatrenia je pokryť časť rizika spojeného s požičiavaním bankám alebo predkladateľom projektov v členských štátoch, ktoré už majú alebo ktorým hrozia ťažkosti s finančnou stabilitou. V súčasnosti je najviac ohrozenou krajinou Grécko, ale podobné problémy môžu mať v budúcnosti aj iné štáty, preto som tento návrh Komisie a uznesenie podporila.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − Congratulo-me com a proposta da Comissão Europeia, no sentido de facilitar ainda mais o cofinanciamento dos programas ao abrigo do FEDER e do Fundo de Coesão, a qual contribuirá para ultrapassar os obstáculos relacionados com a mobilização do financiamento privado necessário. Votei a favor deste reforço do mecanismo de partilha de riscos para os Estados-Membros afetados ou ameaçados por graves dificuldades no que diz respeito à sua estabilidade financeira, como é o caso de Portugal, esperando que tal possa contribuir para a sua retoma económica.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I fully support these proposals to introduce risk-sharing instruments to help regional development projects to continue in Member States that are under EU or IMF assistance. It is vital that these instruments are used to encourage private investment in funded projects in order to generate employment and growth in struggling economies such as Greece. European regional funding provides an important economic boost by contributing to projects that improve social and economic cohesion throughout the EU. In times of economic difficulty, some regions struggle to find match funding, and this is why these risk-sharing instruments will be vital in promoting potential private investment.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − The measure proposed in this report is intended to address the serious obstacles faced by some Member States, raising the private financing needed to implement infrastructure and productive investment projects. The current proposal contains provisions that would allow the creation of a risk sharing instrument. The objective would be to provide capital contributions to cover expected and unexpected losses of loans and guarantees to be extended under a risk-sharing partnership with the European Investment Bank and/or other financial institutions, to which I fully agree. The measured proposed is an exception to the normal framework in which cohesion policy is implemented, justified only by the exceptional circumstances imposed by the crisis.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O objetivo desta proposta que estabelece a denominada partilha de riscos advoga que o BEI e outras instituições financeiras nacionais ou internacionais, públicas ou privadas, concedam os empréstimos a patrocinadores de projetos e à banca, com vista a fornecer cofinanciamento privado para projetos executados com as contribuições dos Fundos Estruturais e do Fundo de Coesão. No entanto, esta proposta tem um grave problema – com esta transferência de capital dos Fundos Estruturais e de Coesão para a Comissão Europeia, os Estados-Membros veem diminuído o seu pacote financeiro global, o que é altamente prejudicial para os mesmos. O que se impunha era, sim, o reforço da dotação dos fundos destinados a estes países.

Dictamen del Tribunal de Justicia sobre la compatibilidad con los Tratados del Acuerdo entre los Estados Unidos de América y la Unión Europea sobre la utilización y la transferencia de los registros de nombres de los pasajeros al Departamento de Seguridad del Territorio Nacional de los Estados Unidos B7-0200/2012

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Cette semaine, nous avons trouvé un accord sur un dossier sensible : le transfert des données des passagers aériens de l'Union européenne aux Etats-Unis. J'ai approuvé l’avis de la Cour de justice sur la compatibilité de l'accord entre les États-Unis d'Amérique et l'Union européenne sur l'utilisation et le transfert des données des dossiers passagers de l'Union européenne aux Etats-Unis, qui était l'objet de ce vote.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Por considerar que o presente Acordo entre a União Europeia e os EUA parece procurar atingir um equilíbrio razoável entre a proteção dos direitos dos cidadãos europeus e as necessárias garantias de segurança as quais, em última análise, nos beneficiam a todos, não posso votar favoravelmente a presente proposta de resolução.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − A proposta de resolução em análise, apresentada pela colega Cornelia Ernst, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL, incide sobre um pedido de parecer ao Tribunal de Justiça relativo à compatibilidade com os Tratados do Acordo UE-EUA, da utilização e transferência dos registos de identificação dos passageiros para o Departamento da Segurança Interna dos Estados Unidos. Após os trágicos acontecimentos de 11 de setembro de 2001, todas as companhias aéreas reforçaram os seus níveis de segurança. No que respeita às viagens entre a Europa e os Estados Unidos da América (EUA), este país passou a exigir um conjunto de dados dos passageiros o que, em certa medida, violava o direito à proteção de dados em vigor na União Europeia, concretamente quanto a dados pessoais (bancários, condições de saúde, etc.), tal como referido no parecer do Tribunal de Justiça Europeu. Todavia, nos últimos anos, houve uma grande aproximação dos EUA à posição defendida pela UE. Além disso, e dado o caráter de urgência, as novas condições são as melhores possíveis e não se comparam às que poderiam ser objeto de acordos bilaterais. Assim, entendo que o novo acordo é melhor do que os bilaterais e, por isso, votei contra esta proposta de resolução.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Esta resolução, proposta pelo nosso grupo, questiona criticamente a legitimidade do Acordo PNR. O GUE/NGL requer que o Tribunal Europeu de Justiça se pronuncie sobre a legalidade do mesmo. Recorde-se que, no passado, esta entidade se pronunciou pela ilegalidade do primeiro acordo celebrado pela Comissão. Do nosso ponto de vista, este Acordo é mais um ato de submissão da UE aos EUA. Este país, a pretexto do dito combate ao terrorismo, aprofunda uma inquietante deriva securitária e persecutória, a que não são alheias tentativas de criminalização da luta e do protesto social, em especial num momento de agudização da crise do capitalismo e dos seus efeitos. A maioria das pessoas que utilizam o transporte aéreo desconhecerá o que é o PNR - o registo de identificação dos passageiros. Mais, desconhecerá a utilização que hoje é feita desse registo e a utilização a que este Acordo abre portas. O GUE/NGL dá, assim, pela sua destacada intervenção neste debate, um inestimável contributo para a denúncia do conteúdo e das consequências deste acordo - algo essencial para a dinamização da necessária luta e rejeição deste intolerável ataque a direitos, liberdades e garantias dos cidadãos.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Bol prijatý európsky právny rámec, ktorý leteckým spoločnostiam umožňuje prenos údajov o cestujúcich z osobných záznamov o cestujúcich. V tomto kontexte bola uzatvorená Dohoda medzi Spojenými štátmi americkými a Európskou úniou o využívaní osobných záznamov o cestujúcich a ich postupovaní Ministerstvu vnútornej bezpečnosti Spojených štátov amerických. Od nadobudnutia platnosti Lisabonskej zmluvy 1. decembra 2009 si uzatváranie nových dohôd o osobných záznamoch o cestujúcich vyžaduje súhlas Európskeho parlamentu pred tým, ako Rada rozhodne o ich konečnom schválení. Jasným účelom uvedenej dohody je stanoviť podmienky, za ktorých sa môžu údaje z osobných záznamov o cestujúcich prenášať, spracúvať a chrániť. V otázke súladu návrhu dohody s právnymi predpismi EÚ o ochrane údajov, a teda v otázke, či je v tomto ohľade zlučiteľná so zmluvami, však vládne právna neistota. I preto považujem za opodstatnené, že sa Európsky parlament rozhodol požiadať Súdny dvor o stanovisko k súladu dohody so zmluvami.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against this resolution because I believe the legislation on passenger name records requires a political and not a legal decision. Therefore no value would have been gained by referring this matter to the ECJ.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The resolution states that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus as to whether it is compatible with the EU Treaties. I voted against.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Die Probleme mit dem PNR-Abkommen sind vielfältig und wurden an anderer Stelle bereits ausführlich dargelegt. Es ist daher mehr als angebracht, dieses Abkommen, mit dem die EU-Kommission wieder einmal die Rechte ihrer Bürger am Altar der sogenannten transatlantischen Zusammenarbeit opfert, genau vom EuGH durchleuchten zu lassen. Es muss überprüft werden, ob dies mit den EU-Verträgen und der Menschenrechtskonvention überhaupt vereinbar ist. Denn wenn es heißt, das vorliegende PNR-Abkommen sei besser als keines, dann ist das zwar richtig, doch nur bezogen auf die Airlines. Denn die können einer Klage eines Passagiers auf Verletzung seiner Grundrechte durch die Weitergabe der Daten an die US-Behörden dann mit dem Verweis auf das Abkommen entgegentreten. Das Abkommen verschlechtert so definitiv die Rechte der EU-Bürger, weshalb es strikt abzulehnen ist. Dem Bericht, der vorschlägt das Abkommen dem EuGH vorzulegen, war daher zuzustimmen.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariu šiai rezoliucijai. Manau, kad yra būtina kreiptis į Teisingumo Teismą dėl Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų ir Europos Sąjungos susitarimo dėl keleivio duomenų įrašų naudojimo ir perdavimo Jungtinių Valstijų Vidaus saugumo departamentui. Kiekvienas pagrindinių teisių ir laisvių ribojimas turi būti būtinas, proporcingas ir nustatytas įstatymu. Atkreiptinas dėmesys, kad šiame susitarime yra daug teisinių neaiškumų dėl jo atitikties ES duomenų apsaugos teisės aktams. Nėra aiškus ir tikslus susitarimo tikslas, duomenų saugojimo laikotarpio trukmė. Manau, kad turėtų būti susiaurintas perduodamų duomenų sąrašas. Kyla abejonių, ar vidaus saugumo departamentas turėtų tvarkyti neskelbtinus duomenis.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente a presente proposta de pedido de parecer ao Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia relativo à compatibilidade com os Tratados do Acordo UE-EUA sobre a utilização e a transferência dos registos de identificação dos passageiros para o Departamento da Segurança Interna dos Estados Unidos por considerar que em vários aspetos existe uma deterioração em comparação com o primeiro Acordo de 2004.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. A European legal framework allowing airlines to transfer passengers’ PNR data was established by Council Decision 2004/496/EC of 17 May 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (9) (hereinafter ‘the Agreement’). It is clear to me that the EP should take the view that there is legal uncertainty as to whether the draft Agreement complies with EU data protection legislation and thus whether it is compatible with the Treaties in this respect. Furthermore, it questions the choice of legal basis, i.e. Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU (police and judicial cooperation), rather than Article 16 TFEU (data protection).

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O Acordo PNR entre os EUA e a UE, que permite que o Departamento de Segurança Interna dos EUA tenha acesso a uma panóplia de dados pessoais de todos os passageiros que viajem de e para os EUA ou que façam escala nos EUA, é um dos documentos que este Parlamento aprovou que mais ataca os direitos e liberdades fundamentais dos cidadãos. A resolução do GUE/NGL questiona criticamente a legitimidade deste Acordo, inclusive na perspetiva da proteção de dados individuais, requerendo que o Tribunal Europeu de Justiça se pronuncie sobre a legalidade do mesmo. Do nosso ponto de vista, este Acordo é mais um ato de submissão da UE aos EUA, os quais, a pretexto do dito combate ao terrorismo, aprofundam a sua deriva securitária e de vigilância, o que pode levar (e leva) à perseguição de todos quantos não se alinhem e combatam o imperialismo dos EUA, que se distingam na sua forma de pensamento, e que inclusive partilhem ideais de progresso social que vão contra os interesses dos EUA. Reiteramos que tudo faremos para travar e impedir a aplicação deste Acordo da vergonha.

Recomendacíon : Sophia in't Veld (A7-0099/2012)

  Damien Abad (PPE), par écrit. – Depuis les attentats du 11 septembre, les États-Unis renforcent le contrôle de l'accès à leur territoire, notamment des vols à destination des États-Unis. Ainsi, depuis 2007, un accord provisoire entre les États-Unis et l'Union européenne encadre le transfert de données des passagers des compagnies aériennes au ministère américain de la sécurité intérieure. Cette semaine, nous avons voté le remplacement de cet accord par un autre pour lequel j'ai donné mon approbation. Ce nouvel accord relève le niveau de protection des données des passagers européens.

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente relatório. O novo acordo não é perfeito, mas acaba por proteger mais os viajantes europeus que se deslocam para os Estados Unidos da América. Desde 2007 que há um acordo negociado pela Comissão Europeia e uma série de acordos bilaterais, bem menos adequados, com os EUA. Este é, até ao momento, o melhor que se conseguiu ao longo das negociações. Portanto, caso este acordo não tivesse sido aprovado, manteríamos em vigor um quadro pior. Hoje é possível monitorizar a sua aplicação e exigir correções ou mesmo a suspensão, o que é uma evolução e está no texto de compromisso da Comissão Europeia. Não deixa, no entanto, de preocupar que os cidadãos europeus não tenham acesso a uma revisão judicial nos EUA. Mas, de uma maneira geral, os registos de passageiros podem ser um instrumento para combater o terrorismo e outras formas de criminalidade transnacional organizada e desse ponto de vista é sempre importante fazerem-se acordos como este que procurem responder a estes desafios da atualidade.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. − Mr President, I am strongly against this agreement. First of all, I would like to underline that this agreement is misleading as it make people believe that it is difficult for law enforcement agencies to access passenger data. This is not true, and the usefulness of the creation of this huge database for security purposes is equal to zero. This agreement is the outcome of the US strategy based on fear of the terrorist threat. It must be made clear that, on this subject, the mismatch between public perception and the reality is extreme. The data, however, speak for themselves and they show a very sharp decrease in terrorist attacks in recent years in every region of the planet. For this reason, I believe that consent to the EU-USA agreement on the use and transfer of PNR would be the umpteenth effect of the global hysteria spread by governments, arms trade conglomerates and media. Additionally, I am particularly concerned by many points left unsettled in the Agreement, such as the need to prove the necessity and proportionality of mass data collections, their bulk transfer and compliance with data protection rules and judicial control.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Le transfert des données des passagers aériens de l'Union européenne aux Etats-Unis a été approuvé après de nombreux débats. Etant donné que les Européens bénéficient d'une dispense de visa lorsqu'ils se rendent aux Etats-Unis, Washington nous demande depuis plusieurs années le transfert des données des passagers, dans le cadre de leur lutte contre le terrorisme. Ces données sont le nom, l'adresse, ou encore le numéro de siège ou la référence des bagages des passagers. La question qui a divisé le Parlement européen est celle de la conservation et de l'utilisation de ces données. Le nouvel accord intervenu prévoit que ces données ne soient accessibles que six mois puis définitivement supprimées au bout de cinq ans. J'ai voté en faveur de cet accord car il garantit une meilleure protection contre le terrorisme tout en assurant le respect des droits fondamentaux.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), par écrit. – Nous avions résisté jusqu'ici en 2004 et 2007, mais cette fois-ci le PE a donné son feu vert à l'accord UE-Etats-Unis sur le transfert des données personnelles des passagers aériens (PNR), en dépit de l'opposition revendiquée de la rapporteure Sophia in't Veld. En accord avec l'alerte de Mme int' Veld, j'ai rejeté ce nouvel accord, qui balaie d'un revers de main les garanties nécessaires pour assurer la protection des données personnelles et le respect de la vie privée qui est dû aux passagers. L’accord repose, pour l’essentiel, sur une confiance aveugle donnée aux autorités américaines. Concrètement, les données "passagers nominatives" seront conservées pendant 15 ans, et sous forme anonyme pour une durée indéterminée, sans recours juridictionnel réel hors du territoire des Etats-Unis. Autant dire que c'est un véritable déni des libertés individuelles, et une pure aberration juridique. Un tel traitement de données passagers est simplement inacceptable, et incompatible avec les principes de proportionnalité et de finalité, puisque des données personnelles et commerciales d’un nombre indéterminé de personnes non suspectes sont traitées à des fins de sécurité et de lutte antiterroriste. L'inquiétude reste entière quant au précédent que cet accord créé pour les futurs accords de cette nature avec les pays tiers.

  Phil Bennion (ALDE), in writing. − I voted with my Liberal group in rejecting this agreement as a matter of principle. While the Commissioner and the rapporteur Sophie in ’t Veld worked extremely hard to secure a better agreement, it still fails to meet the minimum safeguards to citizens that we as representatives of European citizens must demand. Particularly the agreement fails to offer sufficiently strict limitations on the use of data, disproportionate retention periods and inadequate judicial redress.

I understand concerns some have expressed about having no agreement on the sharing of data attached to Passenger Name Records with the United States. It is my opinion that no agreement would have been a better option than signing up to a bad agreement.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Mi sono espressa a favore di questa relazione sulla conclusione dell'accordo tra gli USA e l'UE sull'uso e il trasferimento delle registrazioni dei nominativi dei passeggeri (PNR) al Dipartimento di Stato degli Stati Uniti.

Lo scopo di tali accordi è di facilitare la prevenzione ed il perseguimento dei reati di terrorismo, un fenomeno che in tempi recenti ha colpito nuovamente dimostrando come la crisi scatenata con l'11 settembre 2001 non sia assolutamente conclusa.

La condivisione di dati con gli Stati Uniti è quindi volta a garantire la sicurezza dei passeggeri. Al tempo stesso, gli accordi garantiscono ai cittadini europei il diritto di avviare azioni legali negli Stati Uniti in caso di cattiva gestione dei dati e permettono ai viaggiatori di chiedere la correzione dei dati che risultino errati. Non c´è quindi motivo di opporsi alla conclusione di tali accordi ed è per questo che ho votato positivamente.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), na piśmie. − W kontekście rozważań nad obecnym kształtem umowy między USA a UE o wykorzystywaniu danych dotyczących przelotu pasażera oraz przekazywaniu takich danych do Departamentu Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego USA, chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na konsekwencje jej ewentualnego odrzucenia bądź przyjęcia.

W pierwszym scenariuszu przepływ danych osobowych wcale nie zostałby przerwany. Kontrolę nad tym procesem można byłoby ustanowić jedynie za sprawą umowy. Ponadto należałoby wziąć pod uwagę utrudnienia dla obywateli UE i przedsiębiorstw wynikające przykładowo z braku bezpośrednich lotów z wybranego miasta Europy do Stanów. Z kolei przyjęcie umowy, pomimo jej niedoskonałości, wiązałoby się z konkretnym postępem w stosunku do uzgodnień z 2007 r., ponieważ pozwoliłaby wprowadzić bardziej precyzyjny zakres przekazywanych danych, bardziej restrykcyjny czas ich przechowywania, prawo do informacji, bardziej rygorystyczne przepisy dotyczące wykorzystywania danych. Podsumowując, proponuję przyjąć umowę w obecnym kształcie jako punkt wyjścia dla dalszych prac i negocjacji w celu koniecznych udoskonaleń przepisów umowy.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Whilst UKIP is fully in favour of effective measures against terrorism, we do not believe that the blanket storage of passenger details for prolonged periods is an effective tool in the fight against terrorism. The Commission has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is the best means of providing intelligence on terrorists. The proposal’s infringement of individual civil liberties is entirely disproportionate to its intentions. There is no indication that any alternatives have been considered. The new agreement does not appear to greatly improve upon the 2007 agreement. There are insufficient or no measures to properly protect privacy. There are strong suspicions that this is being proposed because more effective methods have been rejected by reason of political correctness.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – Je suis satisfait de l'approbation par le Parlement de l'accord entre l'Union européenne et les Etats-Unis portant sur le transfert des données PNR des passagers. Je juge nécessaire de faciliter le partage des informations afin de lutter plus efficacement contre la criminalité internationale. Mais cela doit se faire en toute transparence, et dans le respect des libertés individuelles. L'accord trouvé ici renforce la sécurité des données par rapport au précédent accord de 2007. La durée de conservation des données a été réduite et les passagers peuvent à tout moment consulter leurs données et, le cas échéant, les modifier. En matière de lutte contre le terrorisme, j'estime que les accords entre l'Union européenne et un pays tiers sont plus avantageux que les accords bilatéraux négociés par les Etats membres individuellement.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté contre cet accord. Bien que la lutte anti-terroriste soit un enjeu majeur pour l'Union européenne comme pour ses partenaires, nous considérons qu'elle ne doit pas se faire au détriment des libertés fondamentales des citoyens. Or ce compromis, loin de respecter le principe de proportionnalité, ne présentait pas de progrès suffisants en faveur de la protection de la vie privée pour me convaincre d'y souscrire. D'autant plus qu'il apparaît difficile de comptabiliser l'efficacité des mesures de contrôle ou de fichage face à des actes terroristes souvent peu sophistiqués. De plus, alors que ces données ne devraient être utilisées strictement que dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme, les finalités sont en réalité très larges et très vagues. La durée de conservation des données, leur nécessaire anonymisation et leur destruction, ainsi que le droit d'accès, de rectification et d'effacement pour les citoyens concernés, sont également des critères importants qui justifient mon refus de cet accord. Comme l'a indiqué ma collègue Sylvie Guillaume, cette situation est regrettable car cet accord devait au contraire être l’occasion de faire prévaloir de hauts standards de protection des données, propres à l’Union européenne.

  Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Gli Accordi stipulati tra Unione europea e Stati Uniti d'America in materia di trasferimento dei dati PNR rappresentano un notevole miglioramento rispetto a quelli negoziati nel 2007. Essi comportano infatti norme più stringenti al fine di salvaguardare la privacy dei passeggeri, e limitano il trasferimento dei dati al solo scopo di combattere il terrorismo e i crimini internazionali gravi. Nonostante alcune perplessità espresse dalla relatrice on. In't Veld siano condivisibili, considero il suo approccio controproducente: esprimere parere negativo al fine di ottenere norme più stringenti servirebbe solo a vanificare lo sforzo compiuto dalla Commissione nel raggiungere tali risultati. Secondo quanto affermato dal Commissario Malmström infatti, gli Accordi in esame rappresentano il miglior risultato possibile, e se il Parlamento non dovesse approvarli, non sarebbe possibile procedere a una nuova negoziazione. I singoli Paesi dell'Unione sarebbero dunque costretti, data l'importanza del trasferimento dei dati nella lotta al terrorismo, a stipulare Accordi bilaterali con gli Stati Uniti, e trovandosi in una posizione di minor potere contrattuale, non sarebbero in grado di imporre norme altrettanto favorevoli ai cittadini europei. Per questo motivo ho espresso il mio parere favorevole a questo accordo.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. − I am not convinced that the case for the wholesale automated transfer of US-bound PNR data has been proven. However, I believe that the Commission has negotiated the best agreement that is politically possible at the current time – the scope has been narrowed, retention periods reduced and there has been some movement on the ‘push/pull’ issue. Rejection of this agreement would have done nothing to stop the flow of data to the US. Indeed, it is unlikely that the 27 Member States could produce more satisfactory arrangements through the negotiation of 27 bilateral arrangements with the US. EU citizens’ rights are better protected through this agreement and ratification does provide a single clear EU legal framework, with EP oversight, that can be reviewed. I would request that the Commission ensure a rigorous and robust assessment of this PNR agreement and report back to the Parliament on this review.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), în scris. − Transferul de date din registrele cu numele pasagerilor rămâne un subiect controversat. Am votat totodată în favoarea Acordului dintre SUA și UE în acest domeniu, deoarece consider că schimbul de informații este necesar pentru investigarea activităților criminale cu caracter transnațional şi pentru protejarea cetățenilor europeni. De asemenea, Acordul conține clauze importante referitoare la protecția datelor cu caracter personal, stocare şi ștergerea acestor informații. Fără aceste prevederi, nu aş fi putut susține Acordul.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai approuvé l'accord dit "PNR" entre l'Union européenne et les Etats-Unis. Cet accord est nécessaire, à la fois pour garantir notre sécurité, mais aussi pour mieux protéger nos données personnelles. Certes l'accord ne reprend pas à l'ensemble des préoccupations plusieurs fois exprimées par le Parlement européen. Mais il faut souligner la flexibilité des autorités américaines et les avancées importantes constatées, en particulier dans le cadre de l'obligation d'informer les passagers, de la possibilité d'accès aux données ou de celle d'avoir un droit de recours. Refuser l'approbation de cet accord aurait entraîné une insécurité juridique injustifiable et préjudiciable aux citoyens européens. Une grande majorité des députés européens l'ont bien compris et ont, en responsabilité, approuvé cet accord.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai soutenu l’adoption de ce rapport qui, suite à une renégociation voulue par le Parlement européen, renforce la protection de nos concitoyens concernant les données transmises aux autorités américaines. L’Union renforce ainsi sa coopération avec les États-Unis tout en restant maîtresse du jeu puisque les États-Unis ne pourront désormais consulter les données passagers sans l’accord des Européens. Avec la conclusion de cet accord nous mettons fin au risque de vide juridique préjudiciable à nos compagnies aériennes.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui acord întrucât consider că, deşi acesta este perfectibil, el constituie un pas înainte faţă de precedentul acord datând din 2007. Un element pozitiv foarte important îl constituie faptul că datele PNR vor fi anonimizate după 6 luni şi, în plus, cetăţenii europeni vor avea deplin acces la aceste date. De asemenea, s-a obţinut garanţia ca orice decizie luată pe baza analizării acestor date să nu se bazeze pe procesări automate, ci pe baza unei evaluări umane. În acelaşi timp, trebuie să ţinem cont de faptul că în acest moment se află în dezbatere cel puţin două propuneri care vor influenţa şi acordurile UE cu privire la schimburile de date. Este vorba în primul rând de directiva privind folosirea datelor PNR, dar şi de pachetul privind protecţia datelor. Din acest punct de vedere, cred că acest acord, ca şi alte acorduri ale UE care implică schimbul de date PNR, trebuie să fie revizuite după adoptarea noilor reguli europene privind protecţia datelor şi privind utilizarea PNR.

  Frank Engel (PPE), par écrit. – Mon vote contre l'accord sur l'utilisation et le transfert des données des passagers aux États-Unis a une double motivation. Premièrement, cet accord est un executive agreement en droit américain, qui ne sera pas ratifié par le Sénat et ne peut créer de droits au profit de personne. Les États-Unis ne sont donc aucunement contraints d'appliquer les "garanties" au bénéfice des passagers européens que contient l'accord, s'ils jugent que leur droit interne s'y oppose. Les recours, que des citoyens européens tenteraient devant des juridictions américaines contre une utilisation abusive des données, seraient, partant, compromis d'avance. L'accord n'améliore pas la situation juridique des passagers européens à destination des États-Unis, étant donné que son statut en droit américain ne permet pas la création de droits nouveaux.

Deuxièmement, cet accord ne constitue qu'une ratification européenne de pratiques américaines en matière de transfert de données personnelles de passagers. Je juge cette pratique largement excessive et je ne saurais marquer mon accord à un texte qui, au-delà des procédures d'entrée aux États-Unis extrêmement pénibles, soumet les voyageurs de bonne foi à une suspicion générale. On ne combat pas le terrorisme et la grande criminalité en culpabilisant d'avance chaque passager d'un vol transatlantique.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − No domínio da luta contra o terrorismo é fundamental a cooperação judiciária internacional e a cooperação transatlântica. Por isso é de saudar a existência de um acordo de longo prazo em matérias relativas ao tratamento e à transferência de dados pessoais e à identificação de passageiros entre a União Europeia e os Estados Unidos da América. Tal acordo, porém, não poderá pôr em causa, indevidamente, os direitos dos cidadãos europeus. Por isso mesmo devem aplicar-se os requisitos jurídicos para um tratamento justo, necessário, proporcional e legal dos dados pessoais, em todas as circunstâncias. O presente Acordo entre a União Europeia e os EUA parece procurar atingir um equilíbrio razoável entre a proteção dos direitos dos cidadãos europeus e as necessárias garantias de segurança as quais, em última análise, nos beneficiam a todos. Por isso, voto favoravelmente o texto deste Acordo, sendo que considero, tal como a Comissária Malmström tem feito notar, que este é o melhor acordo possível - e o que melhor protege os cidadãos europeus - e deve, por isso, merecer o apoio desta Câmara.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Os trágicos acontecimentos do 11 de setembro de 2001 nos Estados Unidos da América (EUA) despertaram os governos e as companhias aéreas para a necessidade de reforçarem os seus níveis de segurança e, assim, impedirem atos de terrorismo que possam destruir milhares de vidas humanas. Desde 2007 que a União Europeia (UE) procura negociar com os EUA um acordo sobre a utilização e a transferência dos registos de identificação dos passageiros (PNR) para o Departamento da Segurança Interna daquele país. Todavia, a manutenção dos dados dos passageiros em arquivo e as informações solicitadas de natureza pessoal (saúde, situação financeira, etc.), têm merecido as maiores reservas em virtude de violação das normas de proteção de dados. A celebração de um Acordo entre a União e os Estados Unidos sobre a utilização e a transferência dos registos de identificação de passageiros (PNR) é a melhor solução, ao contrário da celebração de acordos bilaterais. Esta proposta representa uma grande aproximação dos EUA às posições defendidas pela UE. No entanto, este acordo não garante mais proteção aos cidadãos europeus. Note-se que se permite um sistema push em vez de um sistema pull. Desta forma nada garante que não possa existir devassa dos nossos computadores e bases de dados. Assim, abstive-me nesta proposta de resolução.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − A aprovação deste acordo PNR, entre os EUA e a UE, permite ao Departamento da Segurança Interna dos EUA ter acesso a um conjunto alargado de dados pessoais de todos os passageiros europeus que viagem de e para os EUA ou que façam escala nos EUA. Entre as informações a que os EUA poderão ter acesso, a título de exemplo, estão reservas de hotéis e de viaturas, números de telefone, endereços eletrónicos, endereços privados e profissionais, números de cartões de crédito, dados pessoais reveladores da origem racial ou étnica. Mas também, como têm alertado diversas vozes, dados sobre opiniões políticas, crenças religiosas ou filosóficas, sobre a filiação sindical, bem como outros dados referentes à saúde ou à orientação sexual. Este acordo, a pretexto da sempre invocada luta contra o terrorismo, põe em causa direitos e liberdades fundamentais dos cidadãos, desrespeitando normas básicas da proteção de dados. Este acordo pode ainda ser unilateralmente modificado pelo Departamento de Segurança Interna dos EUA, a qualquer momento. Estes dados poderão ser utilizados para fins não especificados e serão conservados durante 15 anos. Estamos perante um autêntico big brother, a justificar indignação, denúncia, mobilização e luta.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore dell'accordo nonostante nutrissi alcune perplessità legate al modo delle autorità americane di condurre le trattative; infatti, nei mesi scorsi hanno sensibilizzato sul dossier tutti i vari Paesi membri, mettendo in evidenza ancora una volta, in alcuni settori, la mancanza di una posizione forte ed unitaria delle Istituzioni europee. Sicuramente questo accordo migliora gli accordi precedenti, soprattutto su alcuni punti chiave, e costituisce una base importante per la sicurezza di tutta l'Unione europea e dei suoi cittadini. Mi auguro che con il tempo le istituzioni europee rafforzino il loro ruolo in modo da poter condurre questo tipo di trattative da una posizione migliore.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Hlasovala som proti dohode PNR, nakoľko som presvedčená, že táto dohoda závažným spôsobom obmedzuje ľudské práva a občianske slobody občanov členských štátov EÚ. Už v máji 2010 EP zamietol pôvodný návrh a napriek tomu, že Komisia sa snažila vynaložiť úsilie o zrovnoprávnenie postavenia pozícií USA a EÚ, výsledkom sú len malé úpravy, ktoré v žiadnom prípade nemôžeme vnímať ako ochranu práv občanov členských štátov EÚ, za ktorých nesieme ako poslanci EP nielen politickú, ale aj ľudskú zodpovednosť.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − I PNR, come sono definite le informazioni relative ai viaggi aerei di ciascun passeggero, si sono rivelati uno strumento molto importante nella lotta al terrorismo e ai reati gravi a livello transnazionale, e saranno trattati, secondo l’accordo, solo allo scopo di prevenire, accertare, indagare e perseguire tali reati. Considerando anche che i cittadini europei avranno diritto ad azioni giudiziarie negli Stati Uniti in caso di cattivo uso dei dati ed avranno la possibilità di accesso e rettifica dei PNR e che anche i singoli viaggiatori possono accedere alle informazioni raccolte che li riguardano e chiederne la correzione laddove ci siano degli errori, il mio voto è stato favorevole.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), i scríbhinn. − Vótálamar i bhfabhar an Chomhaontaithe idir an AE agus Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá maidir le sonraí taifid ainmneacha paisinéirí.

Ar an gcéad dul síos, is é ár dtuairim go gcuirfidh an comhaontú seo go mór le hiarrachtaí dul i ngleic le sceimhlitheoireacht agus le tromchoireacht thrasnáisiúnta. Creidimid go bhfuil forálacha mar is ceart agus cuí i gceist leis a mhéid a bhaineann le cúrsaí príobháideachais, sonraí pearsanta a phróiseáil, slándáil sonraí, trédhearcacht agus freagracht. Is anuas ar an meicníocht cosanta do mhuintir na hEorpa atá cumhdaithe i dlí an AE maidir le cosaint sonraí atá na forálacha sin. Faoin gcomhaontú, beidh an mheicníocht um ghearáin atá i bhfeidhm faoi dhlí na Stát Aontaithe ar fáil do mhuintir na hEorpa chomh maith.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), per iscritto. − Il terrorismo internazionale ha rappresentato senza dubbio la più grande sfida che il mondo occidentale abbia dovuto affrontare negli ultimi dieci anni. La gravità della minaccia terroristica è ben conosciuta a tutti ed è assolutamente indispensabile prendere tutte le contromisure necessarie per vincere una battaglia fondamentale per il nostro futuro.

In una situazione simile diventa fondamentale creare una rete che permetta lo scambio e la condivisione dei dati tra i soggetti maggiormente a rischio: per questo è da considerarsi un passo avanti la conclusione dell'accordo tra Unione europea e Stati Uniti d'America riguardo al trasferimento del codice di prenotazione da parte dei vettori aerei che effettuano voli tra l'UE e gli Stati Uniti.

Grazie a questo accordo il fronte comune occidentale contro il terrorismo viene rafforzato ed aiuterà a combattere la minaccia alla pace e alla sicurezza internazionale proveniente dai terroristi.

  Estelle Grelier (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté contre l'accord PNR entre les Etats-Unis et l'UE sur l'utilisation et le transfert des données des dossiers passagers européens. Je me suis opposée à cet accord, car les négociations au Parlement n'ont pas permis de trouver de compromis sur les garanties nécessaires pour protéger les données des passagers européens. En effet, rien n'a été prévu pour spécifier la finalité des données, trop vague, ni encore pour réduire leur conservation, fixée à 15 ans sans pour autant prévoir de destruction ultérieure, ni enfin pour garantir que les Etats-membres concernés soient consentants en cas de transfert des données de leurs ressortissants vers des pays tiers. La liste des données devant être transférées est également disproportionnée, elle laisse de nombreux champs ouverts, et ne prévoit aucun traitement confidentiel des données sensibles. Enfin cet accord est très rigide, les recours judiciaires devant les juridictions américaines étant limités pour les européens, et la présence du Parlement européen et des Etats membres pas prévue lors des procédures de révision de cet accord. Je ne conteste donc pas l'objectif de coopération transatlantique contre le terrorisme, mais les moyens choisis pour la mettre en œuvre, qui vont à l'encontre des hauts standards de protection des données défendus par les socialistes français.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), par écrit. – Deux ans après le rejet par le Parlement européen de l'accord sur le transfert de données sur les passagers aériens européens entre les Etats-Unis et l'Union européenne signé en 2007, je me réjouis que notre assemblée ait enfin approuvé le nouveau projet d'accord. Les données "PNR" recouvrent les informations relatives au numéro de carte bleue, prix du billet, références de passeport, adresse de destination, numéro de siège etc... Alors que la première mouture avait suscité de fortes réactions du Parlement quant aux risques d'atteinte à la protection des données personnelles, ce nouvel accord encadre strictement leur traitement et fournit une sécurité juridique aux compagnies aériennes. En marquant son accord à ce projet révisé, le Parlement a considéré qu'un juste équilibre avait été trouvé entre la protection des données personnelles et la nécessité d'assurer la sécurité des passagers. Il manifeste la détermination conjointe des Etats-Unis et de l'UE à lutter contre le terrorisme avec des outils qui ont fait la preuve de leur efficacité. Surtout, cet accord est le symbole marquant du renforcement du lien transatlantique, de la volonté de coopération et de la confiance réciproque qui unissent nos deux continents pour faire face aux menaces.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This House has today failed the citizens of Europe in supporting this Agreement. Real legal and ethical concerns remain, and our citizens’ privacy and civil liberties are compromised.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Europos Sąjunga ir Jungtinės Amerikos Valstijos, užtikrindamos veiksmingą kovą su tarptautiniu terorizmu, kuri yra platesnės pasaulinės darbotvarkės dalis, susiduria su daugeliu bendrų problemų. Yra manoma, kad sprendžiant šį bendrą uždavinį dalijimasis informacija, ypač oro vežėjų, vykdančių skrydžius tarp ES ir JAV, perduodamas keleivio duomenų įrašas (PNR), padeda kovoti su grėsme tarptautinei taikai ir saugumui. Balsavau prieš šį dokumentą, kadangi yra būtinybė, visų pirma, laikytis Europos duomenų apsaugos standartų. Antra, būtina ginti pagrindines teises ir užtikrinti didžiausią pagarbą ES piliečių privatumui laikantis atitinkamų ES standartų ir duomenų apsaugos normų. Taip pat naujo susitarimo projektas turi daug trūkumų, ypač susijusių su plačiu PNR duomenų naudojimo tikslu, saugojimo laikotarpiu ir susirūpinimu dėl tolesnio duomenų perdavimo trečiosioms šalims. Manau, kad esama teisinio netikrumo dėl to, ar susitarimo projektas atitinka ES duomenų apsaugos teisės aktus, taigi ir dėl to, ar šis susitarimas šiuo aspektu yra suderinamas su Sutartimis.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport, qui fait suite à un rejet de l'accord PNR en mai 2010 et à un renvoi à la Commission pour négociation. Le présent accord, approuvé par le Parlement européen le 19 avril 2012, permet de garantir la sécurité juridique des passagers aériens ainsi que des compagnies aériennes, et de garantir un haut niveau de protection des données personnelles.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), rakstiski. − Es atbalstīju Eiropas Parlamenta normatīvo rezolūciju par to, lai tiktu noslēgts nolīgums starp ASV un ES, jo uzskatu, ka tas ir nepieciešams, lai varētu efektīvāk atklāt, izmeklēt un cīnīties ar terorismu un citiem smagiem starptautiskiem noziegumiem. Šis nolīgums ir vienlīdz nozīmīgs kā ASV, tā arī ES tiesībsargājošajām institūcijām, jo tiek paredzēts, ka ASV ir jādalās ar ES tiesībsargājošajām iestādēm ar to rīcībā esošo informāciju, ko tās iegūst no pasažieru datu reģistra (PDR). Tajā pašā laikā šis nolīgums paredz stingrus noteikumus, kādos gadījumos drīkstēs izmantot PDR datus un cik ilgi šādus datus drīkst glabāt, lai netiktu aizskartas personas tiesības. Ja tomēr iedzīvotājiem rastos šaubas, ka personas dati tiek izmantoti neatbilstoši, tad jebkurš ES iedzīvotājs varēs vērsties tiesā, kā arī pieprasīt ASV Iekšzemes drošības departamentam personas datus dzēst vai labot, ja tie ir neprecīzi. Tādēļ uzskatu, ka iedzīvotājiem ir nodrošināta privāto datu aizsardzība un personas dati tiks izmantoti tikai valstu drošības stiprināšanas un nodrošināšanas nolūkā.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), kirjallinen. − Äänestin matkustajatietojen luovutussopimuksen puolesta. Lissabonin sopimuksen tuomin valtuuksin torjuimme aikaisemman version toukokuussa 2010 ja vaadimme komissiota neuvottelemaan tiukempia tietosuojaehtoja. Tänään äänestetty sopimus on kompromissi, ei täydellinen sisällöltään, mutta huomattavasti parantunut niin tietosuojan kuin USA:n viranomaisten kanssa sovitun yhteistyönkin osalta.

Parlamentin vasemmalta siiveltä nousseet vahvat soraäänet eivät ole tarjonneet mitään realistista vastinetta. Mikäli parlamentti hylkäisi tämänkin sopimusversion, USA voisi esimerkiksi määritellä kaikille EU-maille omat sääntönsä matkustajatietojen suhteen, ja USA:aan menevät lentoyhtiöt joutuisivat joka tapauksessa jakamaan matkustajatietoja viranomaisille. Tämä hajanaisempi käytäntö ei olisi kenenkään etu.

Niin suuri epäluottamus kuin henkilötietojen keräämiseen ja taltioimiseen liittyykin, on myös tunnustettava, että se on tärkeä osa sekä terrorismin torjunnassa että järjestäytyneen rikollisuuden kitkemisessä. Kuten komission jäsen Cecilia Malmström jälleen muistutti, kyseisen tietopankin avulla on saatu kiinni monta terroristia ja useita muita rikollisia. Tämä sopimus on oikea askel eteenpäin sekä matkustajatietojen että ihmisten suojelussa.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), písomne. − Dohoda medzi EÚ a USA o prenose údajov z osobného záznamu o cestujúcich nespĺňa záruky, ktoré EP požadoval vo svojich predchádzajúcich uzneseniach. Tieto záruky predstavovali akceptačné hranice. Komisia nepresvedčila, že navrhované uchovávanie a spracovávanie údajov PNR na účely presadzovania práva je potrebné a primerané, ani zodpovedne nepreskúmala alternatívne opatrenia, ktoré by predstavovali menší zásah do súkromia. Komisia nedokázala žiadnym spôsobom zlepšiť dohodu z roku 2007. Nič netušiaci cestujúci budú naďalej profilovaní, triedení do netransparentných kategórií rizika a ich údaje sa budú uchovávať 15 rokov. Vznikajú preto vážne pochybnosti o zlučiteľnosti tejto dohody s chartou základných práv a nepodporujem jej súčasné znenie.

  Agnès Le Brun (PPE), par écrit. – Je me réjouis que le Parlement européen ait donné son approbation à la conclusion de ce nouvel accord. Celui-ci constitue un outil fondamental de renforcement de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Plus encore, il permet d'éviter que la transmission des données se fasse en dehors de toute règlementation. En ce sens, il était de mon devoir d'en approuver la conclusion.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), schriftlich. − Ich habe gegen das PNR-Abkommen mit den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika gestimmt, denn es geht komplett in die falsche Richtung. Inzwischen wird jede und jeder, die/der ein Flugzeug nutzt als potenzieller Terrorist behandelt, jede und jeder, die/der das Internet benutzt als potenzieller Terrorist behandelt, jede und jeder, die/der ein Telefon benutzt als potenzieller Terrorist behandelt, alles mit der Rechtfertigung, ein unglaublich schlechtes Abkommen durch ein vielleicht etwas weniger schlechtes zu ersetzen. Mit mir nicht!

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), na piśmie. − Głosowałem przeciwko temu sprawozdaniu. Dane pasażerów lotniczych - obywateli Unii Europejskiej, nie powinny być przekazywane organom państw spoza UE na takich zasadach, jakie zostały określone w przypadku tej umowy. Szczególnie dotyczy to tzw. danych wrażliwych, czyli np. danych dotyczących pochodzenia etnicznego, wyznania, orientacji seksualnej czy stanu zdrowia. Zrozumiałym jest próba ochrony przed zamachami terrorystycznymi, jednakowoż zapisy nowej umowy z USA są krzywdzące dla obywateli Unii.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this proposal. Apart from the widely-stated civil liberties concerns surrounding these proposals, I am also concerned that we appear to be prepared to negotiate terms with the US that are less onerous that those we insist on with other third countries.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), per iscritto. − L'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti devono affrontare una serie di sfide comuni per garantire una lotta efficace al terrorismo internazionale.

Per raggiungere questo obiettivo, si ritiene necessario condividere alcune informazioni, come ad esempio il trasferimento del codice di prenotazione (Passenger name record – PNR) da parte dei vettori aerei che effettuano voli tra l'UE e gli Stati Uniti. Abbiamo già, in una precedente occasione, chiesto una maggiore tutela dei diritti fondamentali e la garanzia del massimo rispetto della privacy dei cittadini europei, in conformità delle pertinenti norme e disposizioni dell'UE in materia di protezione dei dati.

Abbiamo ribadito più volte la massima importanza per i criteri della necessità e della proporzionalità, principi chiave, senza i quali la lotta al terrorismo e alla criminalità internazionale non può essere efficace.

Pur riconoscendo i limiti del nuovo progetto di accordo, in particolare in merito alle ampie finalità di utilizzo dei dati PNR, ai periodi di conservazione e alle preoccupazioni sul trasferimento successivo dei dati ai paesi terzi, riteniamo opportuno dare il nostro parere favorevole al fine di rafforzare la cooperazione transatlantica e la lotta comune al terrorismo internazionale nell'interesse della sicurezza dei cittadini europei.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho espresso voto favorevole sull'accordo riguardante il trattamento e trasferimento dei dati del codice di prenotazione (PNR) da parte dei vettori aerei tra UE e USA, in quanto considero questo accordo un adeguato e necessario strumento di prevenzione verso possibili attività terroristiche intercontinentali e allo stesso tempo un più completo strumento per la maggiore tutela dei diritti dei passeggeri che dall'Europa viaggiano verso gli Stati Uniti.

Il mio voto favorevole rispecchia la personale volontà di non costituire un ostacolo alla cooperazione tra Stati Uniti e Unione europea, ma al contrario incoraggiare la cooperazione tra le parti nello spirito del partenariato transatlantico al fine di salvaguardare le nostre rispettive società democratiche ed i valori comuni.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – Le nouvel accord PNR avec les Etats-Unis apporte des garanties supplémentaires satisfaisantes en matière de protection des données, tout en permettant de renforcer la lutte contre le terrorisme. Il accorde aux citoyens européens un droit d'accès, de rectification de leurs données personnelles et un droit de recours. La transmission des données des citoyens européens sera strictement encadrée, et ne pourra intervenir qu'aux motifs de lutte contre le terrorisme ou d'infractions transnationales graves. De plus, l'accord adopté renforce la sécurité des citoyens européens : il permet à l'Union européenne de bénéficier des analyses américaines en matière de risques terroristes. Ne pas adopter l'accord aurait été irresponsable, et aurait créé un vide juridique préjudiciable aux compagnies aériennes et aux citoyens européens.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this proposed Agreement on the use and transfer of Passenger Name Records (PNR) to the United States Department of Homeland Security which is aimed at combating terrorism and serious transnational crime.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório por considerar a luta contra o terrorismo crucial para que se possa viver num mundo em paz e prosperidade. Quando se pensa nas exigências dos EUA quando se trata da entrada de cidadãos no seu país, não nos podemos esquecer de que os EUA foram atacados no seu próprio território e as armas utilizadas foram aviões. Estou, assim, de acordo que se forneça a informação necessária para que tal não volte a acontecer no futuro, mesmo que tais informações possam parecer desadequadas ou exageradas. Há para todos os cidadãos a certeza de que os seus direitos, liberdades e garantias jamais serão afetados.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – La lutte contre le terrorisme et la criminalité transnationale sont des préoccupations majeures qui doivent rester des priorités dans notre action.

L'accord PNR avec les États-Unis ne répond que très imparfaitement aux droits fondamentaux des citoyens. Les principales objections qui portent sur le champ d'application dont les limites sont floues, la durée de conservation des données, très longue et sans effacement de celles-ci, le recours administratif et judiciaire en cas d'erreur ou le mode de transmission des données ne sont pas prises en compte.

Tout en reconnaissant les efforts déployés par la Commission pour obtenir un accord plus équilibré, force est de constater que des principes essentiels comme le respect des droits individuels et de la législation de l'Union européenne ainsi que la protection des données personnelles des citoyens de l'Union ne sont pas respectés.

Les concessions qui ont été faites aux partenaires américains risquent de créer un dangereux précédent dans les négociations d'accords PNR avec des partenaires futurs. Car comment pourrons-nous refuser à d'autres pays les avantages que nous avons accordés aux États-Unis ? L'accord n'est pas assez équilibré et ne garantit pas une utilisation limitée à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Ces données pourraient en effet être utilisées à d'autres fins.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report concerns the consent procedure on the EU-US agreement on the processing and transfer of passenger name record data to the US for the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The report recommends that the European Parliament give its consent to EU-US agreement. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. − Das Abkommen zum Austausch von Fluggastdaten ist entschieden abzulehnen. Dieses Abkommen bietet keinen ausreichenden Schutz von personenbezogenen Daten europäischer Bürger. Insbesondere können die Daten auch weiterhin nach Ermessen der USA an Drittstaaten übermittelt werden, und es gibt auch keine Gleichbehandlung europäischer Flugreisender mit jenen der USA. Das Fluggastdatenabkommen wird zudem als „Executive Agreement“ eingestuft werden. Das bedeutet, dass es nicht dem Kongress zur Ratifizierung vorgelegt wird und deshalb für die USA auch gar nicht rechtlich bindend ist. Umgekehrt haben die USA aber Zugriff auf sämtliche Daten ab der Buchung, was noch dadurch verschlimmert wird, dass sich die Datencenter aller vier großen, globalen Buchungsdatenbanken in den Vereinigten Staaten befinden, die sich seit 2001 mit administrativen Verfügungen nach Belieben bedienen können. In keinem einzigen Punkt, der den Europäern wichtig ist, konnte sich die EU-Kommission durchsetzen, ebenso hat sie es verabsäumt, eine Verbesserung der Rechtsstellung europäischer Flugreisender auszuhandeln. Herausgekommen ist daher ein Abkommen, das ausschließlich den USA und deren Geheimdiensten Vorteile bringt. Daher habe ich gegen das Abkommen gestimmt.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o Acordo UE-Estados Unidos sobre a transferência de dados dos passageiros para, e dos, Estados Unidos pelas seguintes razões: a) O Acordo disciplina e limita a obrigação de fornecimento de dados decorrente da lei norte-americana, impondo compromissos dos Estados Unidos face à UE; é bem melhor do que o Acordo de 2007, do que os bilaterais existentes, e do que nenhum acordo. b) Os dados pessoais dos passageiros são um instrumento essencial para a luta contra o terrorismo e outros crimes transnacionais (tráfico de droga e de pessoas). c) O direito à segurança dos passageiros e das pessoas em geral não é menos importante do que o direito à proteção dos dados pessoais; os dados pessoais em causa não envolvem dados sensíveis; o Acordo assegura um equilíbrio satisfatório entre o direito à segurança e o direito à proteção dos dados pessoais, não sendo, a meu ver, incompatível com o direito europeu nesta matéria. d) O Acordo confere às autoridades de segurança europeias e dos Estados-Membros acesso aos dados e à investigação das autoridades americanas, o que ajuda a própria segurança europeia enquanto a União não tem o seu próprio regime de colheita e tratamento de dados pessoais dos passageiros.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui acord care permite UE consolidarea cooperării cu Statele Unite şi, prin aceasta, o combatere mai eficientă a terorismului. Nu trebuie să uităm că siguranţa cetăţenilor noştri trebuie să fie obiectivul nostru principal. Salut de asemenea faptul că, în urma renegocierilor, acordul asigură o mai bună protecţie a datelor cetăţenilor europeni.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), schriftlich. − Selbstverständlich ist es auch mir ein Anliegen, den internationalen Terrorismus durch Kooperation unter den Staaten wirksam zu bekämpfen. Das Abkommen mit den USA zur Weitergabe von Fluggastdaten an das Department of Homeland Security ist unter Datenschutzgesichtspunkten hochgradig bedenklich. Weder wurden Voraussetzungen zum Datenabruf festgelegt, noch kann kontrolliert werden, was genau mit den weitergegebenen Daten geschieht. Insbesondere ist nicht nachvollziehbar, ob die USA die Daten an Drittstaaten weitergeben. Die Daten werden dauerhaft gespeichert und der unbescholtene Bürger kann so in undurchsichtige Verdächtigengruppen eingeordnet werden. Ich habe starke Bedenken, dass das Abkommen mit der Charta der Grundrechte und der Rechtssprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs in Einklang zu bringen ist. Da mir der Schutz der Privatsphäre der Bürger vor Datenmissbrauch wichtig ist, habe ich dagegen gestimmt.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. − I find it unfortunate that the European Parliament gave its consent to the EU-USA PNR. In doing so, we have legitimised the illegal collection of passenger data by the US authorities, which is one of the reasons why I voted against the report. Furthermore, the current agreement does not provide the necessary guarantees on the protection of the data of the citizens of the EU and therefore violates the EU regulation on data protection. It will also put additional financial pressure on the carriers, as it will require investments in some additional technology. I find that the European Parliament did not live up to the expectations of the citizens of the Union by agreeing to the PNR.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Nepritariu šiai rezoliucijai dėl JAV ir ES susitarimo dėl keleivio duomenų įrašų naudojimo ir perdavimo JAV Vidaus saugumo departamentui sudarymo. Manau, kad šio susitarimo nauda yra abejotina, be to, jis turi daug trūkumų. Visų pirma, nėra aiškus duomenų naudojimo tikslas, saugojimo laikotarpis. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad kyla daug neaiškumų dėl tolesnio duomenų perdavimo trečiosioms šalims. Taigi toks susitarimas pažeistų ES piliečių privatumo ir duomenų apsaugos principus. Neabejotina, kad yra būtina stiprinti bendrą ES ir JAV kovą su tarptautiniu terorizmu, tačiau visais atvejais būtina gerbti ES piliečių teisę į privatumą ir duomenų saugumą. Mes turime siekti, kad būtų išlaikytas sustiprinta saugumo ir žmogaus teisių apsaugos, įskaitant duomenų apsaugą ir privatumo išsaugojimą, pusiausvyra.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. − Tutelare i cittadini e la loro sicurezza mantenendone intatti privacy e diritti è lo scopo del legislatore europeo. Per migliorare la legislazione già esistente gli accordi vanno modificati e riadattati a seconda delle esigenze, proprio come nel caso in questione. Il PNR tra UE e USA, accordo di trasferimento del codice di prenotazione e dei dati relativi alle registrazioni dei nominativi dei passeggeri di voli aerei per gli Stati Uniti, scaturisce dalle nuove misure di sicurezza per combattere il terrorismo. La trasmissione dei dati sui passeggeri non è altro che uno scambio d'informazioni per la protezione dei dati sensibili e il controllo dei passeggeri in entrata negli Stati Uniti. Considero il testo positivo soprattutto perché armonizza la legislazione esistente tra gli Stati membri dell'Unione.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Abstive-me na votação por considerar que votar não, promovendo a ausência de um acordo UE-EUA, poderia abrir espaço a acordos bilaterais entre os EUA e cada um dos Estados-Membros enfraquecendo a negociação UE/EUA mas, simultaneamente, considero que não posso votar favoravelmente porque tal representaria aceitar um acordo que em vários aspetos representa um retrocesso em comparação com o primeiro Acordo de 2004. De facto, os direitos dos cidadãos europeus podiam e deviam ter sido melhor protegidos.

  Franck Proust (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du nouvel accord PNR car il accorde un rapport d'équilibre entre protection des données et sécurité des citoyens européens. Les Etats-Unis, partenaire historique, et l'Europe poursuivent un même but: la lutte contre le terrorisme. Mais en tant qu'eurodéputé, je resterai vigilant à ce que notre niveau élevé d'exigence en matière de protection de la vie privée soit la norme dans n'importe quel accord signé par l'Union européenne. Enfin, un rejet aurait équivalu à laisser un vide juridique pour les compagnies aériennes et les passagers. Sans l'aval de l'Europe, les Etats-Unis auraient privilégié les accords bilatéraux. Et les garanties auraient été insuffisantes pour les passagers européens. C'est pour défendre toutes ces libertés fondamentales que l'accord devait être adopté.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − A União Europeia e os Estados Unidos da América enfrentam vários desafios comuns para garantirem uma luta eficaz contra o terrorismo internacional como parte integrante de uma agenda global mais abrangente. No âmbito deste esforço comum, o intercâmbio de informações, sobretudo a nível da transferência dos registos de identificação dos passageiros (PNR) pelas transportadoras aéreas que operam voos entre a UE e os EUA, serve o propósito de combater a ameaça à paz internacional e à segurança. O objetivo do tratamento de dados PNR restringe-se à prevenção, à deteção e à repressão de atos terroristas e de formas graves de criminalidade transnacional. Além disso, o período de conservação de dados é limitado, a divulgação das informações constantes do PNR está sujeita a limitações legais e o método de exportação de dados PUSH é considerado o modo regular de transferência. Votei, por isso, em sentido favorável.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), par écrit. – J'ai soutenu, comme 409 collègues, l'accord PNR, sur le transfert des données des passagers au ministère américain de la sécurité intérieure. Il s'agit d'un compromis et le texte est imparfait. Soit. Mais son rejet aurait eu pour seul effet de maintenir en vigueur le précédent accord, moins bon en termes de protection de la vie privée. Un tel rejet n'aurait pas ouvert non plus de nouvelles négociations avec les États-Unis. Pour les uns, il s'agit ici d'une question de respect de la vie privée. Pour d'autres, les enjeux se résument à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Notre rôle était de placer le curseur entre ces deux exigences. Et c'est ce que j'estime avoir fait. Car le droit à la sécurité est fondamental, cardinal même. Sans sécurité de ce que l'on est et de ce que l'on a, à quoi bon pouvoir aller, penser, dire, publier ou manifester? Et puis franchement, les jusqu'au-boutistes de la "privacy", qui jettent allègrement ici le bébé avec l'eau du bain, ne feraient-ils pas mieux de jeter un œil sur le flicage dont nous sommes l'objet consentant sur les réseaux sociaux, un "big brother" autrement plus intrusif pour le coup! Et, chacun en conviendra, moins légitime!

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. A majority of MEPs has today voted to reverse the European Parliament’s long-standing role in defence of EU citizens’ civil liberties and to endorse intrusive big-brother-style surveillance. Instead of rejecting this senseless and excessive collection and retention of private data, those MEPs who voted in favour of the deal have engaged in gross hypocrisy and sought to wash their hands of the PNR controversy. The core fundamental rights concerns raised by the Parliament and courts across Europe have not been addressed in the deal endorsed today.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore di questo documento perché ritengo necessario impegnarsi per il raggiungimento di un accordo che rafforzi la lotta comune dell'Unione europea e degli Stati Uniti al terrorismo internazionale nell'interesse della sicurezza dei cittadini europei.

L'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti devono unirsi per affrontare una serie di sfide comuni e garantire una lotta efficace al terrorismo internazionale nel quadro di un'agenda globale più ampia, attraverso la condivisione di informazioni, in particolare il trasferimento del codice di prenotazione da parte dei vettori aerei che effettuano voli tra l'UE e gli Stati Uniti.

Auspico che il Parlamento europeo mantenga la stessa determinazione dimostrata finora nel combattere il terrorismo internazionale, la criminalità organizzata e transnazionale, ritenendoli elementi fondamentali dell'azione esterna europea, e nel perseguire una strategia di prevenzione adeguata.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), per iscritto. − La lotta al terrorismo internazionale è una sfida che vede l'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti schierati in prima linea.

È necessaria una collaborazione stretta e continua fra questi due soggetti politici per ridurre al minimo qualsiasi tipo di minaccia. L'accordo raggiunto nel 2007 rappresenta un primo passo verso l'obiettivo finale ed ora l'accordo siglato nel novembre 2011 introduce importanti novità: scambi di informazioni più efficienti e un maggiore livello di protezione dei dati dei passeggeri.

Ho votato a favore dell'accordo perché quest'ultimo rafforzerà la lotta contro diverse attività criminose, aiuterà la cattura dei colpevoli di atti terroristici, rafforzerà la partnership transatlantica e garantirà la protezione della privacy e la tutela dei dati personali dei passeggeri.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), kirjallinen. − Vuonna 2007 EU:n ja Yhdysvaltojen välillä voimaan tullut PNR-sopimus neuvoteltiin uudestaan. Parlamentti ei hyväksynyt sopimuksen ehtoja ja velvoitti Euroopan komission lisäneuvotteluihin Yhdysvaltojen kanssa sopimuksen ehdoista. Eniten huolta aiheuttaneeseen kansalaisoikeuksien toteutumiseen yksityisyydensuojan osalta haettiin neuvotteluissa parannuksia. Nyt käsillä oleva uudistettu sopimus sisältää 15 vuoden enimmäisajan tietojen säilyttämiselle ja antaa EU:n viranomaisille mahdollisuuden tarkistaa sopimuksen täytäntöönpanoa Yhdysvalloissa.

Arvioin tämän sopimuksen onnistumista ennen kaikkea sen valossa, miten se onnistuu toisaalta auttamaan kumppanuusvaltiota terrorismin ja rikollisuuden torjunnassa, ja toisaalta takaamaan tyydyttävät kansalaisoikeudet eurooppalaisille lentomatkustajille, jotka matkustavat Yhdysvaltoihin. Äänestettäessä suosituksesta PNR-tietojen luovuttamista koskevan sopimuksen hyväksymiseksi, ja ottaen huomioon, että tämän suosituksen hylkääminen tarkoittaisi sopimuksetonta tilaa Yhdysvaltojen kanssa, olen ehdottomasti sitä mieltä, että sopimuksenvarainen tila takaa myös lentomatkustajien oikeudet paremmin kuin sopimukseton tila.

Lisäksi haluan korostaa, että minusta on luontevaa se, että Euroopan unioni edesauttaa Yhdysvaltojen turvallisuusviranomaisten toimintaa kansainvälisen terrorismin ja rikollisuuden torjunnassa. Yhteistyö tällä saralla on ehdottomasti myös EU:n ja sen jäsenvaltioiden intressissä. Näin ollen äänestin tämän sopimuksen hyväksymiseen johtavan suosituksen puolesta.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), kirjalikult. − Esiteks tahan märkida, et Euroopa Liidu ja Ameerika Ühendriikide broneeringuinfo leping ei vasta tagatistele, mida Euroopa Parlament on oma varasemates resolutsioonides nõudnud. Sõlmitava lepinguga antakse alus ebaproportsionaalsele ja põhjendamatule andmete kogumisele ja säilitamisele. Samuti ei ole tagatud, et andmeid kasutatakse vaid terrorismi ja rahvusvaheliste kuritegude vähendamise ja ennetamise otstarbel. Kahjuks rikutakse täna vastuvõetud otsusega demokraatia põhialuseid, täpsemalt inimeste põhiõigusi. Käesolev leping ei taga isikuandmete kaitset ega isikute endi õigust privaatsusele ning õiguslikule kaitsele. Komisjonil ei ole õnnestunud 2007. aasta lepingut vähimalgi määral täiustada. Endiselt koostatakse täiesti mittekahtlustäratavate reisijate kohta profiil, nad liigitatakse läbipaistmatutesse riskikategooriatesse ja nende andmeid säilitatakse 15 aastat. Pärast seda andmed „anonümiseeritakse täielikult”, selle asemel et need kustutada. See paneb tõsiselt muretsema, kas leping on kooskõlas Euroopa Liidu põhiõiguste harta ning Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohtu ja Saksamaa konstitutsioonikohtu kohtupraktikaga. Seetõttu hääletasin antud raporti vastu. Aitäh!

  Christel Schaldemose, Dan Jørgensen, Britta Thomsen og Ole Christensen (S&D), skriftlig. − De danske socialdemokrater i Europa-Parlamentet har stemt for at godkende aftalen mellem USA og EU om anvendelse af og overførsel af passagerlisteoplysninger til United States Department of Homeland Security (2011/0382(NLE)), da det er opfattelsen, at medlemslandene ville være dårligere stillede uden en sådan aftale. Det skyldes, at retsgrundlaget uden nærværende udkast til aftale ville blive fastholdt på 2007-niveau. Det forventes således, at USA ville indgå bilaterale aftaler med medlemslandene. Dette ville svække medlemslandenes forhandlingsmuligheder og i sidste ende resultatet af de pågældende bilaterale aftaler.

  Brian Simpson (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of the PNR agreement with the USA, even though I recognise that this agreement is far from perfect. However, we have to recognise that the deal before us today is better by far than not only the previous agreement that was rejected by this Parliament, but the present agreement that is in force.

To reject the agreement would leave us with the status quo, which everybody accepts is a poor agreement. Such action would also weaken our oversight on PNR, which surely would be questioned by our constituents, leaving us open to the accusation of dereliction of our duty.

Whether we like it or not, PNR is an essential tool in fighting terrorism. I believe this agreement is the best deal we are going to get, which is why I support it.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D), in writing. − I decided to vote in favour since I believe this is a strong agreement which will protect lives against terrorism and serious crimes. The PNR data has already led to the capture of hundreds of criminals and its use cannot be underestimated. Moreover, the agreement sets clear limits on the purposes for which PNR data may be used and guarantees data protection in a more efficient way than the 2007 agreement. It is better to have an agreement that specifies the stringent conditions under which specific pieces of information can be transferred than to have no agreement at all, or a number of bilateral deals between the US and individual EU countries.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI), por esc