Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 22 May 2012 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: OLDŘICH VLASÁK
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (announcement of motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

4. SMEs’ access to Structural Funds - Evaluation of the SME definition

  President. – The first item is the joint debate on the access of small and medium-sized enterprises to Structural Funds and on the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I welcome the fact that this Parliament is focusing on the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises. Given the current difficult economic climate, it is all the more important that SMEs, which are the principal contributors to our economies, are provided with a climate in which they can flourish and grow.

You have chosen to focus this debate on two specific issues: that of access by SMEs to Structural Funds and that of the definition of SMEs. Both of these have been the subject recently of oral questions to the Commission. In fact, it is correct to address the Commission on both these issues and I am sure that the Commissioner will be able to respond in more detail to the particular points which I know are of concern to this Parliament, to the Commission and, of course, to the Council.

As far as the Presidency is concerned, I would like to share with you a number of points which are important to the Council. Firstly, SMEs are the backbone of our economy. They are the drivers of wealth creation and of our ability to adjust flexibly to changes in demand, and are a major source of employment. That is why SMEs have been at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy. At a time when more than 25 million people are unemployed, we need the SMEs to generate jobs, especially for young people.

SMEs draw valuable support from the Structural Funds. Indeed, over the period 2007 to 2014, SMEs will have benefited from these funds to a total of EUR 70 billion. This financial support helps strengthen the competitiveness of SMEs.

During the credit crunch, ensuring that SMEs have access to adequate finance has become even more important. For this reason, a number of schemes guaranteeing loans to SMEs have been extended, and there are several new initiatives designed to provide SMEs with interest-rate subsidies and to increase the credit ring-fenced for SMEs.

Financial instruments constitute a rapidly growing and effective form of support for SMEs from the Structural Funds. They complement grant financing and are more sustainable because the money can be recycled and used again in the future. Venture capital and loan funds are also indispensable for SMEs. In addition, SMEs benefit from financing through the European Investment Bank, which provides loans at advantageous rates. These constitute valuable financing mechanisms offering a flexible approach that is an alternative to either grants or loans from commercial banks.

A further valuable source of funding comes from the various initiatives set up jointly by the Commission and the EIB. The financial instruments known as JEREMIE, JESSICA and JASMINE are designed to improve SMEs’ access to finance by providing equity, loans and guarantees.

On the matter of the definition of SMEs, I am aware that the Commission is preparing a survey to assess Member States’ opinions on the current definition and whether it could be beneficial to change it. In the Council, we have not yet had an opportunity to discuss this issue and we are looking forward to receiving the Commission’s survey. That said, it is important to note that the current definition means that 95% of all companies in Europe are SMEs. It therefore seems natural that we have a thorough discussion and a proper analysis on a possible change of the definition, and we also look forward to hearing the opinion of Parliament and discussing this issue with it.

Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the focus of your interest this morning is the issue of access to finance by SMEs – and rightly so, given the current economic climate. I would like to close by emphasising that, while access to finance is, of course, extremely important, SMEs also need a favourable business environment in which to be able to develop. The Small Business Act, adopted in 2008, has been key in helping SMEs, through the creation of a comprehensive policy framework. In conjunction with this, many Member States have taken steps to help SMEs – for example, through the establishment of ‘one-stop shops’ for people starting up businesses – but we must all remain particularly vigilant so that we continue to provide SMEs with a proper environment in which to grow, and so that we simplify the business environment and reduce the burden of red tape on all businesses.

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wammen, honourable Members, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) lie at the heart of the European economy. We have a total of around 23 million SMEs in Europe, which amounts to 99.8% of European companies. Therefore, the growth and future competitiveness of Europe depend on the competitiveness of our SMEs. The crisis has hit SMEs in the same way as all other businesses. It is generally SMEs which now have greater difficulty in obtaining loans and outside capital. For this reason, there is a public responsibility to help SMEs, so that they do not become victims of credit squeezes and are able to make full use of their potential for innovation. This is why the European Commission has repeatedly taken measures over recent years to give SMEs better access to capital. By adapting existing programmes in 2010 and 2011, the Commission has succeeded in increasing the funding available for financial instruments, such as loans and guarantees, to more than EUR 8.1 billion. This was the situation at the end of 2010. The money has been used to finance a total of 300 different instruments in the Member States and more than 90 000 direct jobs have been created as a result.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament once again for its rapid, committed and ongoing support for the amendments to our regulations. The amendments have been needed over the years to respond to precisely these challenges. For example, working capital has been designated as eligible for subsidies in the context of revolving funds and a significant contribution has also been made to the process of overcoming the crisis, particularly in certain Member States.

In January this year, the Commission took a further step, together with the Member States, and adapted the programmes in such a way that the funding still available could be used specifically to create new jobs. Its initiative also included measures to combat youth unemployment. This reallocation is primarily intended to benefit SMEs, in as far as the funds available still allow for this, because it is SMEs that can create lasting jobs in Europe. I would like to remind everyone that there are around 24 million unemployed people in Europe and 23 million SMEs. In simple terms, if every SME hired one unemployed person, the problem would almost be solved.

This initiative will result in between EUR 5 billion and EUR 8 billion being reallocated, as things stand today. During the next programming period, the Commission has put a clear emphasis on ensuring that SMEs benefit from the Structural Funds. A total of 80% of the money from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in more developed regions and 50% in less developed regions will be spent on these priorities, including innovation in SMEs, renewable energies and energy efficiency. It is important to remember that, in absolute figures, the 50% in the less developed regions amounts to more than the 80% in the more developed regions.

This initiative clearly focuses on the priorities and also sends out a strong signal that we want to improve the competitiveness of SMEs. To achieve this, we must, of course, also work together to make it easier in administrative terms for SMEs to access money from the Structural Funds. I would therefore like to thank the European Parliament for the many proposals it has submitted with the aim of simplifying the administrative processes even further. At the same time, I would like to mention that a significant proportion of the administrative challenges are at national and regional level. For example, we will be making the implementation of the Small Business Act subject to ex ante conditionalities, or at least that is what we have proposed. We need joint efforts at European level and by the Member States on behalf of our SMEs.

I would like to make one final point that has already been mentioned. The definition of the term SME is a frequent topic for discussion. You will be aware that the European Commission regularly reviews this definition and that another independent evaluation is currently under way which will also take into consideration the number of employees and the turnover limits. We are expecting to receive the results of these investigations in the early autumn of 2012. The results will, of course, be discussed openly and on a broad basis. At the moment, I cannot say whether this will lead to a change in the current definition.

Ladies and gentlemen, SMEs form the backbone of the European economy. Over recent weeks and months, many discussions have taken place on the subject of growth and measures to stimulate growth. I would like to make it clear that anyone who wants to take lasting steps to promote growth must begin by increasing the competitiveness of SMEs. The Commission at least is prepared to do this.

  Bendt Bendtsen, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DA) Mr President, the EU’s programmes need to be more user-friendly. I regret to say that often, they are written by officials for officials, and not for entrepreneurs. There are far too many entrepreneurs giving up before they even get started. We all know that it is the small and medium-sized enterprises that are creating the jobs, and that is why we must make the application procedures more accessible. We have to get rid of this red tape. I also think that we can, in fact, improve the way we link access to financing for enterprises with the challenges that Europe is facing. After all, we have work to do in respect of energy efficiency. Might it perhaps be an idea to create a link between the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises and some of this work by taking money from the Structural Funds and giving it to small and medium-sized enterprises? This could create lots of jobs for those termed ‘blue-collar workers’; in other words, ordinary people in boiler suits, craftsmen, who could be employed to provide insulation, install new windows, and so on. This would allow us to solve both climate problems and employment problems, while at the same time allowing the resources in the funds to be used for the benefit of small and medium-sized enterprises. It is, after all, precisely these companies that are creating jobs.

Where the SME definition is concerned, I think we should be cautious about shifting the current definition too far. I do not think it should be expanded under any circumstances because, as the definition stands at present, it already covers more than 99% of all enterprises.

  Constanze Angela Krehl, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it has so often been said that small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) lie at the heart of the European Union’s economy and this is indeed the case. We are doing a great deal for them. I believe that this is something really special because, in contrast to other large economic areas, we have smaller companies which are competitive on global markets and which are flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions. That is the special feature of SMEs in the European Union and we are providing them with support. They are at the centre of our structural policy not just in the next subsidy period, but also here and now.

We have done a lot to ensure that they can access the money from the Structural Funds more easily. However, I believe that there is potential for further improvement and simplification in this area. When a small company applies for a loan at favourable interest rates, it should not be necessary for the company to fill out reams of forms. I think that there is still room for improvement here.

However, I also believe that by means of an intelligent initiative, we can encourage SMEs to create closer links between economic growth, an innovative approach to economic development and the struggle to reduce youth unemployment levels.

Mr Hahn said in a previous debate that if every company in Europe were to hire just one young person, the problem of youth unemployment would effectively go away. He is right to a certain extent. I am not trying to say that we should insist that money from the European Union will only be made available when companies take on one or two young people. That sort of approach reminds me of my past in the German Democratic Republic, which was also unable to resolve this sort of problem. However, I think it is worth considering how we can establish an intelligent project that could be subsidised by the European Union and would give young people real opportunities for training followed by jobs within companies. Perhaps we will be able to make progress in this area in time for the next subsidy period. However, I must make it clear that I do not want to see merely windfall effects for companies. There must be lasting growth and a lasting reduction in unemployment.

I do have one request for the Commission. I know that the Commission is currently reviewing competition law. It would be very helpful in this respect if we could ensure that regions are not pulled apart and that the subsidy conditions in one region are not completely different from those in another. This would lead to more bureaucracy and make access to subsidy funding much more difficult. I hope that the Commission can come up with a positive proposal in this area which will not result in the regions being torn apart.

  Jürgen Creutzmann, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (DE) Mr President, one of the most serious problems for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is access to finance. The Commission’s cohesion policy should be able to help resolve this problem. There are various programmes which have already been mentioned. A study by the European Parliament on the effectiveness of the Structural Funds and other measures aimed at regional SMEs has evidently highlighted some weaknesses. These include a failure to distinguish between different types of SMEs – such as micro-enterprises, but also self-employed people – major bureaucratic obstacles during the process of applying for finance, together with the reporting and monitoring requirements, the need for advance funding for projects and a lack of standardisation of the rules and procedures across different subsidy programmes.

This leads me to make a few requests to the Commission. We should be able to simplify the process of obtaining finance from the Structural Funds. We need to improve the access to Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises (JEREMIE). The contribution of EUR 50 000 required from the applicants is too high. We need to relax the requirement for advance funding for projects. We also need to take a more targeted approach to providing finance for different types of SMEs, to reduce the amount of cofinancing required and to close the financing gap between the individual depreciation cycles. In addition, we need more support to help SMEs to help themselves in the area of financing. Professional organisations could make a contribution in this respect. We must help SMEs to become stronger and to increase their capital. They have to do this in order to obtain loans from the banks.

Mr Hahn, it is, of course, also important that Basel III is implemented in such a way that it does not obstruct the process of lending to SMEs, but instead creates opportunities for companies to access loans easily and under favourable terms.

  Ana Miranda, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play a key role in the economies of many countries; countries that are suffering enormously from the economic and financial crisis. The huge role of SMEs in job creation is even more important for sectors of the population such as women, immigrants or the young. Young people currently account for 40% or almost 50% of unemployment in many Member States.

The high unemployment rates demand of the political class – of all of us – that we make this economic sector more competitive in Europe. There have been very indebted SMEs in Europe in recent years. In fact, we believe that 85% of the jobs created in the European Union were created by SMEs, especially new companies. However, we believe there are major administrative burdens. There is therefore a need to provide for programmes specifically intended to boost the SME sector in the upcoming Cohesion Fund reform. We need to use innovative measures, facilities and new technologies to streamline the mechanisms for coordinating the various administrations; to show the potential of cross-border companies; to risk opening up the market; and to help SMEs to combat the crisis and the lack of jobs.

  Giles Chichester, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I am very pleased that this item and our question are on the agenda for debate today, but I am not so happy with the replies that are forthcoming. It is a very lonely matter for small businesses to start and to grow – and even to survive – and we need to give them all the assistance we can that is reasonable.

The concerns of small businesses are fairly consistent over the years. First of all, they need access to information. They need assistance in finding out where to get help. Secondly, they need assistance to gain access to finance. It is particularly difficult for people to raise small loans; banks hate lending small amounts of money to people and small enterprises; they like big amounts which they can manage and charge good fees on. That is a big challenge. But we can do something about the burden of administration, of red tape. Complying with regulations is more difficult for small businesses than it is for larger firms.

I want to close by saying that, for the longer term, I hope the Commission will take on board the last point in our question about allocating unspent balances in other budget lines to research and development. That is the way to help jobs and wealth creation for the future.

  Nikolaos Salavrakos, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Mr President, small and medium-sized enterprises are the cornerstone of the European economy and perhaps the most important vehicle for stimulating growth and creating jobs under the current circumstances in the European Union. However, this sector is the most vulnerable to the impact of the economic crisis. Profit margins of small and medium-sized enterprises in Greece have been eroded by as much as 60%, which is the highest in Europe, followed by Spain with 55%. This compares with Germany, where the profit margins of small and medium-sized enterprises have soared to 21%. My country, Greece, has witnessed the biggest deterioration in the sector and access for small and medium-sized enterprises to bank loans is now non-existent. Many companies are closing, making the situation in the entrepreneurship and labour sectors even worse. However, according to recent lending surveys by the European Central Bank, banks have increased the criteria for loans to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Commission therefore needs to consider and propose measures to facilitate the take-up of funds, especially by countries which are unable to raise their share of cofinancing due to strict austerity measures. The Commission needs to foster cooperation and synergisms between the Structural Funds and the European Investment Bank in order to identify financing instruments that will generate exponential results. The most profitable sectors of each economy must be identified and proper strategic planning is needed.

  Inês Cristina Zuber, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, much can be said about the need to develop the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) sector and make it grow. Much can be said about how crucial SMEs are to helping economic growth and job creation. Whatever might be said, what is certain is that implementing so-called austerity measures leads daily to the strangulation, asphyxiation and destruction of thousands of SMEs.

Until we break with and reverse the path of recessive policies, it will be impossible to promote economic growth and job creation. The statements being made in political circles – from the right to the centre-left – of the intention to make austerity incompatible with growth are nothing short of illusory; an attempt to push blindly ahead, and to use fine but ineffective words to hide the tragic and material consequences of austerity policies.

The very measures imposed by the troika in Portugal provide a good example of this social tragedy. Since these measures were implemented in Portugal one year ago, 203 500 jobs have been destroyed, equating to 558 jobs per day. Many of these jobs have been lost from SMEs because the companies in question went out of business, but it could not have been any other way; and that is so logical that a child could understand it. Wage and pension cuts and increased indirect taxation on the products sold by small and medium-sized enterprises lead to reduced consumption and then to SMEs going out of business.

However, it is the same European Commission that fixes – along with the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank – the measures ravaging Portuguese SMEs that is now telling us about the need to support SMEs. It is true that it is important to support SME creation, but it would also now be logical to stop applying political measures that are condemning existing SMEs to go out of business as we speak.

Support for SMEs should involve State aid, made available by reversing the process of monopolisation of the economy, which has been exacerbated by the creation of the single market and which has benefited big capital within the Member States, as well as multinationals. There is a need to regulate key factors of production, such as energy or banking, so that SMEs will not, as customers, be subjected to unbearable monopolistic prices, such as the interest rates that they have to pay to access credit. EU funding must be made more accessible to SMEs, by cutting red tape and streamlining processes, by ensuring timely payment, and by positively discriminating in favour of areas and sectors facing particular difficulties.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). – Mr President, we have heard a lot of fine words today about small businesses being the backbone of society and our economy, etc., etc., but what about the reality? I am reminded that President De Gaulle scoffed at the English and called us a nation of shopkeepers. But, Mr President, it is our small businesses and our shopkeepers that employ the vast majority of the workforce in the United Kingdom.

In my mobile surgery, that goes around every town and city in the West Midlands on a regular basis, I meet shopkeepers who say they are being strangled by European Union regulation; business rates are too high; there is not enough training; there is not enough access to finance. Yet all they hear of, all the time, is more EU funds – the UK being the second largest contributor to the EU but having few recipients of aid and training.

Take the European Globalisation Fund: every other country in the EU has had access to this fund except the United Kingdom. This is pertinent in Ryton, near Coventry, where Peugeot closed down in 2005. It also closed plant in France, but the French got training and the people of Coventry did not. Then there are these ‘JEREMIE’ funds, providing funding for small businesses around Europe, including in the south of France – a country that is a member of the G8. Is there any in the UK? No, there is not. Absolutely disgraceful!

As I said, we are the second largest contributor to the European Union; we need to cut out the middle man, fund our own small businesses and leave the European Union.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, firstly I have a question for Mr Hahn. What is the situation with regard to the research infrastructure? What are the plans in the field of research for making opportunities available to SMEs?

My second question is for Mr Wammen. We have heard from President Hollande that we urgently need a strategy for growth. What specific impact will this have on the 2013 budget? What items are you planning to include in the 2013 budget in order to put a concrete growth strategy in place? What is being done in the multiannual framework programme for the period up to 2020? What types of growth infrastructures are you planning in this area? What programmes do you want to see here and, most importantly, what funding will be available for them?

My third point is that we need to make sure that young entrepreneurs have the opportunity to gain experience in other countries in the European Union, but also outside the European Union. We have the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs programme. Will there be a significant increase in this area to enable us to bring young entrepreneurs together with their suppliers and their markets?

Finally, in the context of the definition, we need to think about the mid-caps, the international companies with a high volume of exports, and about whether they could also receive support from the globalisation fund.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, development is not a luxury but a duty. Today, growth is a universally acknowledged priority. Yet this was not the case until recently, and my group can be rightly proud of having consistently pressed on this matter, in calling for some significant changes to the focus of European policy.

As has already been mentioned, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – which are the productive backbone of the economy – need not only the urgent interventions that will be discussed later but also long-term measures to cultivate the human capital of the young men and women of Europe. These measures must send them the message that a business-oriented outlook and a spirit of enterprise mean more than a career or a question of personal success or adventure. Indeed, these attitudes are also useful to society, because they help to create – through a model of development based on widespread enterprise – the conditions for fairer and more sustainable growth, as Ms Krehl has already said. For we want to see development that is innovative, and that is both able to seize all the new opportunities and sustainable in environmental and social terms.

As regards the long-term efforts, in terms of training, I would also advocate revisiting technical colleges, which are a real asset in Europe, one that we have neglected for too long. These are a great resource and a great way of learning about science and technology, and therefore of getting a taste for creating something new through your own ingenuity.

As for resources, while still on the subject of urgent action – and I address these remarks especially to the Commission but also to the Council, which together with Parliament, must make a decision on the Structural Funds Regulation – it will be essential to coordinate resources. Shall we be able to use the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME) funds (the financial instruments for SMEs), the research funds and the Structural Funds in a complementary approach? If we use these resources wisely, in a complementary fashion, then we shall be able to get the most from them; otherwise, we shall risk spreading them too thinly.

The Structural Funds are indispensable, and they are intrinsically focused on this priority. Nevertheless, Commissioner, while recognising the importance of thematic concentration, I believe that it is also important that the regional authorities should be able to contribute to the planning and decision-making process, because while it is true that many regions need guidance, many others are quite capable of planning and setting priorities.

The regions are key, for they are the engine room of progress, of business growth, of the spirit of new employment, and of the desire to participate, including on the part of all the economic, social and community bodies. Hence, the regions are the main resource where EU policies and the policies of the local authorities must come together. I must emphasise, then, the importance of coordinating resources.

And finally, as regards the definition of SMEs – a subject on which the Member States will have their say, and therefore the Council will need to as well – in my view, what counts is not only the structural elements – employment and turnover – but also the quality of the small and medium-sized enterprises, which operate locally but think globally. I therefore ask that special consideration be given to the fundamental nature of small businesses and their support network.

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, gaining access to funding, which is so essential to their growth and development, continues, nonetheless, to be one of the major challenges facing SMEs, both at European and national level, with them being one of the sectors hit hardest by the current economic crisis. Participating in projects financed by Structural Funds now offers a real chance for survival. However, European institutions, and especially national governments, retain the vital role of supporting SMEs by means of economic measures which will enable them to gain access to cash and investments so that they can complete the projects which are in progress.

The effectiveness and efficiency of the funds allocated to the financial instruments for SMEs have been diminished due to a regulatory framework that is inadequate and far too complicated for the different types of financial instruments used. The direct consequence of this is to discourage rather than encourage potential beneficiaries. In order to enable high-quality strategic projects to develop and ensure the biggest possible absorption of the Structural Funds earmarked for this sector, the private sector, immediate, specific measures need to be taken not only to simplify the rules of operation, but also to provide the necessary technical assistance in terms of accessing the funds, implementing the projects and improving entrepreneurial skills.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the Members who initiated this debate raised the issue in their ninth question of whether it would be a good idea to review the cofinancing requirements for EU programmes aimed at SMEs. I think this is a question that we should be asking. However, we must make the context clear and if we weaken or water down the definition of SMEs by including mid-caps, there will be less money available to distribute to the SMEs in an area where the funding was already insufficient.

Secondly, if we reduce the cofinancing requirements, overall, fewer SMEs will have to share the available funding. This means that the only option available to us is to increase the money, if we are prepared to do so. Therefore, the conclusion that we must draw from this discussion is that we cannot simply stand by and watch while less money is spent on SMEs in Horizon 2020 and the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME) than in …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, small and medium-sized businesses face many problems, and red tape is a big one. Micro-businesses should be exempted from large swathes of EU legislation and, when they are included, they should have a light-touch regime.

Access to funding is also a problem. Some suggest increasing allocations of EU budgets for SMEs, but here again, bureaucracy can be overwhelming. I have had many complaints from small businesses that have taken part in EU projects and have then waited for months or years for payment, and sometimes the money has never arrived. If a company is being contracted to carry out work and the work has been delivered, then it should be paid on time.

The Commission claims the Late Payment Directive will solve this problem but, like much EU law, it has had unintended consequences. I know of one sector where large companies have simply cut out buying from smaller ones. We need to stop just talking about SMEs, and take some action. In calling for the debate today, we asked nine specific questions and, Commissioner, I look forward to getting nine specific answers.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD). – (PL) Mr President, the European Parliament is closely watching how the European Commission intends to remove the barriers faced by small and medium-sized enterprises. Despite the fact that in the current programming period, the allocation of resources in my country is relatively high, representatives of small firms are, however, pointing out that interest in these funds and demand for them is higher than the amount available.

I would like to point out that a specific feature of the Polish SME sector is that it is dominated by very small firms – micro-entities. These comprise as many as 96% of all SMEs, of which over two-thirds involve self-employment – the people who run these firms are self-employed. So it is necessary to remove numerous barriers, including most of all the growing bureaucracy. Furthermore, at a time of deepening recession, a difficulty is presented by the fact that there is a general deficit of the own resources necessary in the EU system of cofinancing. It is also necessary to give attention to the waiting period for these resources, which is too long, as well as to the fact that advance payments are not made for these projects. The European Parliament should therefore simplify and improve procedures when it starts work on drafting new rules in 2013.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, I have been going round my country, Bulgaria, during the last few months and have met quite a few representatives, mainly of small businesses. I have heard the same message from all of them: ‘We are being choked! Stop looking at the big companies and banks because we are being choked the most by the crisis, compared to all the rest!’ I also saw the production methods they use and, unfortunately, many of these companies are using the same technology as they were 20 years ago when they started their business.

When I asked them: ‘Well, why do you not bid for projects, why do you not modernise your technology?’, I received the same answer everywhere: this administration does not make it worth the effort to try to bid for a project, because they will probably not get it. Even corruption does not operate in favour of small and medium-sized enterprises because the officials running projects want large projects because large projects lead to large bribes.

As for the definition, the only thing I would say is that we should not set limits. Setting limits is easy; let us remove the barriers instead.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – (NL) Mr President, I will begin on a somewhat more positive note than the funereal lamentations I heard this morning. In preparation for this debate, I visited one of those projects in which European money from the Structural Funds is being used to preserve industrial heritage and provide the opportunity to start up new businesses. In the space of two years, 400 jobs have been directly created, and around a thousand jobs have been brought about. The idea, then, is to use existing instruments, along with the investment of private capital, to bring local and regional authorities together.

I have three questions about this for the Commissioner and the Minister.

First of all, is it not possible for the financial framework for 2014-2020, which we are now discussing, and which frees up some new money again, so-called revolving funds, to be moved up the agenda? We have a Council, an informal Council, coming up. There is a summit coming up. Should this not be used as precisely the opportunity to send a political signal? By which I mean a signal with which we provide clarity about heading 1 of the multiannual financial framework. Then, money will be released again.

My second question is, would it not be possible for you to ask each individual Member State to produce a real action plan for SMEs? Why is that necessary, you may ask. The reason is that a number of Member States are still stuck in a bureaucratic muddle in this regard.

My final point is that there are improvements we can make, we can cut red tape. By way of example, pre-financing for projects is still a major problem. The banks are not providing it, and companies do not have the money. We need to put a stop to this and create momentum. Could I have an answer to these three questions please?

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – Mr President, we are all saying that small and medium-sized enterprises need access to finance, need less red tape and need better access to markets. The European Union is doing lots on that, but there are still plenty of things that could be done in addition.

Firstly, on access to finance, we definitely need to increase possibilities for advance payments, especially for micro and small companies. It is very difficult for them to go for cofinancing.

Secondly, on the next multiannual financial framework (MMF), we need to look at things again. I am the rapporteur on the next MFF. There is a proportionate decrease in cohesion funding and a decrease in the access of SMEs to financing. Yes, there is increased access to financing for cutting-edge high technologies, but how many small and medium-sized enterprises maintain cutting-edge technologies? All in all, this will lead to a decrease in financing for SMEs under the next MFF.

Thirdly, again on cofinancing, we have been considering something the President of the Commission suggested, which is to use funds not spent by the end of the current framework period not only to stimulate employment, but also to stimulate SMEs. As regards red tape, one should not only make available and promote best practices, but also penalise bad practices, because it is absolutely inadmissible that in some Member States, funds earmarked for small and medium-sized enterprises remain unspent, for whatever reason – be this administrative or otherwise.

Fourthly, on enabling access to markets, this is very important in terms of enlarging the digital market – there are plenty of things to be done and we are moving forward with the digital agenda – and also in terms of the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Small and medium-sized enterprises do not have appropriate access to European markets at the moment.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Mr President, my region of the north-east of England is taking advantage of JEREMIE but it took many months to put the scheme in place. We need to go a step further now and help SMEs by mainstreaming revolving funds, loan guarantees and similar systems so that they are part of cohesion policy instruments.

There is no one simple answer to the problem of SMEs’ lack of access to credit. My colleague, Sharon Bowles, has been doing her best through amendments to the Capital Requirements Directive, but SMEs need other avenues to finance in addition to bank lending.

Crucially, along with the financial instrument itself, there must be proportionate corporate auditing and reporting standards, because there is no point in making finance theoretically available to SMEs if there is so much red tape that in practice, no small business has time to put in an application. Structural Fund financing needs to be fully accessible to even the smallest small business.

  Nikos Chrysogelos (Verts/ALE). – (EL) Mr President, small and medium-sized enterprises have indeed been the hardest hit by the present crisis. A large percentage of the unemployed used to work in such enterprises; at the same time, owners of such enterprises lose their job, which is often overlooked in the unemployment rates. Today, we have a dual problem, because small and medium-sized enterprises are unable to access either loans or financing under European programmes. It is a fact that, currently, 80% of loan applications by small and medium-sized enterprises are turned down in Greece. This means that there is no money either to take action or to import raw materials or products and they end up going under. On the other hand, the current terms of access to European financing do not allow small and medium-sized enterprises to take action, because they need to spend the capital first, because VAT is not eligible and because, in the end, they have to wait a long time to get back the money they have spent. That is impossible if they go under. We therefore need to change, so that we can put what the Commissioner said into practice. Every small and medium-sized enterprise needs to take on one young person and we need to combine financing for small and medium-sized enterprises with financing to address youth unemployment, so that these targets can be attained.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make up more than 90% of the companies in the EU and provide more than 80% of the jobs. They are the backbone of our economy and access to sufficient capital has been a particular problem for them during the economic crisis.

A recent study carried out by the European Parliament shows that the existing funding instruments are not adequately targeted. The reason for this is that a proper distinction is not being made between the different types of SME. They are not a homogeneous group, either in terms of the number of people they employ or of their turnover. One consideration is the company’s current phase of development. A young and innovative entrepreneur who is just building up his business has different requirements from a traditional family company.

The majority of problems are caused by high administration costs and complex accounting requirements. We need to start taking action in this area to ensure that SMEs, which are the engine of our economy, can grow accordingly.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, small and medium-sized enterprises are the basis of modern economies and are an effective tool in the fight against unemployment and the financial crisis. They represent the greatest source of new jobs, and it is to SMEs that the economy owes its growth.

According to European statistics for 2005-2010, 85% of new jobs were created in SMEs. In Europe, 99% of firms are SMEs employing up to a dozen or so people. In this context, it is worrying to see the position of the Commission, which is proposing a change in the definition of SMEs by extending it to include firms with larger numbers of employees. Does this mean, Commissioner Hahn, that SMEs are going to have to compete for support with firms which have several hundred employees and which have well-prepared staff whose only role is to secure EU funding? Will this not create difficulties in obtaining support for scientific research and innovations in the framework programme, where awards are made on a top-down basis?

You said, Commissioner Hahn, that SMEs are the backbone of the European economy. We all know that we should take particular care of our spine. Without increased access to EU funds, without reducing administration and without simplifying the process of applying for funds, which is complicated and too protracted, the Commission, Commissioner Hahn, will be one of the many voices in the European Parliament which have pointed out the problem and understood the reasons for its existence, but which, unfortunately, have not resolved it.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, it is obvious that, in the current crisis, the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) is crucial for restarting the economy and for combating unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. That is why I think, like many of my fellow Members, that their access to Structural Funds should be simplified and increased, but also promoted through training and support related to the procedures that are inherent to accessing these funds.

I also recognise that the legal framework in which they are developing must be adapted to the resources they have available to them in order to face up to their obligations, and that is where the definition of SMEs becomes important, as this will determine the law applicable to a company. The current definition would cover more that 67% of workers in the EU. It is therefore an important sector of our economy and of the labour market.

As is often the case in our legislative decisions, we need to find a balance. As for SMEs, their legal framework should combine both the objective of effectiveness, allowing for their development, and the objective of adequate protection of workers’ rights and the general interest. However, an unbalanced reduction of SMEs’ administrative burdens could entail a risk, for example, in terms of health and safety at work – workers cannot be subjected to different risks, particularly with regard to measures aimed at improving workers’ health and safety in the workplace; health and safety in the workplace cannot be considered an administrative burden – or even in terms of reducing accounting and financial obligations for some SMEs, which is particularly worrying for workers’ representatives, and rightly so in my view. How can we involve workers in company decision-making processes if they do not have the information based on which decisions about restructuring, for example, are made? A minimum level of transparency for workers and third parties is needed.

Therefore, in the hunt for excessive administrative burdens on SMEs, let us not lose sight of the objective of these burdens and let us not discriminate against the workers in these companies.

  Markus Pieper (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, we are talking today about the Structural Funds, the growth programme for the European Union, particularly in the poorer regions. We do not need to invent any new growth funds, which is what the left-wing governments in Europe are currently calling for. However, we do need to ensure that the EUR 350 billion currently being proposed is carefully targeted and quickly reaches the people in the regions who need it. During this process, we can learn from the practical implementation of European structural policy, in particular, where competitive procedures were used and where companies had to compete for EU money. In the competitiveness regions, we have introduced more medium-sized companies to European programmes than ever before. One example is the field of nanotechnology, where some regions have succeeded in combining cutting-edge European research and start-up companies. Competitions have also been successfully held in areas such as energy efficiency and sustainable production processes.

Competitive procedures are efficient and they represent the opposite of the scattergun approach. Therefore, we must incorporate this option in the Structural Funds regulations, as has already been done in the Connecting Europe Facility in the field of infrastructure. In the case of small companies, European stimuli are often a decisive factor for start-ups and for international business relationships. Providing this funding in the context of a competition is very similar to the way in which the market economy works and this is known to be very efficient.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Wammen, Mr Hahn, ladies and gentlemen, we have a long tradition in this House of discussing subsidies for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). What we have heard this morning does not differ significantly from what has been said in previous debates.

I would like, first of all, to say something to Ms Ford, whose speech I listened to. Of course, it is not at all helpful to make an organisation responsible for the fact that things are not going as we would like. I do not believe that it is the European Commission’s fault that in certain respects, SMEs are not making the progress that we had hoped for.

Secondly, I believe that restricting the discussion purely to financing issues does not help us. Where I come from in Germany, and I believe that this is not the case only in Germany, SMEs are not so much concerned about financing, although, of course, this may be a problem in individual situations. Primarily, they are worried about the fact that the legislation is so complex that it has become completely incomprehensible. Therefore, I believe that the discussion on the issue of how the definition of an SME can be made better, more precise and more targeted is an important matter, not only for SMEs, but in general terms for our legislation.

The fact that 99.5% of all companies are SMEs, and, Mr Wammen, you mentioned this, shows that we have a problem, because in principle, this means that all companies are affected and, therefore, our measures are not being accurately targeted. For this reason, I am very interested to see the results of Mr Tajani’s study, which aims to produce a new and more precise definition.

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

  Vicky Ford (ECR), Blue-card question. – As the Commissioner referenced my point, I think I should make it clear: I do not blame all this on the Commission; there are many problems. My point is that we need to get specific about finding solutions where we can. We raised nine specific questions to look at, and we should be looking at specific answers.

Would you also agree with me that a micro-business employing five to ten people is very different to a medium-sized business of, say, 250 people, and that we should look at different regimes for micros?

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Ford’s question is, of course, along exactly the lines that I think we should be following here. Like you, Ms Ford, I believe that we should be focusing on greater segmentation of the concept of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because it does not help us if we are constantly discussing subsidies for SMEs, while at the same time the term covers more than 90% of all companies. This will ultimately not be possible.

I also believe that SMEs have very different interests. The very small companies, such as snack bars and similar businesses, are mainly interested in having very simple legislation involving very little red tape. However, there are also medium-sized companies, for example, in my constituency, which are so large that they have a particular interest in financing. We need to work together, Ms Ford, to set the right priorities.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, it is fitting that we are discussing this issue this morning because SMEs are the group best placed to create jobs in Europe and to enable us to emerge from the economic recession.

I am pleased that we are having a discussion on, first of all, the definition of SMEs, because Mr Schwab’s definition that takes in most of the companies in Europe is not really a definition at all. In particular, I agree with Vicky Ford that we should be concentrating particularly on smaller SMEs and micro-businesses and establishing set rules for those which are different to the others, in particular, in relation to bureaucracy, red tape and compliance. These are not only important economically; they are also important socially and culturally because they are usually found in the centre of towns. If they die, the town dies with them. So it is important that we give them access to funding and reduce red tape.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, the core issue is how to emerge from the economic crisis, because the outlook is very grave in Europe. Things might go in just the opposite direction from what you hope, Commissioner. It may be that these 24 million small enterprises will make people redundant, and that there will be 24 million new unemployed people.

Perhaps the most worrying thing is that, while Member States are endeavouring to balance their economies, value added tax is now being increased in almost all countries, making it difficult for small service companies. When value added tax goes up, prices rise, and when, at the same time, people’s pay and pensions are cut, there is no demand, and generating demand is now a key issue for service companies, Commissioner Hahn.

That is why the Commission really needs to make every effort to get us out of this economic crisis, and fast. Furthermore, the Member States have to be involved in the process: everything else is of less importance.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, I want to make three points. We need to provide for easier and user-friendly access to funding as it is still too cumbersome and complicated. Relaxing cofinancing rules and simplifying application procedures will be the key issues to address.

Secondly, we have not spoken much about insufficient information on funding opportunities, especially information on additional funding, for example, from the European Social Fund or European Investment Bank.

Thirdly, I would ask the Commission about the involvement of SMEs, their opportunities and funding in implementation of the EU’s macro-regional strategies. It is an open question but, for the Baltic Sea strategy, so far I am not aware of one project with participation of SMEs, and they have a very important role in cross-border cooperation.

Finally, is the Commission prepared to encourage Member States to come forward with national plans to support SMEs?

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, Wales is one of the poorest regions in the EU and also has a very high dependence on micro and small businesses. Despite Wales receiving two rounds of structural funding, it has not seen a significant improvement in GDP, and we therefore need to apply the Structural Funds in a different way in order to stimulate economic productivity.

As the Commissioner said in his opening remarks, if each SME were able to employ one new person, it would have a major impact on economic growth. Therefore, we need to ensure that regions are explicitly encouraged to take action to allow SMEs access to Structural Funds on a priority basis, and not just through JEREMIE and JESSICA.

Civil servants cannot generate economic returns, but allowing our small businesses access to finance for employment and competitiveness could provide a major stimulus. Action to assist SMEs should not be considered State aid, since this can be used as an excuse by regional administrators for not funding SMEs.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – (LV) Mr President, Europe needs growth. For there to be economic growth, we need investment, because it is with investment that we will have new jobs. We have limited financial instruments in Europe which are intended precisely for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), where it is indeed easiest to create new jobs. Where is the challenge; where is the problem? The definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise is currently so broad that it includes practically all – 99% – of European businesses. This means that businesses that are genuinely small and which really do find it difficult to obtain financing do not have the opportunities that they need. I suggest that we review the definition of an SME so that it includes genuinely small enterprises and only small enterprises, which are the ones that most need help.

  Michael Theurer (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, do you know Mr Hanselmann? If not, you should get to know him. Around 20 years ago, Mr Hanselmann founded a company with three colleagues from the University of Paderborn. Now it has 1 000 employees. He received a loan from the state subsidy system in North Rhine-Westphalia to set up his company. This shows that state subsidies for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and subsidised loans are helpful.

We need an initiative in Europe to promote the start-up of SMEs. The aid available must be made simpler. It must have lower thresholds and involve less red tape. One approach could be innovation vouchers. In addition, we must reallocate the unused money from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund so that SMEs in Greece, for example, can obtain loans. However, to be able to do this, we also need different banking systems. One possibility would be cooperative banks and savings banks which the outlying countries in particular do not have. We need both things: a solution for the outlying countries and a policy for highly innovative companies in wealthier regions which will reinforce their strengths. That is what is currently required.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, promoting small and medium-sized enterprises’ access to financing is one of the most important areas we should be considering at the moment. Better mobilisation of Structural Funds, more rapid implementation of ongoing projects, enhancement of EIB subsidies and the urgent discussion of the proposal on project bonds should definitely be among our immediate priorities in this area.

The question is whether all this will be enough. As things currently stand, I believe that the answer is ‘no’. In my opinion, the current classification of SMEs is inadequate to allow this sector to dynamically align itself with the EU market.

Commissioner, it would be worth considering whether the practice of SME financing should be changed: whether, instead of post-financing, we should take the risk of choosing pre-financing. I believe that in doing so, we could improve the chances of these companies being able to enter the market and could allow them to play a vital part in job creation. Thus, we could also realise your thesis so that it would be possible for 25 SMEs to … 

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, I support all the activities that improve business conditions for SMEs in the EU. Our many programmes to support small and medium-sized enterprises are, however, of little benefit. We talk and write a lot, but the effect of this work is not visible, and it gets lost in bureaucratic procedures. Small businesses are often established and run by people with only primary or secondary education. Therefore, both small businesses and entrepreneurs need simple rules for their establishment, operation, accounting and also their taxation. If we fail to force our governments to push through a simple and transparent scheme for the operation of small and medium-sized enterprises with a minimum of bureaucracy, officials in our countries will continue to bully small businesses. A rank-and-file governmental official will not dare to criticise a powerful large business. However, he can unashamedly make his importance felt to any small bakery or hairdresser. I firmly believe that European government bureaucracy represents the greatest barrier to the development of small and medium enterprises.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe employ 120 million people and represent over 90% of the production system; in Italy, the figure is as high as 98%. This often includes many businesses with fewer than 50 employees as well as micro-enterprises.

We cannot agree with those who are pressing for the thresholds to be raised for medium-sized enterprises, partly because this would further impair access to EU funds. Indeed, SMEs generally need easier access to the Structural Funds, especially in these difficult economic times when credit is hard to come by. The procedures are complicated, excessively bureaucratic and often discouraging to their potential beneficiaries. There is evidence that even Germany, a highly efficient user of EU funding, is behind in its use of these funds.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are not second-class businesses – on the contrary.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, we appreciate the opportunity to debate this issue on the eve of the European Council and the importance of SMEs to the European economy.

Economic growth and the employment market need to be developed in the face of the crisis: there are 23 million SMEs, they form the economic backbone and, as the Commissioner said, they are the driving force behind job creation. A commitment has been made to more credit and less bureaucracy by June. And we are on the eve of the new Council at the end of May.

I ask the Council: what has been done to free up these Structural Funds, to ensure better access to credit for SMEs? What measures are being taken to support the micro-enterprises? Is there a specific measure for youth employment?

I would like the Council to take measures against the very significant crisis we are experiencing.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, today, speed is of the utmost importance. Speed for companies that are struggling to survive and develop. In contrast, institutions have been rather slow in their response. Obviously, small and medium-sized enterprises are affected by delays and procedural complexity.

Besides, if we want to motivate more young people to become entrepreneurs, we need to encourage them and we also need to provide more knowledge or, rather, more opportunities in the education system itself. According to polls in my country, Slovenia, alone, 60% of young people have not had the opportunity to learn anything about entrepreneurship.

Finally, information for all 23 million businesses. We know that the information channels may still be insufficiently open to all.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, SMEs are the backbone of the European economy and, unfortunately, the economic and financial crisis has had a powerful impact not only on their position, but also on their development prospects, with many SMEs not having any access to funding. Given that European funds are the main source of funding and obviously the only EU instruments for creating jobs and supporting SMEs, I think that:

1. it is absolutely essential for the cohesion policy budget earmarked for this category of beneficiaries to be retained for the forthcoming programming period, and

2. it is absolutely vital to involve local and regional authorities right from the initial stages of outlining and developing the future operational programmes so as to apply a cohesion policy more effectively to support SMEs while, at the same time, funds must be allocated according to the areas’ specific features.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, Commissioner, after all that has been said here, we can surely agree that small and medium-sized enterprises can be seen as a pillar of the European Union economy. They also play the role of a major employer, especially because all the large companies tend to have their headquarters in the Asian countries, mainly for cost reasons, which I personally consider to be socially and politically inappropriate, and I hope, Commissioner, that in the future, this Parliament will also discuss this topic. The economic crisis, however, has hit small and medium-sized enterprises hard. Although they are currently facing a difficult period in an effort to survive, they are much more successful than larger firms and are also more adaptable to the market situation. Paradoxically, they find it more difficult to gain financial support than large companies. In the light of the above facts and the enormous importance and the contribution of SMEs to the European economy, we need to focus on finding new ways to use the Structural Funds. We must focus on removing bureaucratic and administrative barriers and generally simplify the provision of credit to SMEs.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the media agenda seems to be rediscovering the importance of having a long-term growth strategy, although this growth has been part of our political priorities for several months.

The economic recovery will obviously come about through better use of public resources to help companies that are creating jobs, primarily small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). We should therefore recall that the 23 million SMEs in Europe are vital for economic development in our regions. Yet they have structural difficulties when it comes to obtaining financing, and the current crisis has only aggravated the situation. In February, we were already debating the use of regional funds here in Parliament to better combat youth unemployment and support SMEs. The Court of Auditors’ March report confirmed what we had already known for a long time: SMEs’ access to financial engineering instruments is far too complicated.

Commissioner, the Commission set aside a budget of EUR 27 billion for SMEs for this period. Do we know what has become of that budget? We all know the difficulties they are facing. The time has come, not so much to debate the definition of SMEs, but to determine how we can best take into account their differences and their needs when implementing our policies.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Johannes Hahn, Member of the Commission. – (DE) Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate. In the time of just under two and a half minutes that has been allocated to me, it will unfortunately not be possible for me to give a detailed answer to all the questions that have been asked, but you will receive a reply in writing. I would like to summarise some of the main issues.

The first is the current period and it is correct that restructuring measures are under way. However, it is now the job of the Member States to make appropriate proposals. You can be sure that the Commission will not only look favourably at the proposals, but will also take a proactive approach to all of those which aim to subsidise small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to combat unemployment, in particular among young people. I would like to ask for your support in your Member States and in your constituencies.

Secondly, subsidies for SMEs have often been discussed, in some cases with a focus on the future. For the forthcoming financial period, we have made highly specific proposals for the minimum funding in the budget to support SMEs. In my introductory speech, I said that 80% would go to the less developed regions and 50% to the more developed regions. I have listened to discussions in the Council and in this House which have been critical of these limits. If you really believe that we should invest in SMEs, in innovation and in competitiveness, I would ask you to make every effort to safeguard this minimum allocation in the budget. We definitely need to identify tailor-made solutions for the individual regions in future, using the best available banks, which should also be subject to a certain amount of competition. I agree with all those people who are critical of the fact that the mobilisation of the funds takes too long, from the start of the process through to the money reaching the beneficiaries. I also think this is too long-winded and we will see what we can do in future to improve the situation.

I believe that one important measure, and other speakers have also mentioned this, could involve, for example, that part of the future financial framework, in other words, heading 1, which specifically concerns sustainable growth and which amounts to around EUR 500 billion. We could make a clear statement before the summer that this money will be available in the next financial period. This would definitely send out a strong signal to the citizens of Europe and also to the markets which would give them the security to plan ahead and to decide where investments should be made. I can imagine that this would provide an impetus and an incentive and that growth would be reinforced by concrete actions.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. – (DA) Mr President, Commissioner, honourable Members, this morning’s debate has focused on the issue of SMEs’ access to capital and the definition of SMEs. In view of the economic situation, on behalf of the Presidency, I would like to lend my support to this initiative.

Access to financing for small and medium-sized enterprises is crucial if we are to be able to continue to benefit from the economic growth to which small and medium-sized enterprises contribute, especially innovative companies. For the same reason, the Presidency is working on projects such as the creation of an internal market for venture capital, and is also trying to get as far as we can with the proposed Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs (COSME).

Europe must ensure a good environment for small and medium-sized enterprises that provides them with the best framework conditions to allow them to develop and grow. In this connection, I should like to express my thanks for the many contributions made, including those from Mr Bendtsen and Ms Krehl. I have listened with great interest to the possibilities for combining work on energy efficiency with the creation of jobs for small and medium-sized enterprises. Both are very important priorities for the Danish Presidency, as part of our efforts to create green growth and jobs.

The Commission’s Small Business Act of 2008 was also a significant step, and we must also emphasise the efforts made in many Member States. As an extension of this, the Presidency has chosen to focus on streamlining and the simplification of rules, such as the rules on tendering. Simpler rules on tendering will make it easier for SMEs to bid for contracts. Another example is the initiative to create a genuinely digital internal market, which is crucial for giving small and medium-sized enterprises access to growth opportunities. Thirdly, and this answers Mr Kalfin, Mr Rübig, Mr van Nistelrooij and others, an important element of the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) involves ensuring that a greater portion of the EU budget is earmarked for growth-promoting measures, including both research and development, and enabling the resources of the Structural Funds to target these areas to a greater extent. This is an important part of the work that the Danish Presidency is carrying out in respect of the MFF agreement for the period 2014-2020.

On that basis, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the support it has given to the Presidency’s work, and I am looking forward to the great efforts that we will make together – Parliament, the Commission and the Council – to ensure that Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises once again experience growth so that we can create jobs, not least for the millions of young people who have an expectation that together, we will deliver results for them.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) It appears that at every second plenary sitting, we discuss the issue of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), their central role in the EU economy, and their difficulties in obtaining funding. We have often mentioned the negative effect of excessive red tape on SMEs. Despite this, the situation has scarcely changed and Parliament’s best efforts have little effect on the daily difficulties of SMEs.

The job loss in Ireland’s SME sector in recent years equates to 15% of the workforce. It is the same across the EU. I welcome the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs which is to be implemented from 2014 to 2020 with a budget of EUR 2.5 billion. For those currently in charge of enterprises, however, 2014 is a long way away. I ask the Commission to provide information on the measures to be adopted by it immediately, in cooperation with Member States, to help SMEs in the short term. The obstacles to funding must be tackled without delay, along with excessive red tape and excessive administration.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I entirely agree with the Council and the Commission that small and medium-sized business is the basis of the European Union economy and a significant source of employment and job creation. The continuing crisis situation has left more than 25 million EU citizens unemployed and it is therefore necessary to exploit the potential of small and medium-sized business to contribute to reducing unemployment and creating jobs. I believe that access to financing is one of the main problems remaining, which is making the situation for small business worse. The Council member mentioned that over the period 2007-2014, small and medium-sized enterprises will have access to approximately EU 70 billion in financial assistance from the Structural Funds and various programmes for small business administered by the European Investment Bank. However, some years ago, there were more than a few misgivings about the effectiveness of assistance allocated because it emerged that the Member State commercial banks administering EIB financing during the crisis tightened lending conditions even more and this hampered SMEs’ opportunities to receive assistance from EU funds. The lack of information in the Member States about the accessibility of such financial assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises also remains a major barrier to using the assistance allocated. I believe that the Commission must provide data about the assistance that has so far been allocated to SMEs, how it was distributed in the Member States, and assess the effectiveness of that assistance and determine the most effective principles for the provision of assistance, so that SMEs can take advantage of financing opportunities in a timely manner.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Numerous SMEs in Europe are facing the problem of accessing capital, while the cohesion policy is meant to improve the current situation. Therefore, the instruments aimed at improving access to funding play a vital role. In Romania, SMEs account for 99.7% of all companies. In addition, they generate two-thirds of jobs. Funding is, indeed, one of the most serious problems that SMEs face as only 15% of them receive any credit from banks. This is why it is vital for them to be involved in projects financed by the Structural Funds as they provide an important source of development for small and medium-sized enterprises. The JEREMIE holding fund is subsidised in my country by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and its objectives are to achieve sustainable growth in the production sector. At the same time, another aim is to create an environment conducive to the development of businesses by adopting a flexible strategic approach. So far, roughly 6 000 contracts outlining funding have been signed, aimed at the SME sector, as part of the development programmes. I should emphasise the importance of retaining initiatives of this kind as part of the future cohesion policy. At the same time, I welcome the use of European funds in supporting the creation of SMEs, in particular by young people. This will spark the entrepreneurial spirit among them, thereby also ensuring economic growth and a decline in the unemployment rate.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – SMEs are blighted by the increasingly unobtainable access to finance and capital, a problem, for the most part, exacerbated by the ongoing ineptitude of the European Union in addressing problems that blight the eurozone, which, in turn, impact upon global markets. Equally, SMEs are the hardest hit when it comes to the application of heavy handed and unnecessary over-regulation by Brussels. The UK Government pledged to financially support small businesses and free up capital for investment yet have done nothing to hold banks accountable when they have failed to meet the prescribed targets – despite the government and taxpayer being a major shareholder in two high street banks. This issue does not require action from the EU, as such action, in line with all other EU policy making, is liable to be counterproductive to its objectives. Instead, it requires competence and commitment from the UK Government, which could only be achieved if the UK left the European Union and freed British business from the shackles of European regulation.

  Emer Costello (S&D), in writing. – EU Structural Funds must show greater awareness of the needs of SMEs so that more SMEs are able to draw down EU funding. SMEs do not have the same capacity or resources as larger firms to prepare detailed applications. We need less red tape. The economic crisis has hit the SME sector more than the larger enterprise sector – twice the number of jobs have been lost in the SME sector than in the larger enterprise sector. SMEs have proven their job potential in the past – 85% of all new jobs created in the EU between 2002-10 were in SMEs – and can do so again. Over the past couple of years, the EIB has provided loans of EUR 250 million to Irish banks for onward lending to SMEs. It is not clear how much of this has actually reached SMEs. The commitments under the proposed Competitiveness and SME programme (COSME) to better monitor EU lending to SMEs must therefore be fleshed out and strengthened.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Small and medium-sized enterprises play an extremely important role in the European economy. It is therefore crucial that we facilitate their access to the Structural Funds, which, in these times of economic and financial crisis, can provide them with the investment opportunities and financial resources they may rely on for survival.

The current instruments and forms of support do not always reach those beneficiaries that are truly in need of them. Unnecessary administrative burdens and the pre-financing obligation continue to pose a problem to most small and medium-sized enterprises.

The definition of SMEs should be reassessed, as the 2005 definition can be considered obsolete in many ways. SMEs constitute 99% of all European companies, and their importance is further demonstrated by the fact that between 2005 and 2010, 85% of all new jobs in Europe were created by SMEs. It is clear that the key to the growth and development of a Europe in the process of recovering from the crisis lies in these enterprises, and it is therefore important that the Commission support SMEs’ access to Structural Funds by all means available.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In a single market without internal borders, like the European market, it is vital that all Member States agree a definition of small and medium-sized enterprises. This will then ensure that the measures taken to determine and control eligibility for funding are consistent and do not create imbalances in the market. It is therefore important that the currently applicable definitions of ‘micro-’, ‘small-’ and ‘medium-sized’ enterprises not be changed. The proposal to raise the size limit for a medium-sized enterprise from 250 to 1 000 employees would effectively create a two-tier system in which companies of quite dissimilar size and wealth would be categorised together, thus inevitably favouring the larger organisations.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The obstacles hampering the growth of SMEs must be removed in order to emerge from the current economic situation. In addition, faced with the economic crisis, SMEs are experiencing ever increasing difficulties in obtaining funding and accessing the market. New innovative businesses need to have better access to financial support in the form of start-up aid. The Commission must take the following specific steps, which are essential in facilitating the implementation of an entrepreneurial framework: - draft a plan for launching on the market and selling innovative products; - devise a clear strategy to ensure that every European citizen has the opportunity to work in another Member State; - establish a new set of measures for SMEs in order to implement a new energy efficiency plan. The economic crisis will persist as long as there are no jobs. This is why creating new jobs in sectors such as energy, the construction of buildings, infrastructure and equipment, transport and communications provides economic development projects capable of reducing the regional imbalances and development inequalities in the European Union.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) SMEs are a linchpin of economic growth in the EU, with their contribution to innovation and technological development, and they have considerable potential for creating jobs. To achieve these objectives, businesses need support from the EU by means of extensive funding.

The attraction of SMEs is their high level of adaptability. I regret to note that, at the moment, a European telecoms giant can no longer keep pace with rival producers in third countries. This situation does not similarly apply to European SMEs in this sector, which have been able to tailor their offering to market requirements. Apart from structural support, businesses need to benefit from local assistance programmes. The Enterprise Europe Network provides them with integrated information, transfer services, innovation and technology, funding and legislation in this area. Horizontal cooperation may bring regions considerable benefits. This is why it should be promoted accordingly.

I should stress the importance of the financial instruments supplied to SMEs by the Commission and EIB. In countries like Romania, the technical assistance programmes have delivered results and are continuing to provide necessary support to the business sector.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) For many years now, the European Union has advocated, at least on paper, subsidising small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In practice, SMEs are still faced with significant bureaucratic obstacles. While large organisations can afford to hire experts to help them to take advantage of all the loopholes, over-regulation is thwarting small companies at every turn, taking up much of their time and money and, as a result, slowing down economic activity. In particular, the increasingly stringent regulations imposed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision have been draining the financial lifeblood from SMEs, which are already under-capitalised. In addition, these companies have been hard hit by the slowdown in economic growth caused by the sovereign debt crisis. Against the background of the global recession, the business climate for SMEs has deteriorated. It is still easy for large companies to access subsidies, while medium-sized businesses are almost reduced to begging. If 99% of European businesses, which are also the largest employers, have access to only 10 to 15% of European funding, it is high time that the EU’s system of subsidising large companies and multinationals is changed, by renationalising the subsidy system. In addition, tendering processes and public procurement must finally be made more SME-friendly.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) As part of this debate, I would like to emphasise how important the JEREMIE (‘Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises’) initiative is. It offers Member States the opportunity to use part of their EU Structural Funds to finance small and medium-sized enterprises by means of equity, loans or guarantees through a revolving holding fund. At present, one of the toughest problems encountered by SMEs in attracting Structural Funds is the lack of cofinancing capacity. Indeed, in the present climate, continuing, developing and diversifying initiatives like JEREMIE as part of the future cohesion policy would be necessary and beneficial to many entrepreneurs. However, far more effort ought to be made to raise public awareness of initiatives of this kind among those interested in this, with efficient measures also being required to cut the excessive red tape.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) The situation of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European Union must be taken very seriously, since SMEs make up over 99% of the total number of companies in both Estonia and the EU, and it is therefore important that financing from European Union Structural Funds and other financial resources should be available to that large majority. I believe that the situation of SMEs and the use of European Union funding should be made more efficient and that it must be ensured that there is no repeat of the liquidity crisis which took place during the financial crisis and which had a particularly strong effect on SMEs. Another extremely important issue is the reduction in bureaucracy in order to ensure that SMEs have greater and easier access to support from Structural Funds, and also to ensure the subsequent monitoring of its use. The requirements for the preparation and submission of annual reports and financial reporting by SMEs should also be harmonised and simplified in order to reduce their administrative burden. I sincerely hope that the increased and simplified accessibility of financial resources and structural support to small and medium-sized companies will, in the near future, help give a significant boost to the European economy.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) At this time, when all national governments are taking restrictive measures in their budgets, the impact on small businesses is palpable. Many of them are going under at the expense of the creation of a grey economy. It is therefore a good thing that the Commission has come up with proposals for SMEs to have the opportunity to gain access to the Structural Funds. During the crisis, there has been a tightening of credit conditions, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises. Therefore, increasing the capacity of loan guarantee programmes, investment in equity funds and micro-credit programmes for SMEs is a way for services and employment to develop and grow. However, together with these new measures, we need tighter, more thorough supervision of compliance with current guidelines which are designed to create conditions for the stabilisation and growth of SMEs, for example, Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions. This directive requires public authorities to make payments within 30 days. The facts are alarming: if small and medium-sized enterprises want to win a contract, they are forced to negotiate repayment terms of 2-4 months, both in the public and governmental sectors.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the EU economy, driving growth, creating jobs, innovation and cohesion and helping to achieve the EU 2020 strategy targets. However, they are falling down a funding gap and the current crisis has exacerbated the situation and scuppered efforts by SMEs to raise capital. We have heard a great deal over recent weeks about actions to kick start growth and combat unemployment, especially among young people. This kick start to growth could begin with SMEs and with action to strengthen their competitiveness. European money has already contributed a great deal to this sector, but I am convinced that much more can be done. We must ensure in the new programming period for cohesion policy that we include long-term actions that will improve access for SMEs to the Structural Funds and simplify procedures, so as to relieve the administrative burden and cut the red tape that often gets in the way of their business. We also need regional autonomy in the choice of programmes for SMEs financed from the Structural Funds and to encourage operators at all levels to become involved in promoting business.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There are about 23 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the European Union, which play a key role in Europe’s growth and development. According to the Portuguese National Institute of Statistics, Portugal’s unemployment rate is 14.9%, with youth unemployment at 36.2%. At the end of the European Council meeting in January 2012, Dr Barroso suggested that the Member States should restructure EUR 82 billion of Community funds, and Portugal has already submitted its strategic plan. It is therefore crucial that the Commission reach a quick decision on this plan, so that it can come into force quickly. Recently, in this very Chamber in Strasbourg, the European Commission tabled a new package of measures intended to create more job opportunities and to support entrepreneurship. I believe that SMEs should have easier access to the new package of measures, and that an action plan should be set out including targets and metrics for their implementation. Finally, I should like to quote Dr Barroso: ‘Europe needs a job-creation strategy to tackle its unacceptable level of unemployment. The EU has a large untapped potential to boost job creation’.

5. Situation in Ukraine, case of Yulia Tymoshenko (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the situation in Ukraine, case of Yulia Tymoshenko. The Vice-President/High Representative cannot be here and Mr Füle will make the statement instead.

Before we go to the debate, can I inform you that two guests from Ukraine have taken their seats in the official gallery, Ms Yevgenia Tymoshenko, daughter of the imprisoned ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko ...

(Applause)

...and Dr Hryhoriy Nemyria, former deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine and deputy Head of the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc.

(Applause)

On Parliament’s behalf, I extend to them a warm welcome and wish them a successful visit.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members – and Yevgenia, it is very nice to see you out there – the European Union has expressed its indignation at the use of selective justice in Ukraine on a number of occasions over the past year.

The statements from Brussels and from Member States, and the messages passed directly to the authorities in Kiev, refer not only to the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, but also to cases against members of the former government such as Mr Lutsenko and others. Politically motivated justice is a systemic problem in Ukraine, and it needs a systemic solution in the shape of comprehensive judicial reform.

We have indicated to the Ukrainian authorities that a first step towards regaining confidence would be to ensure an environment conducive to Ms Tymoshenko’s recovery, whether inside or outside Ukraine, and I am glad that President Schulz and Prime Minister Azarov agreed last week that the European Parliament would play an important role in this respect.

Access to independent visitors is especially important if we are to build a clear picture of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko’s situation and, in this respect, I welcome recent visits, including by Members of the European Parliament. Most important, in terms of Ms Tymoshenko’s legal rights, is that Ukraine’s Court of Cassation should announce its decision on her case at the end of June, and that the European Court of Human Rights can announce its own decision shortly afterwards. This also applies in the case of Mr Lutsenko, whose sentence was recently upheld on appeal.

Any future trials should strictly respect the provisions of the new Ukrainian Code of Criminal Procedure, thus providing for equality between defence and prosecution, and should operate without pre-trial detention.

Our concern about selective justice remains strong. Last Tuesday, at the Cooperation Council with Ukraine, we clearly set out to Prime Minister Azarov how we believe Ukraine can get back on the road to political association. The political relationship between the European Union and Ukraine will not improve without firm commitments and an effective demonstration that the rule of law and respect for fundamental values are applied systematically in Ukraine.

We have repeatedly stressed to our Ukrainian partners that we will not be able to move towards signing our association agreement if they cannot show that they live in the spirit of political association. To this end, we expect Ukraine to make visible progress. The recent adoption of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in Ukraine was certainly a step forward, and it should improve the quality of future prosecutions and trials. However, Ms Tymoshenko and other victims of politically motivated justice have already been sentenced. Action to reform the Criminal Code, defining what is to be considered a criminal offence, is needed to get to the heart of this problem.

I welcome the initiative taken by President Schulz in asking Prime Minister Azarov to accept that a person of high international repute be sent on behalf of the European Parliament to observe the second trial, with full access to judges, lawyers and documents. The parliamentary elections in October will also be an important test. We will observe very closely the conditions in which the electoral campaign and the voting process proceed. It is important, if Ukraine wants to fulfil its European aspirations, that the elections should be free and fair beyond doubt.

I also wish to mention the European Parliament resolutions calling on the Commission to support judicial reform in Ukraine. In December last year, the Commission signed a financing agreement of EUR 10 million with Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice. It aims to accelerate sustainable reforms in the justice sector in Ukraine, with a particular focus on criminal justice reforms. We have also recently agreed to engage with Ukraine in an informal dialogue on judiciary reform, drawing on the expertise of the Council of Europe.

To summarise, what we expect from Ukraine before we can once again move forward is: firstly, a concrete strategy to redress the effect of selective justice and prevent any recurrence of it; secondly, free and fair elections; and thirdly, the resumption of delayed reforms already agreed in the joint EU-Ukraine ‘Association Agenda’ which has now been in force for two years.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing your views.

  Elmar Brok, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Füle, ladies and gentlemen, establishing and applying the rule of law and democracy in a credible way and respecting human rights are requirements for countries which want a European perspective. It is clear that Ukraine has been moving in the opposite direction over the last two years. Counterfeit goods have been produced, the judicial system has been politicised and there have been political trials. The leaders of the opposition are in prison as a result of politically motivated judgments.

Mr Füle, I agree with you that this is a systemic issue. The problem is rooted in the system and it cannot be eliminated simply by introducing formal reforms. There must also be the determination and the readiness to apply them, to put the rule of law and democracy into practice and to take the consequences. This could be done now. We have been discussing the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, Yuri Lutsenko and many others for almost a year. New promises are constantly made and new procedures are initiated, but the promises are not kept and none of the measures are properly implemented. Instead, one gets the impression that the government is playing for time. Postponing the session of the court of appeal also seems to me to be a case of gaining time which will ultimately make it possible to prevent opposition politicians from taking part in the next elections.

That is the crucial point. There can only be free and fair elections if the leaders of the opposition can participate in them on equal terms. The judicial system must not be used to stop this from happening.

When matters are resolved in the court of appeal and then new cases are brought, which are actually old cases that the supreme court has ruled on several times in order to settle issues which have to do with the statute of limitations, that also represents an abuse of the rule of law. For this reason, Mr Füle, I believe that you are right.

Because of the importance of Ukraine being a part of Europe, we are in favour of the association agreement. The European Parliament would be prepared to ratify the agreement very quickly and to support it being signed, if Ukraine fulfilled certain requirements. By initialling the agreement, we have shown that we are willing to do this. Now the ball is in the Ukrainian Government’s court. I hope that the government does not believe that the Commission, the Council and Parliament will get tired if it waits long enough and that, as a result, it will get something which it would not have achieved if it did not meet the requirement of introducing the rule of law.

  Libor Rouček, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I think we agree in this House that Ukraine is a country of strategic importance for us – its size, its geographical location, its educated people – so for all these and other reasons, an association agreement has been concluded and initiated. I think we would like to see those who signed this agreement implement this agreement.

However, there is a problem. It is not only Yulia Tymoshenko and Mr Lutsenko but, as has already been mentioned, we have to deal with serious deficiencies in Ukraine’s legal system. Partnership between the EU and Ukraine should be based on the observation of human rights, the rule of law and, of course, the functioning of the entire legal system.

Our Ukrainian partners attempted to make certain reforms. Here, I would like to mention the Criminal Procedure Code which has been adopted. Moreover, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe participated in the preparation of this Criminal Procedure Code – but we have to go further. The entire legal system of Ukraine has to be reformed. Again, I would like to welcome the decision to establish a constitutional assembly which, again, will carry out its work with the experts from the Venice Commission and, I hope, also with the opposition in Ukraine and with civil society.

How to deal with Yulia Tymoshenko’s case? Now the case will go before Ukraine’s High Specialised Court. Last week, we heard a statement by President Azarov, who invited us to send international legal experts. I think that is a first step towards dealing with this issue in such a way that the release of Yulia Tymoshenko is in accordance with both international law and Ukrainian law.

The case, of course, will perhaps go to this city, to Strasbourg, to the European Court of Human Rights. The Ukrainian side promised – and I think we should insist on that – that the verdict and, of course, the implementation of the Court’s judgment will be fully respected.

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

  President. – Before we carry on, can I just say that I gave Mr Brok extra speaking time for two reasons. Firstly, he is Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and secondly, he is Elmar Brok! But please, other colleagues, could you try and stick to time. Mr Lambsdorff, you have a blue-card question for Mr Rouček.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Blue-card question. – (DE) I have two very specific questions. One is whether Mr Rouček is aware that the Czech Government has granted political asylum to Mr Danylyshyn, the former Ukrainian Minister for the Economy. This is only granted when the person is suffering from political persecution. I would also like to know what he thinks of this fact.

My second question concerns whether it is relevant that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament or the Social Democratic Party of Europe has a cooperation agreement with the Party of the Regions.

  Libor Rouček (S&D), Blue-card answer. – Yes, the Czech Government gave political asylum to the former Economics Minister. As far as I know, there were reasons to give him asylum; but this is exactly what we are talking about here today: that in many cases, we have the feeling – and not only the feeling – of selective political justice. This is why we are having this debate today and why we would like to see an improvement along the lines already mentioned, but also involving further reforms as far as the judicial system is concerned.

On the Social Democrats and the Party of Regions: yes, it is true that, a year-and-a-half ago, a memorandum was signed where we expressed our will to help the Ukrainian side to develop the party, society and political system in the Ukraine in accordance with our values, as I mentioned: human rights, civil rights, rule of law, democracy. We therefore urge our colleagues in the Party of Regions to implement what they agreed to. This year will be decisive, both in the case of Yulia Tymoshenko and, of course, later on in October with the elections, in terms of whether they will be able to implement what they agreed to.

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

  President. – Can I remind colleagues that the blue card is 30 seconds for the question and 30 seconds for the answer. Ms Roithová, do you have a blue card?

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE), Blue-card question. – (CS) Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Rouček if he is aware of a certain inaccuracy, which is nonetheless important, when he talks about the Czech Government deciding to grant asylum. It is not the Czech Government and not a political body that does this, but the immigration police under the auspices of the Minister for the Interior. Is he aware of this?

  Libor Rouček (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (CS) Of course it was the Czech police. You mentioned the Minister for the Interior. The Minister for the Interior is a member of the Czech Government. Both the immigration police and the Czech Government had a say in this, naturally.

  Johannes Cornelis van Baalen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Ukraine is at a crossroads. The country could either go the same way as Belarus, which would mean that there is no longer only one ‘last dictatorship’ in Europe but two (and there may be other contenders for that, Mr Landsbergis), or Ukraine could develop into a modern democracy. This is also possible, because today, Ukraine is not Belarus and should not develop that way. With regard to the rule of law, I must say that indeed there is probably some progress, but it must materialise.

This means that the Tymoshenko case is a test case. There are other cases, but we should use this case to see whether progress is being made or not. It is true that Ms Tymoshenko is being treated better than before, but this should not be the end of the case. The Court of Cassation should be free, fair, open and transparent in the revision of court cases. If you look further, the way homosexuals were treated in a demonstration – which had to be cancelled – is a bad thing. Ukraine should accept that everybody is equal. The fact that there is a law before the Rada saying that homosexuality should not be propagated is a bad thing because education on this issue should be transparent, free and fair. Again, Ukraine should change in this respect. As the Commissioner said, the coming elections – whether they are free or fair – are also a benchmark.

I am not in favour of a boycott of the European football championship. Why not? We are having these discussions because of the championship in the same way that we talked about human rights in China because of the Olympic Games. We should use the opportunity; those who represent their countries in Ukraine should use the opportunity to draw the attention to the human rights situation. Ukraine need not become like Belarus. Let us help her not to do so.

  Rebecca Harms, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased that the debate about whether or not football is political has ultimately given rise to significant public interest in the situation and the developments in Ukraine, a result which we have repeatedly tried in vain to achieve in the past. I am also pleased that the cases of Yulia Tymoshenko and of the former ministers, Yuri Lutsenko and Heorhiy Filipchuk, are receiving the appropriate level of attention. When we show our solidarity with Ms Tymoshenko, I strongly believe that we should always refer to the full list of politicians and former high-ranking officials who are now in prison for political reasons as a result of a retaliation campaign organised by the regime of President Yanukovych. This is not only about Yulia Tymoshenko. It is about the systematic persecution of the relevant leaders of the opposition parties in Ukraine. I think that we have made progress in raising public awareness of this issue.

However, having reached this point, we must not stop. Therefore, I would like to urge the EU once again not to choose the simple solution, which would be to say that we will boycott the European Championships in Ukraine. I am of the opinion that we should boycott the Ukrainian Government together with those, including the President, who support this unjust judicial system. However, we should not boycott the citizens of Ukraine. The original idea of holding the European Championships within the EU and in one the EU’s neighbouring countries is exactly the right one and it should continue to apply. The European Championships must lead to an increase in discussions and debates about democracy. All of those who are officially taking part should make very clear their criticism of the legal proceedings against Ms Tymoshenko and other politicians who are currently in prison.

The best outcome would be if this unjust legal case were to be dropped before the football starts. I do not know if the Ukrainian Government has the insight to do this. At this stage, it is important for us to continue our criticism. In my opinion, the association agreement, which has not been paid as much attention during the course of the debate as the football has, should not be signed while the judicial system in the Ukraine remains unchanged.

The next elections must genuinely show that Ukraine is moving towards democracy and the rule of law. We must focus on calling for the former leading opposition politicians to take part in the elections as opposition candidates. It is not enough just to release them. They must be rehabilitated.

  President. – Ms Harms, you made several points very eloquently. An extra minute has been taken from your Group’s time.

  Paweł Robert Kowal, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, both during the meeting we had with Yulia Tymoshenko and the one we had in prison with Yuri Lutsenko, we talked most about Ukraine’s route to Europe. This is the real aspiration of the people of Ukraine. I would like to ask if it is true that all of us in the Chamber today are able to say that if Ukraine changes, we will support its journey into Europe? Did we all support Ms Tymoshenko’s government on this? Each of us ought to think about how we voted three years ago. Are we really being sincere about this?

Two questions are important at the moment. Firstly, we need to show this prospect to Ukraine, not to this or that government, but to the citizens of Ukraine, as Ms Harms has said. We need to show them this possibility, and then demand change. This change must be very specific, it must concern those who today have been unjustly sentenced, and it must concern reforms to the judicial system and of local government. This is a very important matter, something to which Prime Minister Azarov has also committed himself. It will place authority and decisions back in the hands of all Ukrainians – people who are watching us today.

Secondly, and this is very important: I would like to express heartfelt thanks to Mr Schulz for this initiative, and to Commissioner Füle for his real efforts to resolve the situation in Ukraine. Help is still needed from you both in another matter. Mr Schulz, I would like to ask you to ensure that the delegation of observers is a big one. Commissioner Füle, perhaps it will be possible to find additional funds so that some of the citizens of the European Union can go and support the elections – they can be given training and go as observers.

Let us have a repeat of what happened in 2004. This is the real expectation of all parties and political groups in Ukraine. Let us all go there as neighbours and with the proper preparation – and not just politicians, but also non-governmental organisations. This will be a real expression of neighbourly goodwill. Let us say clearly today that if Ukraine changes, we will have the courage to say: yes, you do have the prospect of European Union membership. Let us say boldly at this point that as neighbours, we can do something specific today – we can go and observe the elections.

  Zbigniew Ziobro, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (PL) Mr President, it is true that concern over respect for human rights in Ukraine is a cause of legitimate doubts and most certainly demands a reaction. It is natural that the European Union should call upon Ukraine, too, to maintain human rights, democratic standards and the proper operation of its justice system.

It is legitimate to talk about the dubious situation in relation to Ms Tymoshenko, as well as about other examples which have given rise to doubt over respect for standards in Ukraine. However, a completely separate matter which should nevertheless be mentioned at this point is the question of boycotting Euro 2012 and the decision to do so which has, after all, been announced publicly by the European Commission. The question arises as to whether such a decision is, in fact, helpful in this matter, a matter about which we are all concerned – raising democratic standards. Are we sure that such a decision will also help resolve the dramatic situation of the former Premier of Ukraine?

We know today that the Ukrainian opposition has not joined this kind of demand for a boycott or for the outright removal of this great sporting event from Ukraine. We know the majority of the Ukrainian people have been waiting five years for the chance to enjoy the experience associated with this celebration of European football. We also saw in this the chance for greater integration and a way to bring the Ukrainian people closer to the European Union and to Europe. We know, too, that a decision to impose a boycott of any kind can only push Ukraine into the hands of Putin’s Russia, who today is already posing as a defender of Ukraine and criticising the European Commission, something which is certain to gain him points with a fairly sizeable section of the Ukrainian nation.

This is something which requires both tact and wisdom. The question also arises about our standards here in the European Union. Are we going to be equally principled in the case of the Sochi Winter Olympics, which are being organised by Russia – a country which also occupies one third of the territory of the independent country of Georgia? Are we going to be equally principled in the case of Belarus, which is hosting the World Ice Hockey Championship – are we going to demand a boycott there too? Finally, on what grounds is the European Commission making statements about a boycott, since, in fact, it is not authorised to speak on the subject? Ms Ashton has not said anything here, and she of course is authorised to take a position and to coordinate that position with individual Member States. This, too, is missing, because there has been no consultation of the position on this with Poland, which is, after all, co-hosting the European Championship.

  Jaromír Kohlíček, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, it is clearly no longer fashionable to measure everyone, including the most senior statesmen, by the same yardstick. The various corruption scandals in EU countries do not bother us in the slightest. It is only exceptionally that a former statesman is convicted, as was recently the case with French President Chirac. Some EU states offer political asylum to fraudsters and, at the same time, try to put pressure on neighbouring countries to provide special privileges to former top politicians, contrary to the principles of equal treatment.

I am not a big football fan, but the tendency to link the European football tournament in Ukraine with the sentencing of former premier, Yulia Tymoshenko, has come as an unpleasant surprise. It is a fact that I have been trying for years to get more young women into top-level politics. It does not follow from this in any way, of course, that I would approve special conditions for privileged prisoners to serve out their punishments and special forms of treatment, in a country with several million people unemployed and homeless. Such an approach from politicians on the right does not surprise me. They have long been pushing for debts caused by the banks to be paid off by reducing the social standards of the poorest, even at the cost of high unemployment and dismantling the social state.

I would like to make noisy protest against the European Parliament exporting such behaviour – including impunity for large-scale fraudsters – to countries outside the EU. In the case of Yulia Tymoshenko and people connected with her, some of the proposals violate the principle of equal treatment for citizens. It is not possible to grant political asylum to the fraudsters we call oligarchs in Eastern Europe, and then to hold a noisy debate about economic sanctions against those who are trying to rid themselves of the worst forms of corruption.

I propose, ladies and gentlemen, that we put our own house in order first. I would like to recommend in particular that MEPs from the so-called new EU states acquaint us with the anti-corruption measures recently adopted in their own countries. Only then would I like to hear their views on the situation in Ukraine. It is not only football, but also politics that must finally start to acknowledge the rules of fair play.

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

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE), Blue-card question. – (CS) I would first like to know the basis on which Mr Kohlíček thinks that fraudsters are granted political asylum. What evidence does he have for this? Secondly, what evidence does he have to show that political prisoners receive above-standard treatment in terms of medical care? I believe that the opposite is true.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), Blue-card answer. – (CS) In my opinion, the evidence for the above-standard treatment is, for example, your visit to Ukraine, the visit of a group of foreign doctors to Ukraine. I have never heard of something like this happening in other countries. As far as the fraudsters are concerned, I do not know how you can explain the fact that an entire group of people with assets running into the billions appeared practically overnight. Is this legal? If it is legal, then something is wrong, not with the current government, but with the previous government of Ukraine. And not just in Ukraine, but in other countries as well. This is the real ’bottom line’.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, we all know that political pressure is unlikely to bring about either the release of the imprisoned opposition leader Ms Tymoshenko or democratic reforms in Ukraine. Even if the politicians in Kiev meet the demands from Brussels, we run the risk that the people of the country will not forget the interference from outside, from Brussels, which they regard as a humiliation. The fact that the EU can send officials to monitor court proceedings and doctors to ensure that Ms Tymoshenko receives medical treatment represents a clear concession which calls into question a boycott of the European Football Championships.

The criminal proceedings against Ms Tymoshenko were, of course, highly arbitrary. However, we must ask ourselves whether it makes sense to put at risk the current relatively workable relationship with Kiev. In the light of the EU’s short-sighted policy with regard to Ukraine, we should not be surprised if the Ukrainians move further away from Europe and towards the Russian alternative in the elections which are planned for October.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, with today’s debate in the House and the resolution that will be adopted afterwards, we wanted to highlight the importance of this association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine for the country’s European prospects, and as we have been reminded in this debate, a key element of the agreement is the democracy clause on respecting human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, and respect for the rules of the democratic game.

It is clear that the trial, conviction and humanitarian situation of Yulia Tymoshenko and of others blatantly violate the spirit and letter of this democratic clause. Parliament therefore must show its solidarity with these people, request that their rights be fully respected, strongly condemn the use of force, as has been observed, and, of course, ensure that opposition leaders can stand in the next elections, many of whom are currently in jail, like Yulia Tymoshenko.

For that reason, I agree with what the Commissioner, Mr Füle said, in the sense that the signing of the association agreement cannot occur under these circumstances, and therefore, Parliament should not go ahead and ratify it.

Secondly, without questioning the hosting of the European Football Championships, which is being organised jointly with Poland, I believe, and I am addressing you, Commissioner, that the European Union should try to give a joint response, given that we are supposed to be trying to establish a common foreign and security policy, as such that the representatives of the European Union and the Member States can act in a homogenous, joint manner from a shared standpoint.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for the clear statement about Ukraine and the case of Yulia Tymoshenko. I have a question, however.

I believe you indicated, Commissioner, that the entry into force of the association agreement will be linked not only to the case of Tymoshenko, but to the free and fair elections to be organised this autumn. Of course that is important, but my question is: does it mean that you do not envisage making any move before the elections in Ukraine this year?

Building a democracy is a long-term process – as we have seen within the European Union, where some of the Central and Eastern European countries still have ups and downs in terms of democratic development. What is important, however, is that the authorities understand the problems and work on them. Unfortunately, we have seen our eastern neighbourhood somehow getting less democratic in recent years, in contrast to the southern neighbourhood. There is a subject for further study there. I am not going to enter into details now, but, while it is too much to compare Ukraine to Belarus, it is true that, not only in Ukraine but also in some other countries, we see these backward steps, and we have to take account of them. We have to show consistency.

I would like to remind you that two Member States of the European Union – Bulgaria and Romania – are subject to special mechanisms in the field of the judiciary, simply because high-level corruption and abuses of power were not tackled. Currently, two prime ministers are in the spotlight: one of them, in Romania, has been sentenced and the other one is under investigation and may be fined on certain charges. So we should not, in principle, deny that former prime ministers, ministers and other high-level politicians have to face justice.

We should, however, also seek to prevent countries from slipping back into a situation of impunity, and that goes for the current government and current ministers too. Ukraine belongs to Europe, and we should do our best to avoid it rushing into any kind of Asia-related project. The S&D Group will continue to use its relations with the parties of the region to mediate in this delicate situation. Once again, we emphasise that we share the evaluation of the situation, and especially that selective justice is not acceptable.

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

  Johannes Cornelis van Baalen (ALDE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to ask the speaker whether, if the Party of Regions cannot bring about change in the system in Ukraine, the Socialists and the Social Democrats will change their policy and put real pressure on that party. In other words, what would the consequences be?

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D), Blue-card answer. – Thank you for your question. This is a memorandum concerning some joint work and activities, and it does not imply a long-term political connection with this party. Of course we are exerting pressure and working at different levels, including at the highest level. As you can see, these relations help to continue the dialogue with the Ukrainian authorities. Of course, if we do not see any change, we will reconsider the agreement. We have made this clear to our partners as well.

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the situation is simple. We have done a great deal in terms of the association agreement so that Ukraine would introduce the rule of law and the right standards. This, however, has not happened. The whole situation with the imprisonment of members of the opposition and the threats of further imprisonments has made this situation much worse. We cannot allow representatives of the European institutions to behave as if nothing has changed.

Much has been said here about a boycott, because a boycott can take different forms. I for one do not imagine that the representatives of the European institutions should officially attend the championship, sit in a VIP box and applaud the matches. If they like football so much, let them buy a ticket with their own money, sit with the spectators and enjoy the football as private persons, not as European politicians representing the European institutions.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, Yulia Tymoshenko is clearly not Ukraine’s only problem, but her case is symbolic of the political situation.

What, then, are the problems? Last week’s report from the Commission highlighted the following: an increasing centralisation of power, rising corruption and the very selective way in which it is tackled, the ever-deteriorating treatment of prisoners and a growing anti-homosexual climate that is now even threatening to be enshrined in law.

I therefore call on the Ukrainian parliament to reject this law. Ukraine needs to get away from the culture of political pay-offs, as those benefiting today are the victims of tomorrow, and vice versa. This culture is all about holding on to power, rather than using that power to help the country progress.

Mr President, next month, the eyes of the world will turn to Ukraine when football’s European Championships take place. Unfortunately, the cameras will not be solely focused on the pitch, but also on the political institutions in Kiev, the prisons right across the country and on the Tymoshenko case in particular.

I sincerely hope that, next month, the world will be talking about players like Shevchenko and Tymoshchuk, rather than about Tymoshenko and Lutsenko. Only the Yanukovych regime can ensure that, however. Necessary political changes would not only lead to a successful football championships, but also, I believe, to a successful association agreement.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), Blue-card question to Antoni Legutko. – (PL) Mr President, Mr Legutko, the leader of your political party in Poland has called for the Ukrainian part of the European Championship to be moved to another European country. I understand that your party has also called for a boycott. Are you pleased with the fact that the compromise text of the joint motion for a resolution does not call for a boycott, and is this satisfactory to you and to your party?

  Ryszard Antoni Legutko (ECR), Blue-card answer. – (PL) I can only repeat what I said before, by which I mean that there must be some kind of clear signal, and that we cannot adopt a stance of ‘business as usual’. I repeat: if anyone likes football, let them go there – but not officially, just as a football fan.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – (CS) Mr President, Ukraine has progressed further than any other Euronest country on the path to EU accession. It should be an example to others, but unfortunately, it is not. It is failing to meet the political criteria. The entire democratic world is concerned about selective application of the law to political opponents. The prosecutor works to political orders, and the prison administration grossly violates prisoners’ rights.

Yulia Tymoshenko was convicted under laws that are contrary to EU and UN standards. Even if it has been possible, under enormous pressure, to stop her being tortured and to begin treatment, her rights are still being grossly violated. It is only the tip of the iceberg, beneath which lies political interference in the judiciary. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated last year against 400 disloyal judges. The aim is to frighten citizens, silence the opposition and re-establish one-party government, with some sections of the European left standing by and possibly even helping out.

I do not know what is worse – the legal misuse of prisoners’ medical information or the deliberate, massive disinformation campaign of the prosecutor, the Health Ministry and the President. It amounts to an enormous abuse of public power for political gain, reinforcement of the power of pro-government oligarchs and increasing corruption. Ladies and gentlemen, the independence of the forthcoming autumn elections is now in doubt, and this greatly saddens me. It will lead the beautiful country of Ukraine and its citizens further away from the EU.

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

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), Blue-card question. – (PL) Ms Roithová has been good enough to make several fairly uncompromising statements. Firstly, Ms Roithová, you said that the public prosecution service in Ukraine is controlled by the government. In my country, only six months ago, the Minister for Justice was also the Prosecutor General and there were no objections to this. Do you and your party not think, firstly, that Ukraine is, in fact, making some progress, and secondly, that Ukraine is not becoming similar to Belarus, but that we are dealing here with a struggle which will either bring Ukraine into the European Union or see Ukraine come under the thumb of Russia?

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (CS) In my opinion, this is not the time for us to be discussing the political orientation of Ukraine, but the way in which the prosecutor is conducting trial, while knowing it is contrary to EU standards and knowing that we are about to sign an association agreement, clearly points to a selective application of the law. The disinformation which the prosecutor, Mr Pšonka, directly disseminates about the health situation and other factors, is also clearly a flagrant case of violation of democracy in Ukraine. However, I very much welcome the fact that the parliament and the government are ready to reform the judiciary. Unfortunately, the reform cannot be applied retrospectively to the cases of Tymoshenko and Lutsenko.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we talk a lot about Ukraine, the subject comes up in our debates practically every month, and I would ask you all to look at it from the perspective of whether the colours black and white are the right ones to describe the situation there. Shameful things are going on there, because it is shameful to put a former prime minister and several ministers in prison. However, very good things are also happening – reforms are being introduced which make all the legislation associated with the fiscal treaty look simple. Reforms of tax law have been brought in, along with reforms of penal law. At the same time, things have never been so bad in Ukraine in terms of the economic climate. Never before have foreign investors been making such complaints about the legal system in Ukraine. However, in the very same country, new electoral legislation has been adopted in good time and with the agreement of the opposition. In the very same country, the opposition has united, in order to work together against the Party of the Regions. So I would like us to know all this before we say unthinkingly that a new Belarus is emerging or that the situation is just a complete disaster.

This year, elections are to be held in which the citizens of Ukraine must have the right – we can help them in this – to say in a national poll if they support the policy of the Party of the Regions or not. This is a fundamental matter for this year. In relation to this, we should ensure that the elections are free and fair, because we do have the appropriate tools for this – we have already done this once before, when, a few years ago, we were able to secure free and fair elections in Ukraine.

The authorities in Ukraine are not helping us. Talking about standards in the field of human rights is a waste of breath and does not achieve anything. However, what also horrifies me is the chorus of wise guys in the European Union who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, who think that Ukraine is a lost cause and that we should break off talks with Ukraine and so in fact push it into the arms of Moscow. Moscow is sitting quietly with its ‘hands off’, but all these zealots are, in fact, implementing Moscow’s policy for it, and I want to protest against this. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Finally, I would like to welcome Yevgenia Tymoshenko and say we are keeping our fingers crossed for her struggle to secure her mother’s release.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE), Blue-card question to Zuzana Roithová. – (SL) I would like to put a question to Ms Roithová, for a particular reason. Not in order to draw out this debate, but because I think it is important that we do not have an ideological debate in this House. We need a balanced debate and one that will, first and foremost, help Ukraine and its population come closer to the EU, that is, help them come closer by one road or another, to their European dream.

Ms Roithová, my question is as follows: you have referred to legislation which allows abuse and which puts prosecutors, courts and so on in a situation that is not consistent with our standards. However, did the government led by Ms Tymoshenko do anything to change the legislation on the basis of which it ruled the country, the very same legislation that was in force during the Stalin era? Allow me to make one final remark: it was wrong to lock up Ms Tymoshenko and the way she is being treated in Ukraine is also wrong.

  Zuzana Roithová (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (CS) As far as paragraphs 365 and 364 are concerned, these are actually from the 1960s, and it is wrong, of course, that they were not corrected or amended. You all know, however, that work has been continuing on the reform and the new Criminal Code for as long as 10 years. In the Czech Republic, it took 10 to 15 years to amend the entire Criminal Code.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR), Blue-card question to Marek Siwiec. – (PL) I have a quick question for Mr Siwiec, who has a good memory for this kind of thing and who has served as Chair of the Delegation to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. Mr Siwiec, following the Orange Revolution – because many who were Members of this House at the time are still Members today – when Yulia Tymoshenko was Prime Minister, was the House so ready to support moves to open up Ukraine’s road to Europe, or were there continual problems with this? I think we should explain this clearly today, because there was a time when Yulia Tymoshenko was in power and she could have been helped. I hope that when she is in power again, we will not refuse her that help.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (PL) We do not have to go so far back, we need only think of last year, when we tried to include in the appropriate documents a reference to the prospect of EU membership for Ukraine based on Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, but there was no agreement to promise something which is, in any case, a possibility that is many, many years away. However, when the Orange group was in power in Ukraine, the situation was similar, except that at that time, the association agreement did not exist, because in fact, no matter how much some of us may not like this, the association agreement was negotiated by representatives of the Party of the Regions and it is they who have put this document on the table today. This does not alter the fact that one way or the other, many people’s attitude to Ukraine is the same now as it was before.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, as Mr Siwiec has just said, this is not the first debate that we have held on the subject of Ukraine and, as has so often been the case before, large parts of this debate have been unproductive and predictable. Why is this? The answer is quite simple. The Batkivshchyna is a party which follows the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and, as we have just heard, the Party of the Regions has an agreement with the Socialists. In other words, the PPE group is now making a big fuss, puffing out its cheeks and running a poster campaign to create a good photo opportunity, while the Socialists are giving speeches about the situation in Ukraine which they ought to be ashamed of. This is a softly-softly approach which glosses over the reality of the situation.

This type of debate does not do justice to the strategic or the humanitarian dimension of the problem. Ukraine is a large country with a population of 50 million. It lies between Russia, the European Union and the Black Sea. For 20 years, it has been stagnating in economic, democratic and social terms. Of course, that was also the case under the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko government. I believe that we now need to put the focus on the political and humanitarian dimension. We must ensure that democracy has a chance at the elections in October. However, Mr Füle, the electoral campaign is already under way. I would like some very precise information from the Commission and the European External Action Service about how they plan to implement the measures that you have just described, in other words, the close monitoring of the electoral campaign and the elections themselves. I would like our two guests, Hryhoriy Nemyria and Yevgenia Tymoshenko, to take away more from today’s debate than just the usual disputes between left and right. To Ms Tymoshenko, I would like to say in particular that I hope her mother receives the medical treatment she needs.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it needs to be said with a degree of clarity that there are countries in Europe which do not want Ukraine in the European Union. Furthermore, there are also MEPs in this Chamber who do not want Ukraine in the European Union. The case of Yulia Tymoshenko – the shameful and unacceptable case – is being used to block Ukraine’s road to Europe for ever, and this is being done in cooperation with Russia. In cooperation with a Russia which murders journalists, bans all kinds of demonstrations and imprisons political activists. We ought to remember this and always keep this in view.

However, I can see the Ukrainian Ambassador here. Your Excellency, some representatives of the Ukrainian authorities are doing a great deal to help Ukraine’s enemies block your road to the European Union. I would like to call upon all Ukrainians to help those who want to help you, because there are some of us here.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D), Blue-card question. – Mr Lambsdorff, perhaps I did not understand you correctly, but you said that the Socialists should be ashamed of what they are doing. Should we be ashamed because of the opportunities that we provide for political exchange with Prime Minister Azarov, for example, or the prosecutors, and all the other opportunities that you and members of your group have also used, or because of efforts to find a sustainable solution in Ukraine or maybe because of the attempts to transform a main political player in Ukraine? I think we should be ashamed of politicising that case too much. I think the Socialists are doing the right thing.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) The subject of our debate today is the case of Ms Tymoshenko, a political and humanitarian case which gives rise to the most serious concern, and Members who I otherwise have a great deal of personal respect for, such as Mr Rouček and Mr Vigenin, are giving speeches which do not in any way do justice to the severity of the case about the various minor reforms that are taking place at the moment. The situation would be exactly the reverse if the government in Ukraine were different. That is what I mean. We must be open and clear about this. Regardless of who is in power in Ukraine, the country is too important for us to discuss it here from a party political perspective.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, by initialling the association agreement with Ukraine, the EU has made it clear what we are prepared to do in our relations with that country. However, the discrepancy between what are said to be our shared values and the reality in the country is growing ever greater. The regime believes that only by keeping the opposition leader, Ms Tymoshenko, and other members of her government in prison can it be sure of winning the parliamentary elections in October.

Power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the Yanukovych family and its close associates who are seeking to increase their own wealth. Key positions in the ministry of the interior, the tax authorities and the central bank, among other organisations, are now held by these people. Then the prime minister’s son, Alexander, goes on a shopping trip and buys up small and medium-sized businesses throughout the country, with the support of the tax authorities. He suddenly appears on the list of the richest people in Ukraine and his wealth has obviously grown significantly within the space of a year. The population responds with resignation and apathy to shameless acts of this kind, which simply serve to increase the family’s personal fortune, and to the imprisonment of the opposition. However, the people also remember that the Orange camp during its period in government also spent more time fighting than implementing the necessary reforms.

What should we do now? I am calling on the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament to terminate this agreement of 14 October 2010 earlier than planned and not to leave it in place until the parliamentary elections. Of course dialogue remains important, but we should not artificially enhance the status of these people by means of an agreement of this kind. The EU should initiate a comprehensive communication strategy aimed directly at the population and at civil society in order to make it clear what our concerns are. At the same time, we should tell Mr Yanukovych what we expect of him and by when. We need to set clear limits.

Mr Füle, you should not be under the illusion that the good intentions that we have towards the country and its people in our agreement have been the driving force behind the actions of the ruling family. The reality is that the son of Mr Yanukovych, the rest of the family and its friends want to increase their personal wealth. The only question is whether the other oligarchs see this as a threat to their own interests. We should combine the carrot for the country with a stick for the family and the oligarchs for their dishonestly acquired wealth in the EU. We need to locate their assets and freeze them. I have read that Cyprus would be a good place to start looking for the accounts. I hope that we have the political will to do this.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – Mr President, today we are talking about the situation in Ukraine, but some are trying to water down the debate on whether or not to boycott the European Football Championships. But what we should really be talking about is the deficiencies of a consistent, strong and strict EU policy. We have tools at our disposal – the association agreements and the European Neighbourhood Policy – to influence positive developments in the relevant countries.

Last week, the annual package on neighbourhood policy was published. Ukraine is the country in which we have achieved the most progress – but then why is it that today, Ukraine seems further from EU values than ever? Just last weekend, the Gay Pride parade could not take place due to extremists.

We should ensure that ‘more for more’ is put into practice. Respect for the rule of law and democratic values are priorities of the Association Agenda. If partner countries want to benefit, they should respect these values. We should make our policy clear, as well as the consequences of not complying with the priorities of the Association Agenda.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I hope no one here in the Chamber is in any doubt that Ukraine is geographically part of Europe. However, I think we do need to realise that the people of Ukraine feel they are a truly European society. Current public opinion polls show that over 70% of the people who live in Ukraine support Ukraine’s integration with the European Union. I think that in many of the European Union’s Member States, we can only dream of such a result. So of course, on the one hand, we must condemn the selective application of the law, the violations of human rights, the inhumane treatment of prisoners, the violations of and restrictions on freedom of speech and the persecution of business people just because they support opposition parties; and we must, of course, demand democratic, free and fair elections, in which we should, by the way, help by sending as many EU observers as possible. However, on the other hand, we must not shut the European door on Ukraine. We have to show them that the European Union is open to extensive cooperation with Ukraine – obviously, we must not punish Ukrainian society for the Soviet mentality of its authorities.

Finally, I would like to appeal to President Yanukovych. Mr Yanukovych, there are certain moments in history which are decisive in terms of how you will be remembered. Either you will be among the people who brought the countries of Eastern Europe into Western structures, like Lech Wałęsa, or you will be remembered alongside Alexander Lukashenko.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, all the hair-splitting that I have heard emanating from one side of the House does not help us to get at what I believe is the heart of the problem: that in Ukraine, justice is being used for political purposes, and Yulia Tymoshenko is suffering the consequences. The only alternative to this situation is for Yulia Tymoshenko to be freed.

I do not believe that anything more needs to be said, given that any other sensible comments – of which I have heard several – risk casting a smokescreen over what is actually happening in that country. I believe the time has come for all of us to cooperate together, including the sporting authorities, for even if it is true that a boycott would not work, it is equally true that the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), the event organiser, in particular, must add its voice to the calls on the government in Kiev to release Yulia Tymoshenko.

For some years, UEFA has promoted its own campaign, called ‘Respect’, to combat discrimination in all its forms. I believe that ‘respect’ means respect for the truth that lies in every human heart, and therefore, in effect, the exercise of justice in the interest of the individual, whoever they may be.

That is why we must fight this battle together, because a strong Europe, one that demands truth, freedom and justice for Yulia Tymoshenko, is the Europe that we want and – I am quite sure – that Ukrainian citizens want, too.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, the consolidation of democracy, human rights and the rule of law is particularly important in our neighbourhood – taken from Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union – and Ukraine is a neighbouring country to Europe, with which we have concluded negotiations on an association agreement, and one which has what we call ‘European prospects’. For that reason, therefore, there needs to be a strong demand for human rights.

I am worried about the lack of political will from the Ukrainian authorities on this matter. This is emphasised with the case of Ms Yulia Tymoshenko and also other opposition leaders, victims of selective justice and a penal code from the Soviet era, as previously mentioned. It appears that their ambiguity means that there is almost no difference between political and penal responsibility. A democratic system cannot function in this manner. Fundamental rights need to be protected, and opposition politics logically have to be respected.

In addition, I think it would be very convenient if the European Union could reach a unanimous view on the level and manner in which high-ranking politicians are going to attend the European Football Championships that are to be played in Ukraine next month.

And, lastly, ladies and gentlemen, I was somewhat surprised to read that the President of this House entertained the Prime Minister of Ukraine last week. Given that neither the Council nor the Commission went to such lengths, I wonder whether our coordination within the institutions of the Union is appropriate, and I would like Mr Füle, the Commissioner, to tell me if this coordination exists.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), Blue-card question. – (FI) Mr President, I have a question for Mr Mauro, if that is all right.

Firstly, I would like to say that he got to the crux of the matter when he emphasised the importance of the rule of law, a principle which lies at the heart of the European Union. However, I do not think that we should underestimate the significance of the fact that there are now just six weeks to go before these football championships. Now is the time that Ukraine could meet us halfway on matters of human rights. In the European Union, Mr Barroso, among others, has said that he may stay away from the games. Is Mr Mauro of the view that it is right to use these six weeks to put pressure on Ukraine to take a step forward in human rights matters?

  Mario Mauro (PPE), Blue-card answer. – (IT) If I understand the translation correctly, my answer is a firm yes, of course we agree; we want the maximum possible pressure to be applied during these six weeks. Indeed, in my view, it would be a good thing if every Member of this Parliament asked the Ukrainian authorities’ permission to visit Yulia Tymoshenko: turning down one request is one thing; turning down 754 is quite another.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, let me begin by saying that Ukraine is European and has its place in Europe. The cooperation between the EU and Ukraine, such as the association agreement, for example, is also important to Ukraine and its European ambitions. In order to move closer to the EU and even one day to become part of it, other countries must have the same values as the EU. This applies to all countries which want a closer relationship with EU, including Ukraine, regardless of who is currently in power there.

One of the first things that becomes noticeable when a country’s values differ from those of the EU is that human rights and the rule of law do not function properly. In the case of Ukraine, we in the European Parliament have been concerned for some time about both of these issues. Most importantly, we believe that Ukraine does not make a distinction between political trials and judicial trials. Criminal acts should be punished because they are against the law, but there must be no more political trials.

If Ukraine is serious about moving closer to the EU, judicial trials must be transparent and comply with EU standards. Human rights must be respected and the media must be independent. Without these three things, there will be a more closed society in Ukraine and that is not the route which we want the country to take.

The EU and the European Parliament have always been clear about what we expect from our partners. It is now up to the people of Ukraine to call for the necessary changes. We cannot deviate from our values, but we can help Ukraine to transform into a modern democracy and we are prepared to do that.

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – (BG) Mr President, Mr Füle, I wish to address those in power in Ukraine and tell them that we will not tire of insisting that honest, fair and democratic elections should be held where opposition parties and leaders can participate, including Ms Tymoshenko and the other politicians who are currently in prison, because Ukraine matters to us.

We have stated on numerous occasions our desire for Ukraine and the 45 million plus Ukrainians to have a European perspective. The obstacle preventing this is not Yulia Tymoshenko, but the family-type, oligarchic structure created in Ukraine in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Unfortunately, this family oligarchy clearly has no desire to reform the country based on a European model. What is paramount for them is to preserve the financial channels for getting rich.

Ukraine is not the only example of this. The further east we go from Berlin, the more difficult the democratic transition is.

We have heard verbal assurances many times from those in power that they will find a solution to the Tymoshenko case and those involving the other opposition leaders. I was at the conference in Yalta last September where President Yanukovych declared in front of Carl Bildt and other colleagues of mine that there would be a positive development in Ms Tymoshenko’s situation by the end of 2011. Not only has this not happened, but we are seeing the situation evolve precisely in the opposite direction.

We have not called for a boycott of the European Football Championships as a sporting event. On the contrary, I am calling for this opportunity to be used to encourage the reforms in the country and confirm the European perspective ahead of Ukraine. However, this event must not be used in any way by the Ukrainian ruling group for self-promotion, which must be guaranteed by those European politicians who are considering going to Ukraine.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, on Saturday, I had the opportunity to talk to Yulia Tymoshenko in hospital in Kharkiv, where she is now serving her sentence. I would like to thank the Ukrainian authorities for agreeing to this meeting and for making the appropriate preparations for us to have over an hour and a half of in-depth conversation.

I will start with information about her health. It was indeed sad to see such an active, hard-working and dynamic person confined to her bed, unable to move and visibly suffering. Nonetheless, we had a very interesting conversation about many things, including, Commissioner Füle, Mr Schulz’s initiative to send a last-chance mission – to find a respected politician in Europe who will go and look once again at the matter of the charging and conviction of Ms Tymoshenko and who will attend the final phase of her trial, the cassation appeal. Following this conversation, I have the impression that there is initial consent from Ms Tymoshenko about this on one condition: that it is someone who is impartial, not involved in the matter in any way and independent in their opinions, and that the choice should also be consulted with the opposition in Ukraine, not just with the authorities, and I would like to appeal for this to be done.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Mr President, the Ukrainian Government must be sent a very strong warning. I agree with the position of the European Commission and of those European leaders who refuse to sign the association agreement and to meet with the leaders of the Yanukovych regime.

That said, some form of dialogue must be maintained. It is obvious that the trial of Yulia Tymoshenko is a politically motivated show trial, which is unacceptable. Ms Tymoshenko must be released as soon as possible, although I must add that she is not a Joan of Arc and neither is she innocent as a lamb; still, this show trial is unacceptable. Every speaker mentioned that the rule of law must be restored in Ukraine. I agree that we do not have much time to put pressure on the Yanukovych Government.

In this debate, I would like to bring up another aspect of the lack of the rule of law: it is extremely unsettling that despite requests from the Council of Europe, several MEPs and the leaders of the minorities concerned, the Ukrainian authorities failed to take minorities into consideration when delineating electoral districts for the parliamentary elections. Some years ago, Ukraine still managed to work this out in Subcarpathia, but this time there was a lack of political will on the part of the current Ukrainian leadership.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – (SL) Mr President, I fear that, by getting all heated up in this House over events such as the Olympic Games and various sports tournaments, the Eurovision Song Contest and so on – we are, in fact, showing how powerless we are to lead a consistent dialogue with our partner countries, that is, a dialogue based on our principles, on the principles behind our values.

It is obvious that the political culture in the transition countries in and around Europe is very low. It is becoming a common occurrence to prosecute former members of government, to lock them up, and to accuse current and former politicians of corruption. I believe that in this case, too, we ought to show a little more sensitivity in the European Parliament. We ought not to be so keen when it comes to defending our own and criticising others.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that I had expected that Ms Tymoshenko’s daughter, whom we received so spectacularly, would have been interested in our views on Ukraine and the imprisonment of her mother. Unfortunately, she left the balcony shortly after her formal reception and it is clear that she does not seem to show a great deal of interest in our opinions. Let me get to the point. Objectively, it must be recognised that the continued detention of the former Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, is exacerbating the political climate in Ukraine. From my position, I would not dare to judge the level of Ms Tymoshenko's responsibility for the economic failure in the administration of the country or the murder of its political opponents. I agree that every citizen, including Yulia Tymoshenko, has the right to a fair trial. Ukraine is one of the European Union’s most important neighbours, and therefore an interest on the part of the EU in the functioning of its political and judicial system is understandable. Our involvement in addressing the political disputes between the democratically-elected government and opposition political forces should not lead to an even greater polarisation of the political scene in Ukraine. On the contrary; a civilised, factual, open and impersonal dialogue between all relevant political forces in Ukraine should be our main objective for Ukraine.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, some Members have rightly commented that, with the endless bureaucratic procedures and legal battles, the risk is that they want to tire us into submission.

We must therefore insist, clearly and firmly, that we are not tired of defending human rights, nor is Yulia’s daughter, who is here today. Nor is Yulia herself, who is fighting along with many other people worldwide for her rights, even though she is suffering under harsh and unjustifiable prison conditions.

The problem is not about opening a debate on the suitability or otherwise of a sports boycott; the problem is that Ukraine must respect human rights. We cannot accept compromises when individuals’ rights are at stake: we are the European Parliament.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I must say that I am very disappointed that we are basing the negotiations and relationships we have with Ukraine around the person of Yulia Tymoshenko. I am disappointed because when we talk about the situation in Ukraine, we should be talking about it in all contexts, not associating it with one person. What is more, until recently, this person was the country’s prime minister and she had the opportunity to take all the measures for which we are now reproaching the current Ukrainian Government. This is not to say that in Ukraine, all is well and that Ukraine cannot cope with the substantive criticism. This criticism should, in any case, be substantive and universal, and should focus on measures that are to the benefit of all citizens and not only in favour of the imprisoned prime minister. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to add one more thing. I very much hope that Ukraine will take steps towards the creation of the best possible relations with the European Union. In fact, though, it would be inappropriate for us to criticise the fact that their prime minister has been indicted and will subsequently be tried for her poor management of state assets, because if similar measures were in place in our Member States, our citizens would welcome it if our politicians were convicted for similar handling of state assets.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, today’s debate shows that the European Parliament and the Union as a whole recognise the importance of Ukraine as our partner, but as a partner which can be relied upon to maintain certain standards. We are not indifferent to Ukraine, we want Ukraine to be a fully-fledged partner in Europe, but we want it to be a partner which inspires respect, upholds human rights and is ruled by law. The imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko and other opposition figures means the current President and government of Ukraine have not chosen this European route. Changes to the justice system, improvements on human rights, introducing local government, and all of this together with free and fair elections – this is the way for Ukraine to confirm that it is heading for European integration.

However, let us give an important signal to the citizens of Ukraine, here, from the European Parliament, that firstly we are not talking about a boycott of Euro 2012, but that in return, we do expect the release of oppositionists being held in prison and we do expect free and fair elections.

  Werner Schulz (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Mr Azarov, has offered to allow international officials to monitor the next trial of Ms Tymoshenko. This is another farce in what has become a classic example of managed democracy. I believe that we do not need these monitors. We should just read the four reports by the experienced former Danish prosecutor, Mr Lyngbo, who has followed and evaluated all the trials and who concludes that this is clearly politically motivated justice. There is no proof of the fraudulent exercise of public office, of abuse of positions or of corruption.

If we want to do something about corruption in Ukraine, we should look at the terms under which the contracts for the European Championship stadiums were awarded. These cost one-third more than they should have done. The important point is that the money made its way into private pockets.

I would like to make one comment about what Mr Lambsdorff said. You criticised the debate here and expressed the naïve hope that there would be free and fair elections in Ukraine. I believe that while the leaders of the opposition who were responsible for organising the European Championships are behind bars and the torturers are in the grandstand, basking in the reflected glory of the event, we will not see free and fair elections.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Blue-card question. – (DE) Mr Schulz, I hope you have noted the fact that I did not express a naïve hope, but that I called on the Commission to make it entirely clear how it intends to monitor the election process. I myself am highly sceptical that it will be possible to hold elections there in six months that will meet international standards.

  Werner Schulz (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr Lambsdorff, this is not about your requirements and expectations of the Commission. On the contrary, I expect you to be in a position to say how you want to show this regime the red card. That is what this is about. To continue the imagery of the European Championships, we should not be just running about like referees, blowing our whistles and waving yellow cards. Instead, we should finally show this regime the red card.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I think that more than ever, we should be interested in cooperation between Ukraine and the European Union, because we have already decided we are going to be saying ‘no’ to Turkey for a long time to come. In Serbia, elections have been won by parties and groups which are anti-European and opposed to Europe. The regime in Belarus has not relaxed its grip at all, but continues instead to bolster its position, nor are we dealing with a process of democratisation in Putin’s Russia at the moment, but with another case of tightening the reins. It seems to me that we should be very concerned about this.

On the other hand, if we look at what is going on in Ukraine, I have the feeling that anti-European forces are getting stronger there too, although society in general is in favour of Europe. The First Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Renat Kuzmin, visited us here in Parliament, and we talked about the situation of Yulia Tymoshenko. We said it is imperative she be released immediately on health grounds. All we heard in reply was that there are going to be further trials, this time in connection with suspicions that Members of the Ukrainian Parliament have been murdered. This is not a sign that Ukraine wants to cooperate with those who want Ukraine in Europe.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, today’s discussion is not just a discussion about the Yulia Tymoshenko situation. It is also about the principles upon which institutions and democracy function in Ukraine, and it is also about which principles the EU wishes to apply in order to implement its policy towards neighbouring and partner countries. Yulia Tymoshenko is an example of a political process that would not arise at all under normal circumstances. Political and criminal responsibility should be clearly separated in each country that is committed to democratic values. Government institutions in Ukraine should guarantee the independence and transparency of all judicial processes and should not selectively apply justice against political opponents. In Ukraine the political struggle should take place within a free and fair election campaign, and not by imprisoning political opponents. It is not possible to call a political game in which the opposition is in prison a fair one, just as it is not fair to play a football match against a team that is sitting in the changing room.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, the story of Yulia Tymoshenko is a sorry one and it is right that we should be discussing it here this morning. I hope our discussions will bear fruit.

I had the pleasure of listening to Ms Tymoshenko in Bonn a little over a year ago at an EPP meeting, and she was a very impressive lady and had lots of plans to democratise and improve her country’s situation. That she is now languishing in prison is something which is not acceptable, and while she may have issues to address, they should be done so in accordance with the normal judicial norms and that is what we should work towards. It is not acceptable that she is being treated as she is as of now.

As regards a boycott of the Championships, I do not like mixing sport and politics, and while we may discuss it, I would hope that it will not come to that. It should be an option of last resort but, hopefully, our discussions might lead to some resolution prior to that.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). – (SL) Mr President, I support the Commission’s position on the conditions for Ukraine’s cooperation with the European Union. My perception of Yulia Tymoshenko and her struggle for a fair trial is similar to that of the Slovene writer Prežihov Voranc in ‘Samorastniki’ (‘Self-made Men’). Two hundred years ago, Slovenian women fought for the rights of children and their own rights. As Yulia Tymoshenko today fights for a fair trail, let us help her in that struggle.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the honourable Members and yourself are all right. You are all right. The situation that we are facing is very complex.

Let me remind you of the bigger picture. We are talking about the transformation and transition of a country of 50 million people, we are talking about the transformation of eastern Europe and we are talking about a country, a region, where, not a long time ago – and we all here remember this – a totalitarian regime reigned, the Soviet totalitarian regime to be more precise.

This is not the first region where the European Union has tried to transform and expand the values of democracy and legality. There are others – central Europe, the western Balkans – where, through the policy of enlargement and by using those countries’ vision of sooner or later joining the European Union, this organisation has been successful.

I have no illusions about Ukraine and that part of Europe. I have a vision that sooner or later, we will be able to be bold with regard to this region and this country and that we will help in the transformation there. Now, in that transformation, there has been a discussion about geopolitics being on one side and values on the other side. I do not see a contradiction. I think we need to be aware of geopolitics, but we should not play geopolitics. I think we should do everything possible to help Ukraine to transform and that this is in line with the legitimate aspirations of the people. We should be flexible, innovative and creative. We should not see the situation as being black and white.

At the same time, there is one thing on which we should never compromise. We should never compromise on our values and our principles because, if we do and if we make these compromises, sooner or later, we will face more than challenges – problems – in our own neighbourhood, if not within the European Union.

That was my first point. My second point concerns boycotting the football championship. In the Commission and the Council, we have never used the word ‘boycott’. Let me therefore reiterate the position on Euro 2012. As matters now stand, President Barroso has no intention of travelling to the Ukraine or of attending Euro 2012 events in Ukraine. This position is shared by the College, bearing in mind that Commissioners would have been attending in a personal rather than a professional capacity. It is not a boycott and we hope that Euro 2012 will be a great success. This does not affect the matches in Poland, of course. And yes, the Commission is in favour of the fair play which is so closely associated with sport also being associated with politics.

Turning now to the important question about the elections – free and fair elections. The Member States are agreed on the importance of sending as many European Union election observers as possible as part of the OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission. The European Union delegation in Kiev has already started coordinating actions with the European Union Heads of Missions with a view to supporting training of observers or financing exit polls, which played an essential role in the evaluation of previous elections, particularly those in 2004. A European Union delegation has also observed all the relevant meetings of the Central Election Commission. Also in the pipeline are projects in support of media monitoring, analysis of marketing of parties and so on with the Council of Europe – all the projects to reach out to vulnerable voters. That was my third point.

My fourth point – to a more interested group of parliamentarians – is that, for my part, I care about former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko as a person and I care about her as a politician.

As a person, together with you, I will do my best firstly to ensure that she has access to medical care she feels comfortable with and that treatment begins to address the cause of her illness. Next, I will do everything possible, together with you, to ensure that we have access to her and that she has access to her family and to her lawyers. I will also make sure, together with you, that the Court of Cassation will offer a different picture of justice and the rule of law in Ukraine.

But I also care about her as a politician and my motto here is that, whatever the political responsibility – and there were many she had to deal with when she was Prime Minister – whenever we are talking about political responsibility, the right arena is not a court or prison but an open arena and elections. Whenever there is the possibility of criminal responsibility, or talk of criminal responsibility, beyond any doubt, all preconditions need to be in place for the rule of law to deliver and for there to be a fair trial.

I have a fifth and last remark. Yulia Tymoshenko herself has asked that her case should not be used as an excuse to slow the association process. We respect that. At the same time, we demand that Ukraine show that it respects the spirit of our new agreement before we can confidently open the way to allow its entry into force.

  President. – Thank you, Commissioner. I would also like to thank you again for the presence in the gallery of Yevgenia Tymoshenko, Yulia’s daughter.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 24 May 2012.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In my opinion, another resolution on Ukraine shows the European Parliament’s inability to conduct a constructive dialogue with an important partner. All arguments by supporters of Yulia Tymoshenko and supporters of strict diktats towards the current government of Ukraine resemble hysteria more than debates. We should be guided only by facts and not engage in political advertising of Yulia Tymoshenko, who lost the elections. I am sure that, if the court reached a verdict that Ms Tymoshenko is guilty, she should be subjected to punishment accordingly. I am sure that efforts to put the former prime minister beyond the law represent interference in the domestic affairs of Ukraine. I am sure that the political struggle should not become a clown-style activity. 48 million Ukrainian citizens are waiting for change but instead, they see every day the Yulia Tymoshenko soap opera. I will vote against the resolution and all other texts on Ukraine if they contain silly points and emotions. I am confident that the appeal from Catherine Ashton to boycott Euro 2012 is an irresponsible move that will drive Ukraine away from the EU. I appeal to all MEPs to make a statement regarding that.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – (RO) This is the fourth resolution during the current mandate which the European Parliament has used to display its concern about the state of human rights in Ukraine. A year ago, on 9 June 2011, we were already sounding an alarm bell about the selective nature of the judicial inquiries being conducted into the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, and some of the members of the government that she led. Unfortunately, we are obliged to return to this topic and call once again on the Ukrainian authorities to demonstrate transparency and impartiality in the proceedings against Yulia Tymoshenko. As a member of the Council of Europe, Ukraine must comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The European Parliament has expressed its support on countless occasions for Ukraine’s integration into Europe. Achieving such a goal requires more than the Ukrainian people wanting integration. Political leaders in Kiev also need to act in a manner appropriate under the rule of law. I firmly believe that if Ukrainian politicians demonstrate political will, they will succeed in having the association agreement with the European Union adopted, which we would all like to see implemented.

  Adrian Severin (NI), in writing. – The monitoring of the judiciary development in various EU partner countries should relate to the legislative and institutional process, not specific judicial cases. By involving itself in the assessment of Ms Tymoshenko’s case, the Parliament illegally acts as a court of appeal driven by a political rationale. Many of those who insist on sanctioning Ukraine have a hidden agenda unrelated to the human rights. They desire to stop the EU’s future enlargement by stopping Ukraine’s further EU integration. Likewise, these people want to freeze the grey international status quo of Ukraine by dividing its political operators into pro-Russians, left under Russian control, and pro-Europeans misled by empty promises. Special trade arrangements guaranteed by supporting certain political players in Ukraine could also be the motivation behind this approach. These do not reflect the European interest but some Member States’ interests or, at worst, those of some private groups. The European Parliament should reject such hidden agendas, while acknowledging that the EU is not strong enough to impose its wishes on Ukraine and that this country has other geopolitical alternatives than EU integration.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – Ukraine claims that the trial and imprisonment of Yulia Tymoshenko is all about the fight against corruption, yet apart from jailing the former Prime Minister, the government in Kiev has failed to show its reformist colours, especially when it comes to tackling corruption. According to the Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index, Ukraine’s economic freedom is the worst in Europe. Entrepreneurism is stifled by widespread corruption, with trade barriers and an unfriendly investment climate undermining economic growth. President Yanukovych has said that the current ‘pause’ in EU-Ukraine relations may actually benefit the two sides. I hope that Yanukovych uses this pause to reflect on whether detaining Tymoshenko is the best way of addressing corruption in his dysfunctional country. He needs to take a long hard look at the independence of the Ukrainian courts. He needs to ask himself whether a corrupt judiciary coupled with the incarceration of the leader of the opposition is the right way to fulfil the promise he made in 2010 for a Ukraine which was ‘a free state, where rights and freedoms are the highest values’. I hope that after hitting the ‘pause’ button, Yanukovych doesn’t choose to rewind. Otherwise, the EU will have to press ‘stop’.

IN THE CHAIR: RAINER WIELAND
Vice-President

6. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

6.1. Denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation (A7-0440/2011 - Hans-Peter Martin) (vote)

6.2. European Union’s internal security strategy (A7-0143/2012 - Rita Borsellino) (vote)

6.3. An EU approach to criminal law (vote)

6.4. Strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers (A7-0155/2012 - María Irigoyen Pérez) (vote)

6.5. Issuance of euro coins (A7-0439/2011 - Hans-Peter Martin) (vote)

6.6. Internal market scoreboard (A7-0153/2012 - Simon Busuttil) (vote)

6.7. A 2020 perspective for women in Turkey (A7-0138/2012 - Emine Bozkurt) (vote)

6.8. Amendment of Rules of Procedure with regard to the implementation of the European citizens’ initiative (A7-0148/2012 - Zita Gurmai) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Zita Gurmai, rapporteur. – Mr President, since the regulation on the European citizens’ initiative (ECI) has been applicable as of 1 April this year, it is Parliament’s responsibility to adapt our Rules of Procedure in order to ensure the smooth organisation of the public hearings to which initiative organisers are entitled following successful ECIs. I am pleased to tell you that the first proposed ECI was registered on 9 May, Europe Day, and that it has been followed by five further ECIs so far.

I am also very pleased that so many of you show such an interest in the ECI. I have therefore made the possible involvement of any parliamentary committee in the organisation of public hearings a priority in my report. It is our task to make sure that the ECI is a strong, credible, agenda-setting instrument and a tool for participatory democracy in the EU.

There are a few technical aspects of my report and a voting list which I would like to clarify before we proceed to the vote. Firstly, in order to arrive at a reasonable compromise, I decided to vote in favour of Amendment 4 as tabled by the ALDE Group and to withdraw my support for part 5 of Amendment 1 as voted in the committee.

Secondly, in order to guarantee a coherent final adopted text, I would like to propose the following: if Amendment 5 is adopted but without part 3, I propose that we vote on part 3 of Amendment 1 and, if necessary, on part 3 of Amendment 3; then again, if Amendment 1 is adopted but without part 3, I propose that we vote on part 3 of Amendment 3. I hope you could follow all that! Thank you very much for your support. And, of course, I will ask for electronic votes on split vote part 3 of Amendment 5 and, if needed, on split vote part 3 of Amendment 1 and of Amendment 3.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, I did ask if you could kindly hold an electronic vote on this.

– During the vote on Amendment 5:

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Mr President, I feel very sorry as we have already voted on the second part, because I actually asked for an electronic vote on the third part. So thank you again for the electronic vote on the second, but I kindly ask for a vote on the third part of Amendment 5. Thank you.

  President. – That concludes the vote.

7. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Rita Borsellino (A7-0143/2012)

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon confirmed that security is a prerequisite for ensuring the exercise of fundamental rights and creating an area of freedom, security and justice.

The Treaty of Lisbon has thus strongly anchored EU security policy to a specific rule of law. This internal security strategy is a response to the call made within the Stockholm Programme. In order to put in place an effective internal security system, a comprehensive EU analysis of the threats to be addressed must be carried out.

There has been agreement on five priority areas in which the EU can provide added value. However, I would like to point out that even though man-made disasters were not included in the key priorities in the end, they are no less important. Man-made disasters can easily represent a direct, serious and collective threat to the security of European citizens.

Nonetheless, I congratulate the rapporteur and Parliament for having taken a step forward to ensure the security of citizens.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the report on the EU internal security strategy makes a number of sensible recommendations for improving security within the EU to ensure that our citizens are fully protected.

I welcome suggestions to strengthen the EU’s internal security strategy in relation to combating the rising threats of terrorism and cross-border crime and those relating to natural and man-made disasters. In these instances, it would be logical for the EU to formulate a coherent unified strategy, rather than have individual Member States trying to tackle such threats alone. I also welcome proposals to strengthen the links with international organisations, such as NATO, and to encourage Member States to communicate their security strategies.

However, the report refers to many initiatives outlined in the Stockholm Programme concerning justice and home affairs, which I do not support. It refers to the creation of a European legal culture in the field of criminal law, and touches on the development of a European policy on asylum and immigration. These are Member State competences and should remain so.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, with the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Parliament has become a fully-fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies, and is therefore entitled to participate actively and decisively in the priorities of the internal security strategy (ISS), which is the EU Security Model.

Ms Borsellino’s report sets out the five key areas in which concrete action has been proposed, and it calls for greater judicial and police cooperation between Member States to combat organised crime and terrorism. In my view, it is particularly important to give proper consideration to developing preventive policies, which are key tools for safeguarding a European area of freedom, security and justice.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I voted in favour of Ms Borsellino’s report, which addresses the need for a cross-party, multidisciplinary approach to security.

I especially agree with her emphasis on establishing the key areas of the strategy, including the fight against terrorism and organised crime. I do not, however, believe it appropriate to adopt measures to protect intellectual property rights, in that this matter is already the subject of in-depth ongoing debate.

That said, it will be essential to enhance EU judicial and police cooperation through Europol and Eurojust, via a proper implementation of the strategy. At the same time, proper and consistent legal instruments will need to be developed to facilitate the investigative process and the use of evidence.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, this report is a fantastic example of blinkered policy. The fact is that, as such, the report reels off a list of the serious problems that we have with international crime in the EU – the mafia, the trafficking of women, drugs trafficking, arms smuggling, and so on – but says not one word about what everyone outside these walls is talking about, which is border controls. The most disastrous thing, perhaps the most disastrous decision that the EU has made over the last number of years, was to prohibit Member States from controlling their own borders.

We do indeed have a free internal market for goods and capital, services, and so on, but our citizens were never asked whether they also wanted an internal market in international crime. I find it striking that, at a time when Germany is carrying out checks on its border with Poland, when the whole of the French presidential elections hinged on border controls, when Sweden has border controls, when, last year, Commission representatives descended on Denmark because we wanted to have border controls, that at such a time, Parliament is capable of adopting a report on international crime that contains not one word about this. It is scandalous!

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the European Union’s internal security strategy, launched under the Spanish Presidency, involves action on five major fronts: the fight against organised crime; the fight against terrorism; the fight against cybercrime; border security; and natural disasters. This agenda is tragically topical for my country, which this weekend has suffered two blows in the form of a criminal attack and the violent natural forces unleashed on the Emilia-Romagna region.

I am grateful to Parliament for the solidarity expressed this morning, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank individual Members who have personally expressed their condolences to each Italian MEP.

I believe that the work of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) – and that of the rapporteur, Ms Borsellino – is highly important. In my view, it is vital that these five comprehensive points be further developed as regards the implementation of the integrated security policy approach, cooperation between the different operational levels and, above all, the exchange of information.

I voted in favour, despite not fully agreeing with the omission of natural disaster forecasting, for such events may also be caused by human activities. Nevertheless, I was reassured by yesterday’s intervention by Commissioner Malmström …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur for her work. According to Eurobarometer, 40% of Europeans would like the European Union to equip itself with better tools for combating organised crime and terrorism. In the current economic crisis, however, there is a risk that the resources available to fight these threats may be eroded.

Therefore, we must not let our guard down. Above all, we must strengthen coordination between Europol, Eurojust and Frontex in a continual dialogue between European and national institutions.

I take the opportunity provided by this debate to remember, in this 20th anniversary year of the Capaci and Via d’Amelio massacres, the heroic judges Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, who, along with their police escorts, were brutally killed for their relentless fight against mafia and organised crime. May their example be remembered.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there are very many matters in this report with which I am in agreement. I have always been a supporter of strengthening ties between the European Union and international institutions such as NATO, and of establishing a common strategy for fighting organised crime and carrying on a common fight against terrorism. It is obvious to me, too, that very many of the threats we face today in the field of security are almost exclusively threats of a transnational nature, both within the European Union and also outside its borders. Therefore – in my opinion – it is important for the Member States to be ready to cooperate in this area, and the cooperation should be made as extensive as possible. Unfortunately, I am also a supporter of upholding the sovereignty of nation states, including within the European Union – particularly in such a sensitive area as security – so this was a difficult decision, but I abstained from the vote.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the European Union’s internal security strategies are undoubtedly a fundamental reference point for protecting citizens. It is equally clear, however, that if this section is not allocated sufficient resources to enable these important objectives to be enacted, then security will remain – as it has thus far – a possible but somewhat indefinite option.

Recent events show that security must be guaranteed not only through significant resource allocations but also through strong cooperation based on trust between Member States. The fight against organised crime and terrorism requires strong solidarity between Member States, safeguards for the licit economy, and robust law enforcement against all transnational threats. This demands a prevention-based approach, including border protection and effective enforcement measures to combat organised crime, mafias and terrorism. It is a challenge which, together, we can win.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the first remark to be made about this own-initiative report on the European Union’s internal security strategy is that it is a very important report because, however much we may regret the fact, the European internal market creates new opportunities for crime. Unfortunately, criminals are also showing that they can be innovative. It does not matter whether we are talking about serious organised crime, terrorism or cybercrime. We need a common strategy to combat these problems within the European internal market.

Therefore, it is important that we have a clear division of responsibilities between the European Union and the Member States and, on the other hand, that they begin to network with one another. I do not want us to give up on this because we need better networking between the Member States in day-to-day life, so that data can be compared and crime combated more quickly.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution on the Union’s internal security strategy. I strongly believe that corruption, organised crime, terrorism, radicalisation, cybercrime, challenges to border management and illicit trafficking all represent major threats to the internal security of the European Union and to the lives of its citizens.

Therefore, concrete action must be taken by the relevant bodies in order not only to fight against these threats but also to prevent them. Obviously, reinforcement of this policy must be based on respect for democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms. This balance must ensure the security of each human life.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, the need to examine the robustness of Europe’s internal security has never been stronger. Whilst we see increasing problems with cross-border crime, including people trafficking and cybercrime, which, both in their own special ways, add to the total sum of human misery, we must be careful to develop a very proportionate response.

There is a lot in this report which I can support. I am particularly keen on strengthening the international links and making sure that the communications between Member States are improved. There should be no excuse for failure on the basis of a lack of information. However, there is also much that I cannot support; there are references here to the Stockholm Programme in the areas of justice and home affairs which I do not support. There are also references to European legal culture in the criminal area, which is something that I do not recognise. I believe that Member States need to keep their subsidiarity intact.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I abstained on this own-initiative report on the EU’s internal security strategy. Though there were many proposals put forward by this report that I would back, there are also several I would reject. I thought that calls for the strengthening of links between the EU and NATO on this issue are a very positive thing – I am the Vice-Chairman of the Parliament’s Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly – as would be setting out an EU strategy on dealing with the issue of organised crime within the EU.

An enhancement in our cooperation intergovernmentally in this area can only be seen as a positive thing for our citizens. I took issue, however, with the references within the report to justice and home affairs initiatives put forward in the Stockholm Programme, which I do not agree with, as well as references to a wider single political strategy on asylum and immigration, which my group would not back as this should really be a Member State competence.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I regard it as a logical option for a coherent European Union strategy. However, I would like to emphasise the link between the internal and external aspects of the security strategy. I believe that this report successfully deals with this link in a coherent manner and also puts forward solutions because it calls on the Council and the High Representative to deal with the neighbourhood partnerships, especially the initiatives on the Union for the Mediterranean, the Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Synergy.

In this context, cooperation between the European Union, NATO and the OSCE becomes relevant. Cross-border organised crime is not only an issue affecting Europe, and it cannot be tackled and eliminated in a coherent, efficient manner without having a common instrument in this area. I believe that the current crisis must not pose an obstacle to creating this instrument, but quite the opposite.

Report: Cornelis de Jong (A7-0144/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the report recognises that criminal law is a highly sensitive policy area, and many Member States feel that their own individual criminal justice systems should continue to serve them best. This is particularly relevant for my Member State, the UK, where the criminal justice system dates back nearly 140 years. It is much more experienced, and thus better equipped, to tackle crime in the UK and beyond.

The report acknowledges that an EU policy in criminal law would not necessarily be more cost-effective, nor would it result in a reduction in crime. Indeed, it asserts that, instead of harmonising criminal law across the EU, it may be more prudent to improve mutual recognition. I was not able to support the report in its current form, as Member States are best placed to coordinate activity directed at combating crime.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the basis was created for the development of criminal law as part of Community law.

Although the mutual recognition of the harmonisation of legislation protecting the principle of the presumption of innocence is important, it is worth emphasising that legislation has to be clear-cut and easily understandable so that it becomes clear to all whether acts amount to criminal offences or not. This especially holds true for directives, since these have to be transposed into national law. Indeed, any lack of clarity could give rise to diverging interpretations of the law.

I therefore believe that close collaboration between the EU institutions as to the principles and methods to be adopted is essential in order to achieve a coherent, high-quality EU strategy on criminal law.

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I welcome Mr de Jong’s report, which seeks to clarify the extension of the new European area of freedom, security and justice in criminal matters. The discussions under way in the Council are proceeding steadily, with two opposing positions: those who warmly welcome developments and those who are cautious about the emergence of an EU criminal law.

The operational proposals that Parliament has advanced in response to the Council’s views are on the right track, namely, towards a careful examination of the need for, and the consequences of, adopting EU-wide legislation in this sector.

I therefore fully support the request for additional resources to strengthen Parliament’s Legal Service to enable the proposals to be evaluated systematically and in depth. At the same time, in my view, it is essential to promote greater coordination between the institutions on this matter, in order to ensure that future initiatives are based on broad consensus and on Member States’ criminal justice policy requirements.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, when reality and ideology cannot be reconciled, it is generally the ideology that is at fault. That came to mind when I read this report, which talks in grandiose terms about the common culture of criminal law that characterises the EU’s Member States, about the fantastic positive aspects of mutual recognition, and so on. Extolling these two facts must undoubtedly be an expression of a very particular European ideology, because out in the real world, the problems involving differences between the criminal law systems of the 27 Member States are massive, and there has been no attempt to reconcile the rules of the different countries to eliminate these problems – rather the contrary. Looking at what has happened in connection with the European arrest warrant, at what happened after joint legislation on terrorism was introduced and so on, it is clear that there are huge problems and, in view of these, we should not be lauding and opening up the way for a common European system of criminal law, but should instead be sending out a call to arms and going in the opposite direction. That is why I voted against this report.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, unlike my colleague, I voted for this report, and I congratulate the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and its rapporteur, Cornelis de Jong, for their professional approach. This is a very sensitive subject. We are entering new territory, because it is as a result of the Treaty of Lisbon that we can now begin to speak of EU criminal law.

The rapporteur was right to consider this dimension in his report, to provide a methodological overview identifying guiding principles for the new EU criminal law. He takes a very prudent stance in inviting the Council, the Commission and also Parliament to note that criminal law is nevertheless a major and important restriction on basic rights, and hence a proper approach to it is needed.

I am sure that this report and this invitation by Parliament will be an important guide for those required to act, especially the Council.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I support Mr de Jong in wishing to develop a common EU legal culture in relation to fighting crime, especially in order to establish a coherent and uniform penal strategy. Crime costs our society too much, in both social and financial terms. It is increasingly a transnational phenomenon, exploiting, among other things, the differences between the various national legal systems.

I, too – with the text of the directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography – have sought and obtained greater harmonisation in the fight against child abuse. I therefore believe that it will be useful to harmonise the criminal justice system, with the primary aim of encouraging the practical application of the principle of mutual recognition. Without this, it is difficult to lay the foundations for a strong and credible crime prevention strategy.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, as with my previous explanation of vote, I have to say that in this case, too, I abstained from voting. I did so because although, on the one hand, I do recognise the necessity of cooperation and for a certain harmonisation of procedures for fighting crime, I am nevertheless of the opinion that it is the Member State which should have sole power to decide the provisions of criminal law in force in its territory.

The procedures and criminal codes in use in the European Union’s 27 Member States reflect differences between them, and there is nothing wrong with this. These differences find their origins in the different cultural, historical and practical contexts of what are, after all, the different countries which make up our Union. So I think that on this very difficult matter, which also involves serious ideological conflicts – because certain things are legal in some countries but not in others – we should respect these sensitivities, leave this matter to the Member States and concentrate on improving cooperation in the field of security under current procedures.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, I have supported the de Jong report because it takes account, above all, of a valuable principle: that of the specific character and history of each nation and thus the substantive criminal law of each Member State.

It is also concerned with protecting fundamental rights, respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and – in a European Union intent on dealing a real and fatal blow to organised crime, terrorism and corruption – allowing the judicial rulings issued by one Member State to be recognised in the others.

In addition, it talks about the goal of harmonisation, with all the premises stated thus far, the definition of offences common to Member States and those guarantees for accused persons, especially under cross-examination, that may become the symbol of a common criminal law in the EU.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on the EU approach to criminal law. I support the application of the principle of mutual recognition in practice – not so much to extend the scope of EU harmonised law, but rather to promote cooperation between judiciaries which must be equally reliable and share the same level of quality and integrity.

I would like to make a comment following what I heard from my British colleagues in particular. As an MEP from a new Member State, I want to change my domestic judicial system for the better, and it is in my interest to look at judicial systems which work better and are long-established and proven over hundreds of years, so that is why I am voting for EU-level cooperation, through which best practices can be imported into the new Member States.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I have abstained on this report for a number of reasons, not least as summed up in its title: An EU approach to criminal law. There is a growing buzz of discussion over the area of criminal law in this Chamber and in the EU generally. That discussion very often does not include enough emphasis on the proper place for Member States’ subsidiarity. This is always a consideration for my political group, and most particularly for my national delegation of British Conservatives.

Of course we should look at the implications of creating such EU criminal law, and the political and economic costs, but we know from so much experience that looking at, reviewing and developing an approach so very often turns into an overweening desire to legislate, regulate and impose. I simply cannot support that. Whilst I see that many of the individual issues in this report are well-crafted and thoughtful, it simply does not outweigh my belief that each Member State is best placed to make its own decisions.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I support the creation of a common European legal culture, including in the area of criminal law. It also depends on harmonising legal principles and practices. However, criminal law remains primarily under the remit of Member States.

This is why the proposals made at European level must respect the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. At the same time, defining common approaches will allow trust to grow between national systems. It will provide greater legal certainty for citizens. Based on this, I draw your attention to Article 9. Uniform minimum standards of protection need to be set for those involved in criminal proceedings. I also endorse the proposal for setting up an interinstitutional working group to ensure coherence in EU criminal law.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I abstained on the de Jong report on an EU approach to criminal law. I felt that the report was an interesting one, the approach was thoughtful and there were certain bits I could agree with. The rapporteur rightly acknowledges that there are several important differences between the criminal law and criminal proceedings systems of the different EU Member States, and that each has its specific individual characteristics. Nevertheless, I cannot back a report that advocates a unified approach to criminal law across the Member States, as I am convinced that each individual Member State should be competent to deal with these matters.

So I reject ‘Corpus Juris’. Our individual systems of criminal law and proceedings have evolved over many years, and each Member State has its own crime patterns and a legal culture specific to itself. I would therefore propose that our individual criminal justice systems are better placed to deal with crime in our own countries than would be a system imposed from the top down by the European Union.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because it provides a coherent approach to our fairly long-standing initiative, which was launched in Maastricht in 1992, to establish a European criminal law system.

Naturally, this system must clearly take into account the fact that criminal law is an expression of a nation’s civilisation and culture and, under these circumstances, European systems differ completely in this respect. However, this should not stop us from gravitating towards a situation where a coherent approach is required by criminal law institutions. I am thinking, in particular, of financial crimes, market manipulation and business crimes.

In this regard, I believe that it is in all our interests to operate using the same standards and to try to have the same outlook, not only in terms of prevention, but also in terms of tackling this issue, because it is essential to the EU’s coherence. However, I believe that we must retain our diversity in the area of criminal law.

Report: María Irigoyen Pérez (A7-0155/2012)

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, this is good news. The European Parliament has just passed a resolution that will give vulnerable consumers greater protection.

In the first instance, there was a problem with the definition: vulnerable consumers have traditionally been seen as older people, people with a disability or people who cannot easily assert their rights. This is true; in reality, however, things are more complicated and all of us can be vulnerable consumers at one time or another, especially given the advent of new, extremely aggressive selling practices. I am referring, in particular, to the whole area of e-commerce, behavioural advertising, etc. A legal instrument was therefore needed and, in my opinion, it is to be welcomed.

Secondly, while this instrument certainly needed to assert the rights of vulnerable consumers, it also needed to provide them with the means of enforcing them. I think this is the other major advance that this instrument represents, and we should all welcome this step forward by Europe.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I welcome the report on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers as it will give those consumers an added degree of protection when purchasing goods and products across the EU. The proposals put forward in the report are balanced and sensible, particularly in relation to misleading advertising, unfair contract terms and unfair business practices. These measures would also go some way to ensuring that the current differences which exist between products of the same brand in different Member States are eliminated – a problem which many of my Welsh constituents encounter daily.

We need to ensure that all consumers are confident enough when buying products and are protected, by requiring Member States to monitor information which is given to the public and to ensure that the information can be easily understood by all.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the European Union protects consumers’ wider interests from unfair business practices, misleading advertising and unfair contract terms, yet it is beyond doubt that those consumers who are most vulnerable – because of their age, physical or mental situation, or simply insufficient information – need special protection.

I have therefore voted for Ms Irigoyen Pérez’s text, because I agree that creating a strategy for the rights of the most vulnerable consumers will not only encourage their social inclusion but will also lead to a safer, fairer and more competitive single market.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, it is said that in Ancient Greece, when a politician proposed a new law, he had a rope around his neck. This was, of course, a signal that there would be consequences if he proposed a law that proved to be fatal. Fortunately, such practices are now behind us, but I cannot help thinking of it when I read this report dealing with consumer rights. Of course it is nice to secure certain privileged rights for certain vulnerable groups of consumers. On the other hand, one cannot help thinking that had the EU not insisted so zealously and so intensely on total harmonisation in the area of consumer rights, the rules would never have sunk to the level that they are at today. The fact is that Member State after Member State has been forced to create generally poorer rules for consumers, and we are now in a situation in which the EU has to make special rules for vulnerable consumers. Would it not have been better to have simply applied a minimum of harmonisation and left the countries alone to stick with their good rules?

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, Ms Irigoyen Pérez’s report, which we have voted to support, concerns the need to consider developing a strategy to protect the rights of the most vulnerable consumers, in light of the strategy that the European Commission and the Member States will be required to devise to that end. Consumers may be vulnerable for various reasons, and potentially anyone may be affected.

That is why this group of consumers, along with consumers in general, needs to be protected. A targeted strategy is required that considers the problem in the round while, on the one hand, avoiding creating new forms of discrimination and, on the other, eschewing static, rigid definitions that are unable to embrace all the facets of the matter and the various possible kinds of vulnerability. Specific, targeted protective measures are therefore needed.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, we welcome Ms Irigoyen Pérez’s report on strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers. Nowadays, it is not only the youngest, the oldest or the infirm but, indeed, all citizens who are bombarded with information that is not regulated by specific provisions.

It is essential that a new strategy for strengthening the rights of consumers should not confine itself to defending citizens’ legal and social rights of redress but that it should be accompanied by fair, clear and reciprocal measures to ensure a safer and more competitive market.

In approving this report, Parliament has sent a fresh signal to the Council to reopen the debate that has been in limbo for two years on regulating the designation of origin marking of products from outside the EU. Even though it reflects the desire to protect consumers from counterfeiting, this regulation has not yet been debated. Let us hope that the Council will be receptive this time.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, in the absence of accurate and transparent information, not only do we make uninformed choices, but if problems arise, we are reluctant to act or we are simply unable to report infringements, to enforce our rights or, above all, to demand fair compensation.

Complaints procedures hinder us. They are too complicated, especially for the most vulnerable consumers – I am referring to the elderly, children, the disabled or those whose particular social, cultural and economic circumstances render them more exposed and more easily manipulated, such as by false and misleading advertising.

In my view, big business in particular should commit to being more socially responsible, by putting in place systems for complaints and refunds that are easy to understand and use, especially for online products and services.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome this report. I think it is a good start, but we need to go an awful lot further. We need a strategy to protect the rights of vulnerable customers. Online shopping is a very welcome development indeed, but the Internet is also fraught with dangers. Consumers are bombarded with attractive but bogus offers from companies. They look attractive on the surface but, once these fraudulent companies get your credit card details, you are wide open to fraud and exploitation. I think we need to look very closely in relation to how we protect our vulnerable consumers, because this report is good, it is a good start, but we have a long way to go. Again, congratulations to the rapporteur.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I endorsed this report. I think that protecting the rights of the consumer is a very important matter, and one which tackles a problem which continues to be a serious menace even in the most developed countries, such as the Member States of the European Union.

However, I would like to talk about an aspect of this issue which for me, as a father of two daughters, is of particular importance – advertising aimed at children, who today are already precisely this kind of vulnerable consumer. This advertising is not only aimed at people who are still young and immature and can easily be manipulated, but unfortunately it also teaches them a very materialistic approach to life. It teaches them that their value is not measured by their achievements at school, but by what toys they have or what clothes they wear. I am a supporter of free speech, and I am also a supporter of freedom for advertising, but I think that if advertising is aimed at adults, it is something completely different than if it is aimed at children and adolescents.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I have also voted in favour of the own-initiative report because strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers is a very important matter. I found one sentence in the report very informative: ‘This report rests upon the principle that all consumers are susceptible to becoming vulnerable consumers over the course of their lives’. This means that one day, this may ultimately affect us.

I would like to add two comments to what previous speakers have said. One is that a uniform internal market with uniform standards is a requirement for consumer protection. Every consumer can then be certain, regardless of what he buys, that it is equally safe and of the same quality in every Member State. Secondly, what the previous speaker said on the subject of advertising is correct. We must make sure that advertising, particularly in the case of vulnerable consumers, does not move in the wrong direction and become misleading.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I voted for this report on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers because I believe it is an important element of creating a single market in Europe which works for the benefit of all citizens and for European business.

We are all vulnerable at some point in our lives, although we may not always wish to acknowledge that, particularly when we see ourselves in our prime. However, the development of the digital economy really does exacerbate this situation. We are all just one keystroke away from making a bad or a wrong decision as consumers and this can be far more difficult to rectify than such a decision made in a face-to-face transaction. This is particularly the case, as has been mentioned, for young people, but let us not forget the older consumers who, whilst they may be trying to welcome online business into their lives, find it creates specific challenges.

This own-initiative report sets out a strategy for strengthening the rights of these people, calling on the monitoring of behaviour and the development of specific protection proposals, and I welcome it.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the Irigoyen Pérez report on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. The report stresses the importance of understanding what it is that makes the consumer vulnerable and picks up on the fact that vulnerability can come from external factors – for instance, I myself was a victim of consumer credit fraud even though I am not vulnerable and I realise that there is very little come-back under our system against this – as well as from those that are inherent in the consumer’s physical and mental situation, and therefore proposes measures for the problems of vulnerability to be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than a ‘one size fits all’ solution.

I backed the report’s assertion that consumers’ ability to make the best decision by themselves is optimised in a situation in which they have access to all adequate information which is both comprehensible and easily accessible. I therefore back the Commission’s efforts to provide such information to all consumers and feel that this will only result in the production of a fairer and more efficient internal market for all consumers throughout the European Union.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the concern shown by our socialist colleagues for our fellow citizens is almost moving. Until now, I thought that it was sufficient for consumers to have enough information and access to justice if the fundamental principles of a business relationship are violated. However, in the explanatory statement, the rapporteur leads us to believe that consumers either do not understand, are not pushy, or they are unable to complain. They are vulnerable and we need to take care of them. The rapporteur is correct in one respect: Some people really are more vulnerable, such as elderly people or children. Their vulnerability is due to the weakening of family and neighbourhood values. They need intergenerational solidarity, and not officials who do their shopping for them. I support the report, but the problem of vulnerable citizens needs to be addressed in a wider context, because otherwise, it will only get worse and not even European legislation will be of any help.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, I think it is a source of great regret for many of us who want to see the completion of the single market that it has not yet been completed. But, at the same time, if we want to take the peoples of our constituencies with us, it is important that they have confidence in a single market and they have confidence as consumers.

I think we have all received e-mails from our constituents concerned about the European City Guide scam, where they have paid money to be listed in a directory when they had no idea that they were supposed to pay for that, or from consumers asking for better information or who have bought something on an online site in another country. We have also had the issue of consumers who have seen a product available in other countries but have been unable to buy it on their own market.

Surely it is time that we made sure that we complete the single market, as well as making sure that we give consumers better information and the right to redress any problems that they may have faced, especially when they face a problem buying something on a market in another country, in another EU Member State. We have to restore confidence in the single market and we have to help all consumers.

Report: Simon Busuttil (A7-0153/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report on the internal market scoreboard, as the scoreboard itself has proved to be a valuable tool in identifying key areas of improvement for Member States with respect to the progress they are making in transposing internal market legislation. It is of concern that only 11 Member States have reached the 1% transposition deficit target that was set by the European Council itself.

I support the rapporteur’s recommendations for the Commission to continue producing reports on Member States’ progress, and I further support his calls for Member States to accelerate transposition and for there to be clearer reporting on infringement proceedings.

It is important to continue to highlight areas that need greater attention to ensure that all EU citizens can benefit from the single market. The single market is the most effective tool we have for restoring growth across the EU in these current economically difficult times. Given that this is the 20th anniversary of the single market, it is only right that we ensure that all internal market legislation is incorporated into national legislation across the EU as soon as possible and as consistently as possible.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, time and time again, we hear that the internal market is the thing that will secure growth and stability in the EU Member States, yet what are the realities of the internal market? The reality is that there is a huge difference between when the countries are able to implement the various directives, and when they wish to do so. This means that what was intended to ensure that everyone played by the same rules has, in fact, created 27 different standards. That is quite simply unacceptable. We have 85 directives that have now been adopted by the EU’s institutions and should be applicable law, but which have not yet been implemented in one or more Member States. It means that enterprises in the countries that are good at implementing the rules swiftly, effectively and in a timely manner are placed in a poorer position relative to those in countries that just let it all drift. That is unacceptable. We need more severe sanctions here, otherwise the whole idea of the internal market will become a standing joke. We do not consider that acceptable.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this report, as did the entire European Conservatives and Reformists Group. We are agreed that Europe today, and not only Europe, is facing what is perhaps the greatest economic crisis in modern history, and it is surely our duty to the citizens of the European Union to do everything in our power to bring this economic crisis, which has already affected very many of our citizens and businesses, to an end. It is certain – in my opinion – that one way to do this is to strengthen the single market, because it is by the single market that we will restore economic growth to the European Union. I think the internal market scoreboard is a good tool for supporting the creation of a single market and measuring the contribution individual EU Member States make to it.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the Busuttil report on the internal market scoreboard. This year, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Single Market Act and the organisation of the Single Market Forum. Although we have come a long way, it is still of vital importance that the legislation that is in place for businesses, as well as consumers, is effective.

I backed this report and I welcome the paragraphs that call for a better exchange of best practice between Member States and an improvement in cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, as I feel that this can only lead to a smoother functioning of the single market, which is, after all, the greatest prize of EU membership.

We must also call for more synergy between national administrations in this area, but it is important, too, that we have more commitment from the national institutions in order to ensure that EU internal market directives are implemented on time and effectively, and that they are enforced.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, in this age of austerity, when governments across the world and across the EU are having to tighten their belts and cut spending, it is important that we come up with initiatives for growth, and give confidence to our electorate that we are seeking ways for growth to create jobs.

At the last summit of EU leaders, in March this year, David Cameron and leaders from 11 other countries sent a letter to Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso calling for a deepening of the single market and an opening up of the services market. Surely it is time to promote initiatives which lead to growth in the services market? Let us not forget that services account for more than 70% of EU GDP, and it is important that we push for the completion of the single market to help consumers and to help businesses across the EU.

Unfortunately, the leaders of France and Germany rejected this and just carried on with the same old way, trudging on, not looking for ways to grow. It is important that they wake up and listen to the leaders who signed that letter.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the single market was conceived as a vital tool for steering Europe towards sustainable growth and full employment. If fully developed, it could provide a useful antidote to the economic crisis that has gripped Europe and the world for several years now.

To that end, its supporting directives need to be properly transposed, applied and implemented. I therefore agree with Mr Busuttil’s proposals, which emphasise the need to implement these directives in order to be able to exploit the single market’s economic potential.

The SOLVIT network has been shown to be a useful, effective tool for providing clear, timely solutions for citizens and businesses, thus helping to solve the problems associated with the misapplication of competition rules. As a non-judicial entity, the network is ideally placed to operate economically and effectively. I therefore hope that SOLVIT will be further reinforced and promoted to European citizens.

Report: Emine Bozkurt (A7-013/2012)

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I should like to begin by congratulating Ms Bozkurt for the work she has done on this report, which gives a clear account of the situation of women in Turkey. All information and statistics about the current situation regarding women’s rights in Turkish society are valuable and useful.

I voted in favour of this report because it shows us once again that the principle of gender equality and respect for fundamental rights are not being put into practice, in spite of the legislative provisions that are in place. It is a reminder of how important it is that we continue our endeavours to ensure that women no longer have to suffer discrimination and violence because of their gender, not only within the borders of Europe, but wherever they are in the world.

The vision embodied in the European social project is one in which all men and women are masters of their own rights, free from all forms of violence and discrimination and free to develop their full potential as human beings, in an environment of equality.

I therefore urge that we continue along these lines in our relations with third countries, because the European Union has a vital role to play on the international stage and promoting the universal principles of our Charter of Fundamental Rights is a major part of this.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I cautiously welcome the report on the 2020 perspective for women in Turkey as it recognises the progress that Turkey has made in women’s rights and it also highlights the continued work that needs to be carried out from now on. It is encouraging to hear that Turkey has newly appointed a Minister for Family and Social Policies who has stated that women’s rights and gender equality will be one of the government’s priorities. In addition to this, a special domestic violence bureau has been set up and I wish them well in their task.

Despite the progress that has been made, violence against women continues and so further efforts need to be made. It is disturbing to learn that 39% of Turkish women have apparently encountered some form of physical violence during their adult lives. I therefore support the Turkish Government and call on it to adopt a zero tolerance policy towards violence against women. Given that Turkey is a candidate country to join the EU, it is even more important for it to meet the Copenhagen criteria before EU membership is achieved.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). – (DA) Mr President, I think that in reality, we are all finding it hard to tackle the situation that the EU has got itself into as regards Turkey. I know that more and more of the Members of this House are realising that not only is it impossible to complete the process of the accession negotiations, but that in fact, it is resulting in something that we do not want – which is that, in actual fact, relations with Turkey are only getting worse and worse because we are trying to impose models onto the country that large parts of the population there do not actually want; at least, that is how it is perceived in Turkey. That is why we are seeing increasing Islamification, we are seeing power increasingly being centralised and we are seeing democracy being rolled back. Viewed in these terms, this report bears witness to the fact that not only are there many problems, including in the civil sphere, but that the problems are increasing. All this is happening despite the fact that we have been negotiating with Turkey on membership for a number of years and have been having a dialogue with Turkey for even longer, before the country was accepted as a candidate country. Perhaps it is now time to revise this policy, to turn it around and talk about something other than membership.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, I am also speaking on behalf of my EPP colleague, Mairead McGuinness. Both of us would like to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadows on a very good own-initiative report, which is concise, succinct and, importantly, sticks to the point.

I especially welcome paragraph 11 which calls on the Turkish Government to investigate the phenomenon of honour suicides. While I welcome the fact that honour killings are now classified as aggravated circumstances – murder, in other words – I am concerned that honour killings have been replaced by honour suicides. I welcome that paragraph 11, for example, calls for further research on this. We need to follow it up vigorously.

I voted against paragraph 41. I am not against paternity leave but, as far as I am concerned, not all EU countries have paternity leave. Therefore, we are not in a position to insist that it happens in Turkey.

Last, but by no means least, I voted against paragraph 45. Again, I am not against maternity leave and I have actively supported the Estrela report. However, I believe that the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality is not in a position to dictate to Turkey on this matter.

  Andrea Češková (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, this report on a perspective for women in Turkey focuses on all of the important aspects inherently linked to human rights, and therefore I voted in favour of it. Despite the successes achieved in the area of women’s rights in Turkey, violence against women remains a fundamental and as yet unresolved problem. Statistics show that two to three women are killed every day by a husband, family member or former husband. We cannot allow such widespread violations of human rights in Turkey. Honour killings, forced marriages, marriages concluded at an early age and domestic violence are areas still lacking legislation to punish the guilty and protect victims.

Even though some forms of violence are linked to specific regions, we must constantly draw attention to their existence. We know from experience that the mere implementation of a zero tolerance policy is not enough to achieve the objective. It is necessary to have broad public support and a change in mentality regarding the status of women. This is also connected with support for education at all levels and for all children without distinction, in order to put across the fundamental norms of democracy and human rights.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Bozkurt report. It is a very good report because, on the one hand, it evaluates the progress Turkey has undoubtedly made in the field of implementing human rights, in this case, the rights of women in particular, but, on the other, it very firmly calls attention to the specific and very painful problems being faced by women in Turkey. I would like here to say something about so-called ‘honour’ suicides, to which reference has already been made. We are entitled to expect that not only will the Turkish Government adopt a clear position on this matter, because it has already taken such a position, but that it will very consistently strive for the elimination of this horrific phenomenon from Turkish society. It is precisely because there are, I think, many honest friends of Turkey in this House, who support its European aspirations, that we are entitled to speak about all these areas which continue to be of such importance and in which Turkey is very far removed from European standards.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, although Turkey has already implemented legislation on women’s rights, in reality, considerable discrimination persists, especially in rural areas. In recognising Turkey’s progress in encouraging women’s involvement in social, economic and political life, the rapporteur also has criticisms to make. Despite this, she urges the Turkish Government to improve and to do everything it can to ensure that all targets are met with a view to Turkey’s accession to the European Union.

I am voting firmly against this report because I believe that a third country cannot even contemplate joining the European Union when it not only fails to respect religious freedoms and citizens’ fundamental rights, but is even conducting a military occupation of northern Cyprus, which is part of the Union.

As for religious rights, I note that the Catholic Church is forbidden from training clergy within the Turkish State; hence, seminaries and Catholic training institutes cannot be opened. If this is democracy …!

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD). – (NL) Mr President, I abstained from the vote on this report, much as I do, of course, agree with the majority of recommendations calling for equal rights and equal opportunities for women in Turkey.

Why did I abstain? First of all, because I do find it odd that nowhere in this report was reference made to the crux of the issue, namely, the march in Turkey of a very radical form of Islam, a kind of Islam that is actually stuck in the Middle Ages and where women, by definition, are viewed and treated as subordinate beings.

For that matter, I also consider it unacceptable that we do not have the courage, in this report, as in many others, to link the billions in European subsidies that have been flooding into Turkey for years to strict conditions relating, for instance, to human rights and freedom of expression.

Finally, we really should have the courage to make it plain and clear that Turkey is not a European country, and never has been, does not it have European culture, and that, consequently, a potential accession to the European Union must be rejected.

  Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, I was delighted today to be able to vote on a report from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM). This is, for me, a rare occurrence, as so often these reports get bogged down in dogmatic political posturing and important issues are often lost in pointless rhetoric, but in this report we have some clear points being made, both in identifying Turkey’s progress and in detailing where more work needs to be done.

I welcome the tone of the report, which is neither hectoring nor lecturing, and identifies this as clearly a work in progress. I particularly welcome progress in Turkey in the areas of health and education for women and children. The appointment of a Minister for Family and Social Policies is a good sign, and I have been very impressed by her strong public assurances that the Turkish Government is continuing to escalate the issue of women’s rights up its agenda. Of course there is a long way to go, but we should be encouraging the Turkish Government to continue on this trajectory.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution because I believe that the European Union should use its influence to support the cause of women in Turkey and promote women’s rights in accordance with the Charter of European Rights. Turkey is the largest country seeking membership in the Union; this is both an opportunity and a challenge.

The accession process is valuable in itself and we must assist accession countries in implementing laws which are consistent with our principles and values, although I have to say that there are Member States where few women are in politics and in high level decision-making positions, so we also have to work in our own Member States.

Coming back to Turkey, women are active members of their communities and must be involved in the decision-making process in all areas. Increased political participation for approximately half of the Turkish population will only increase the country’s wealth and its democratic credentials. I welcome this report and endorse its recommendations.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, despite the progress that Turkey has made on human rights, I regret to say that violence against women is still one of the country’s most pressing problems. The official Turkish statistics are alarming: 39% of Turkish women are victims of violence.

The establishment of the Committee on Equal Opportunities within the Turkish Parliament and the Gender Equality Commission within the Ministry of Education represent a step forward. The recognition of Turkish women’s rights must be an essential part of the negotiations for accession to the European Union. They must be granted the same rights to education, access to employment and to justice that men have.

I voted in favour of the report because I hope that Parliament’s requests will be accepted in full by the European Commission.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the Bozkurt report on the 2020 perspective for women in Turkey. It is true that Turkey has made progress recently in the field of women’s rights. I particularly welcome the appointment last year of Fatma Sahin as the new Minister for Family and Social Policies and the work that she has already done to underline the importance of women’s rights as issues for her government to take seriously. The establishment of a new Bureau on domestic violence, responsible for arresting perpetrators and protecting victims, is, I believe, an extremely positive step.

However, there is still room for improvement. I feel that the Turkish Government could take further action in order to prevent early forced marriages, as well as taking more action on the more recent issues of honour suicides or honour killings. But, overall, I do believe that this report takes all these matters into account satisfactorily so I voted in favour of it.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I think that it provides a fair analysis of the situation of women in Turkey, as well as a fair analysis of the efforts being made by the European Union to implement a gender model that is specific to Europe, but not to Turkey. I believe that this is also why our failure in very many cases to resolve issues and achieve things is due to the structure of Turkey’s model.

What is more important, as I see it, is for us to combat violence against women in Turkey. I welcome the measures implemented by the Turkish Government at an institutional level. However, I think that sustained efforts need to be made at the moment so that these measures can somehow be put into practice. It is unacceptable for us to continue to tolerate these ‘honour’ suicides and ‘honour’ crimes which, in my view, are a heinous act in the 21st century. However, there are issues which could be levelled at our Member States, too. It is difficult to introduce gender tolerance in a country like Turkey.

  Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL) Mr President, I abstained from the vote on the Bozkurt report because I believe that, while it contains a number of positive elements, it also contains negative ones.

It is important that we, as the European Parliament, stand up for the rights of women, both in Europe and beyond, and thus also in an Asian and Islamic country such as Turkey, where so-called ‘honour killings’ take place and where forced marriages are commonplace. It is good that this report makes reference to this, albeit somewhat reluctantly.

Why, in fact, are we not speaking clearly about the increasing Islamification of society in Turkey? We are talking about a deep cultural groundswell that cannot just be tackled or counteracted through legislative initiatives. It is clear that a country like that does not belong in the European Union, and it is therefore rather outrageous and odd that the report argues for the so-called ‘European perspective for Turkey’.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I am a firm believer in promoting human rights everywhere in the world; however, I also support the principle of the differences between men and women.

I therefore abstained in the vote on this report, as I do not support the ideological approach that the rapporteur and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality have adopted. It appears that the European Union, in the shape of the Commission and Parliament, does not respect the human nature of men and women. This report proves that the EU is trying to change human nature to fit in with the demands of the market. Let Turkey and all the other candidate countries be warned.

This report will be ignored, like several other motions tabled by the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, and I find this a great shame.

I am certain that those in power in Turkey will pay little attention to this resolution.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, despite Turkey’s recent efforts and progress, culminating in the meeting between the Turkish Minister for Family and Social Policies and representatives from the Committee on Equal Opportunities, a number of important outstanding gender equality issues remain.

Given that Turkey is a candidate country, the present gap will have to be bridged completely for it to be able to achieve current European Union standards. I am concerned, in particular, by the recent data on the safety and protection of women. It emerges that 39% of Turkish women have been attacked at least once in their lives.

I agree with Mr Bozkurt’s proposal to encourage the Turkish Government to act swiftly to implement the measures needed to reduce the number of attacks. Finally, I would like to stress the importance of access to information and to education in ensuring gender mainstreaming at all educational levels.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Hans-Peter Martin (A7-0440/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since it reinforces the logic that cutting red tape for a more effective and efficient Europe is what really matters for a Europe of growth and jobs. We need a Europe that responds to the challenges of the European Union as a whole and of the Member States individually. By reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation, this proposal will only simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this motion for a legislative resolution, which is in favour of a reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation. This will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The proposed regulation lays down mandatory provisions for the issuance of euro circulation and collector coins. It also establishes certain volume limits for commemorative euro circulation coins and a consultation procedure prior to the destruction of fit euro circulation coins. The reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report specifies the rules the Member States should observe for euro coins to be valid and in circulation, since the designs of the national sides of euro coins are decided by each Member State. The Member States should be allowed to issue commemorative euro circulation coins to celebrate subjects of major national or European relevance. In order to reduce the number of commemorative coins in circulation, the proposal included in this report will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase their value. I am voting for this report because I believe its content is beneficial and will clarify the necessary rules for the circulation of euro coins.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I wished to support Mr Martin’s report, not only because it proposes the adoption of uniform measures across Member States to ensure legal certainty in the sector, but also because it reminds the European Commission of the need to carry out an impact assessment on the issue of one- and two-eurocent coins, whose production costs may outweigh their actual usefulness.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because apart from ordinary circulation euro coins, in accordance with the rules, EU Member States can also issue commemorative euro circulation coins to celebrate certain subjects. However, in order to ensure that such coins only make up a small proportion of all euro coins in circulation, a certain limit on the number of commemorative circulation coins needs to be set. Reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation would simplify administrative procedures, such as procedures to protect the euro against counterfeiting. Given the scale of their payment services, credit institutions and other providers of payment services, as well as all other institutions involved in handling and distributing banknotes and coins, have an obligation to ensure the authenticity of euro banknotes and coins which they receive and intend to put back into circulation and to recognise counterfeit money. The reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation will give the Member States the opportunity to check more effectively and efficiently the authenticity of euro coins throughout the euro area.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – It is, in many respects, laughable that the Commission is considering the issuance of one-euro banknotes instead of coins. Perhaps it is aware that the currency will soon be worth less than the particular alloy upon which it is minted.

The question arises whether – in these speculative days of potential Greek exit from the eurozone and single-currency collapse – all the euro Member States would be duty-bound to abide by such legislation and potentially waste money on the issuance and circulation of a currency that may soon become obsolete. Perhaps, however, investigating the issuance of paper money is, in fact, a tactic to increase the value of the euro coin. Either way, it seems utterly incommensurate that this matter should be discussed at present.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved and increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it proposes a series of rules on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation. I am in favour of reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation. Increased scarcity will make them more valuable. This will also simplify administrative procedures.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would congratulate the rapporteur on his work. I entirely support his position on reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation, which will not only cut administrative costs, but will also increase their value.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this report is to establish ‘common principles for the designs used for the national sides of euro circulation coins’, and for the exchange of information on these designs and their approval. The regulation stipulates that it falls to Member States to draw up a design to be used on the national side of the euro coin, which must be approved by the other Member States before its issue, bearing in mind that euro coins circulate in all participating Member States, although final approval is given by the Commission. It also lays down rules for ‘commemorative coins issued collectively by all Member States whose currency is the euro’.

It is unacceptable that the Portuguese version of this report still had not been made available at the time of the vote in plenary. This is another example of the intolerable failure to respect the principle of multilingualism that we have been denouncing here. Unfortunately, these violations have been occurring more often since the cuts to the translation budget. We warned of their potential effects at the time. As a form of protest, we abstained from the final vote.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Commission Recommendation 2009/23/EC of 19 December 2008 on common guidelines for the national sides and the issuance of euro coins intended for circulation defines common principles for the designs used for the national sides of euro circulation coins and for the mutual exchange of information and approval of those designs. As they circulate throughout the euro area, their national design features are a matter of common interest. They have a common European side and a distinctive national side. The common European sides of the coins bear both the name of the single currency and the denomination of the coin. A clear indication of the name of the issuing Member State should be put on the national side of the euro coin in order to allow interested coin users to easily identify the issuing Member State. The designs on the national sides of the euro coins are decided by each participating Member State. Issuing Member States should inform one another about new national sides well in advance of the planned issue date. To this end, issuing Member States should forward their draft euro coin designs to the Commission, which will verify their compliance with this regulation. I believe it is important that the regulation be amended accordingly.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The lack of mandatory provisions to govern the issuance and circulation of euro coins may result in different practices among Member States and, therefore, a lack of legal certainty. This report aims to dispel this uncertainty and I therefore voted for it.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of the resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation because Member States should be allowed to issue commemorative euro circulation coins to celebrate subjects of major national or European relevance, but commemorative coins issued collectively by all Member States should be reserved for subjects of the highest European relevance. The EUR 2 coin constitutes the most suitable denomination for this purpose, principally on account of the large diameter of the coin and its technical characteristics, which offer adequate protection against counterfeiting.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. – While we spend our time discussing the denomination and technical specifications of euro coins for circulation, we ignore the elephant in the room which is the future of the euro area itself.

The euro area faces a choice. If the leaders of euro area countries want to keep all 17 countries in the euro area, then there have to be fiscal transfers from the richer countries to the poorest. In other words, Germany has to be prepared to cough up the funds to keep Greece within the euro area, in the same way that my own constituency of London subsidises the poorer regions of the UK remaining in the sterling currency union. Otherwise, the leaders have to prepare for the orderly departure of those Members States that are unable to stay in the euro area.

This does not mean the break up of the euro, but a smaller, more economically viable euro area. That means having an exit strategy for countries such as Greece and others on how to re-introduce their own currencies and coins for circulation.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Together with my group, I endorsed the report. It should be pointed out that the report underscores the need to evaluate the legitimacy of continuing to issue EUR 0.01 and EUR 0.02 coins and suggests the possibility of issuing EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes. It also specifies the technical parameters for new issues of commemorative and collectors’ coins in the EU.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution which, according to the rapporteur, will lead to a reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation, will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support the Commission’s proposal as amended. I also agree with the rapporteur’s argument that a reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It falls to the Member States to decide what designs they intend to put on their coins for circulation. I support the new technical specifications, which will cut red tape in concluding processes and will encourage a reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation, so as to increase their value.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report aimed at reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation, since that should simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their future scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report specifies the rules the Member States should observe for euro coins to be valid and in circulation, since the designs of the national sides of euro coins are decided by each Member State. The Member States should be allowed to issue commemorative euro circulation coins to celebrate subjects of major national or European relevance. In order to reduce the number of commemorative coins in circulation, the proposal included in this report will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase their value. I voted for this report because I agree with the measures advocated.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The lack of mandatory provisions for the issuance of euro coins may result in different practices among Member States and does not achieve a sufficiently integrated framework for the single currency. In the interests of legal transparency and certainty, the Commission therefore deems it necessary to introduce common binding rules on the basis of Article 133 for the issuance of euro coins. The Commission’s legislative proposal aims, in particular, at establishing specific provisions for commemorative euro coins so as to ensure that such coins remain a minor percentage of the total number of two-euro coins in circulation. At the same time, these limits on volume should allow for the issuance of a sufficient volume of coins to ensure that commemorative coins can circulate effectively. It also aims to establish specific provisions for euro collector coins, which are not intended for circulation and which should be readily distinguishable from euro circulation coins. Euro collector coins should have legal tender status only in their Member State of issuance and should not be issued with a view to their entry into circulation. In addition, euro collector coins are accounted for in the volume of coins to be approved by the European Central Bank (ECB), but on an aggregate basis rather than for each individual issue.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The EUR 2 commemorative coins are specially minted and issued by Member States of the euro area as legal tender. These coins are usually issued to commemorate anniversaries of historic events or to mark current events of special importance. By 2010, 87 different EUR 2 commemorative coins had been minted. The EUR 2 commemorative coins have become collectors’ items.

With this vote, the reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, will also increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I was pleased to support this report, which looks at the issuance of euro coins and notes. The report keeps the door open for consideration of different denominations of euro notes and sets the rules for commemorative coins.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission has tabled a draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 975/98 of 3 May 1998 on denominations and technical specifications of euro coins intended for circulation. Since euro coins circulate throughout the euro area, the design characteristics of the national sides constitute an issue of common interest. I am voting for this report, which aims to reduce the number of commemorative coins, with the intention of thereby simplifying administrative procedures and increasing their value even further. I also believe the European Commission should inform the Member States and the European Central Bank of the conclusions it reaches.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The rapporteur amended the Commission proposal such that, when new draft designs of euro coins are forwarded by the issuing Member State to the Commission for verification, the latter must inform the other Member States and the European Central Bank of its findings within ten working days of such verification, to which I agree, and therefore I supported this report with my vote.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The objective of this report is to establish ‘common principles for the designs used for the national sides of euro circulation coins’, and for the exchange of information on these designs and their approval. The regulation stipulates that it falls to Member States to draw up a design to be used on the national side of the euro coin, which must be approved by the other Member States before it is issued, bearing in mind that euro coins circulate in all participating Member States, although final approval is given by the Commission. It also lays down rules for ‘commemorative coins issued collectively by all Member States whose currency is the euro’, which ‘should be reserved for subjects of the highest European relevance’, recommending the EUR 2 coin as the most suitable denomination for this purpose.

Report: Rita Borsellino (A7-0143/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. It strengthens the idea of the European Union’s internal security strategy (ISS) that emerged from the Treaty of Lisbon, which obliges our system to change from a purely intergovernmental policy to an EU policy with a strong parliamentary aspect, from both the European Parliament and the national parliaments, in order to define jointly internal security priorities and strategies. Increasing the role of its democratic organs should be a matter of pride for the European Union, so fundamental rights should be central to the ISS.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because, thanks to the Lisbon Treaty, internal security cannot just be an intergovernmental policy any more but needs to include an active role of the EP and the national parliaments both in defining the main priorities and in the evaluation of EU policies. Unfortunately, neither the Member States nor the Commission have as yet envisaged any role for parliaments in this process. For this reason, I support the call made in this report for a stronger parliamentary dimension when it comes to the internal security strategy. I also believe that freedom, security and justice are objectives that must be pursued in parallel and that, in order to achieve freedom and justice, security must always be pursued in accordance with the principles of the Treaties, the rule of law and the Union’s fundamental rights obligations. In addition, it is important to underline that the key common threats identified in the internal security strategy, in particular, organised crime, terrorism, corruption and challenges to border management, have interlinked external and internal dimensions. Therefore, a coordinated and coherent action in both areas is required for any response to be effective.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union’s internal security strategy sets out a series of measures for combating all forms of terrorism. This resolution, which was passed by a very large majority, establishes our current priorities. The fight against terrorism and organised crime, including mafias, white-collar crime, tax fraud and corruption, are to remain key priorities of the strategy. On the sensitive issue of border control, the resolution calls for increased cooperation with third countries in order to put an end to the current flaws in the system. It is vital that we put our energies into economic, social and democratic aid for these countries, as this is essential, and the only real long-term solution to the effective operation of the Schengen area.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The European Parliament is a fully-fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies and it is therefore necessary to ensure its participation in determining the features and priorities of the internal security strategy (ISS) and in evaluating this instrument. The objectives of the ISS are not exhaustive, they should be better defined, and I therefore welcome the proposals on strengthening EU security policy contained in the report. An assessment of the European policy cycle should be undertaken to coordinate actions at national and European level to combat organised crime, as well as an analysis of the threats to be addressed. A parliamentary review of the Stockholm Programme needs to be undertaken and close cooperation with third countries on security issues needs to be guaranteed.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because neither the Member States nor the Commission have as yet envisaged any role for Parliament in this process, despite the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. In the European Union, the Treaty of Lisbon has further consolidated the area of freedom, security and justice in terms of respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. EU security policy is strongly anchored to a specific EU rule of law, so the reinforcement of this policy must be based on democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms. The key common threats identified in the internal security strategy – organised crime, terrorism and radicalisation, cybercrime, corruption and challenges to border management – have interlinked external and internal dimensions. The Stockholm Programme emphasised that an EU internal security strategy should be developed in order to further improve security throughout the Union and effectively combat organised crime, terrorism and other threats, while respecting fundamental rights, the principles of international protection and the rule of law. Coordinated and coherent action in both areas is required for any response to be effective.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The strategy highlights all the threats faced by the European Union, ranging from terrorism and organised crime to cybercrime and the trafficking of drugs, weapons and human beings. Consideration is also given to both natural and man-made disasters, such as forest fires, and there is also a focus on coordinating efforts in tackling one particular challenge faced by citizens throughout the EU. One important objective is to prevent terrorism and combat the radicalisation and recruitment of Islamist militants.

This should be achieved by drafting a policy for extracting and analysing financial messaging data within the EU, the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (EU TFTP) (2011), setting up a joint European network for raising public awareness about radicalisation, as well as by adopting measures to combat violent extremist propaganda (2011) and consolidating EU transport security policy (2011). The strategy advocates the notion of preventing these activities, both through the efficient exchange of information between EU Member States and by actions aimed at detecting their causes.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I believe it is necessary to ensure an effective and permanent linkage between the internal and external dimensions of European security in matters relevant for common foreign and security policy (CFSP) activities and priorities, such as global disarmament, non-proliferation, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) risks inside and outside the EU, the fight against terrorism and radicalisation inside and outside European borders and cybersecurity. Coordination of the internal and external dimensions of EU security strategy should encompass close and effective links between services, bodies and regional and thematic departments in a transversal way, and between the relevant services of the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) in order to ensure its effectiveness and coherence with the CFSP. High Representative Ashton should ensure coordination between the relevant Commission and EEAS units with a view to avoiding the unnecessary duplication of work and roles, especially in areas directly related to security issues inside and outside the EU. In this context, I welcome the proposal to establish a framework programme for research and innovation (2014-2020) under the title of Horizon 2020, which should integrate civilian and military capabilities in tasks ranging from civil protection to humanitarian relief, border management and peace-keeping. To this end, the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States should further develop the planned pre-procurement procedure in order to strengthen the link between internal and external security with substantial and coherent civilian and military capabilities.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Security in the European Union is an important issue, and one which calls for heightened cooperation between Member States. I believe that creating an area of peace and security is an essential prerequisite for continuing with European integration. We need to strengthen control of our external borders, equip ourselves with tools for combating cybercrime and facilitate concerted European action. It was with these aims in mind that I became a member of the special parliamentary committee on organised crime, corruption and money laundering.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The very recent attack on the school in Brindisi, whose motives are yet to be established, has strengthened my inclination to vote for this draft report on internal security strategy, since, in my view, one of our top priorities must be to consolidate a sustainable European Security Model in which security is the prerequisite for the free exercise of rights. This would help to create a European social context in which citizens going about their daily business feel that they are living in an increasingly safe environment, due to the operational collaboration between the EU security agencies – Europol, Frontex and Eurojust.

I fully support this draft report because I believe that special emphasis should be given to strengthening the integrated border management system. This would increase the link between the internal and external aspects of security and improve the monitoring of movements into and out of EU territory. In my view, the strategic priorities stated in the document, although not exhaustive, are adequate for achieving the stated aims. I hope that the Commission will commit to report annually on progress towards these objectives.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the European Union’s internal security strategy because I support strengthening the link between internal and external security, in general, and in cyberspace, in particular.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report, even though it endeavours to maintain a certain balance in its call for respect for fundamental human rights and the principle of proportionality. However, the report is based on the Stockholm Programme and the strategic presence, via the CFSP, of EU forces in neighbouring countries and the rest of the world and, as such, is largely a move in the wrong direction. The report proposes increasing spending on security, interlinking the external and internal dimensions of security and forging a stronger link between EU external policy and organisations such as NATO. Finally, the report refers vaguely to extremist organisations, to the ‘importance of actions directed at countering violent radicalisation in vulnerable populations’ and ‘looks forward to the future work of the EU Radicalisation Awareness Network, with its mission of facilitating knowledge-sharing’. If and inasmuch as the report is alluding with this phraseology to poor sections of society, then its objective is to criminalise their expression and reaction. We also note that political forces on the left are systematically being labelled extremist. However, these issues are addressed by social policies, through education and through a fair distribution of wealth and social equality, not through policing, repression and informants.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The new situation as regards crime is characterised by the existence of extremely mobile and flexible criminal networks active in various jurisdictions and types of crime, supported by new technological trends and the widespread use of the Internet. The EU should be prepared to react appropriately as security threats emerge and evolve, with Parliament involved in setting the political course, and in implementing and evaluating the results. More than ever, there is a huge need for cooperation between Member States to face up to these challenges effectively. Five priorities have been identified for the next five years: combating organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, and strengthening border management and the EU’s capacity to resist crises and disasters. It is important not just to strengthen the instruments available to the EU for combating crime, but also to implement and apply those that already exist: for example, the Member States still have not fully applied information exchange instruments, and not all the Member States have ratified and applied the various instruments for police and judicial cooperation. Better exchange of information between Europol and Eurojust would also contribute to preventing and suppressing criminal and terrorist activities, etc.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The current proposal seeks to introduce a ‘European Security Model’ by defining an integrated approach not only to crime-fighting but also to natural disasters. Indeed, some threats to internal security – such as terrorism and organised crime – have become increasingly transnational and therefore demand a strategy that transcends national boundaries and bilateral accords. I believe, however, that it is essential to emphasise that such common action must be taken in parallel with, and not instead of, national measures, which, by the principle of subsidiarity, must still represent the first level of action. In congratulating the rapporteur, Ms Borsellino, for her skill and dedication in preparing the report, I also take the opportunity to remember Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino, two icons in the struggle against organised crime, who were killed in the space of a few months exactly 20 years ago. I hope that this report will contribute to the cause for which they gave their lives, and on this sad anniversary, I express my support for the rapporteur.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Union’s internal security strategy, given that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has consolidated even further the area of freedom, security and justice in terms of respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States, and that policies in this area are a shared competence between the EU and the Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. In fact, the Treaty of Lisbon has provided EU security policy with a strong foundation governed by a rule of law specific to the EU, thereby laying the basis for developing a security agenda closely shared by the EU and its Member States, and subject to democratic scrutiny at European and national level.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Security is still a major concern for European citizens. Part of the solution to effective security is to have a common strategy. Organised crime, cybercrime and terrorism are among the many threats that this report encourages us to address. One of the topics it deals with is borders. This is a crucial issue, as we will only create a secure Europe if we have secure borders. This report strives towards greater protection for Europe’s people, while at the same time emphasising our commitment to upholding fundamental rights. That is why I voted in favour of it.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) In 2010, the European Union decided to adopt a common internal security strategy in order to fight organised crime, terrorism and corruption more effectively. Within the framework of this strategy, the European Parliament is calling for efforts to be stepped up in the areas of information and border control, which it sees as high priorities. The resolution also emphasises the importance of upholding fundamental freedoms as we tackle security threats. The right to security must go hand in hand with respect for human rights.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted at the outcome of the vote on this report, which emphasises the need to respect fundamental rights when implementing Europe’s internal security strategy (ISS). This European strategy, which the Commission put forward in November 2010, sets out a series of initiatives on areas such as terrorism, cybercrime and border management. Every aspect of these initiatives must be kept strictly within the bounds of European and international human rights standards.

Today, we have highlighted the priorities that the European strategy should be following. The fight against terrorism and organised crime, including mafias, white-collar crime, tax fraud and corruption, should remain key priorities, with a special focus on freezing the assets of suspected terrorists. In parallel, Member States should also introduce effective legislation to help victims of terrorism and should step up their efforts to prevent acts of terrorism, for example, through early detection of radicalisation.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on the European Union’s internal security strategy because I strongly believe that the ever more globalised criminal activities have to be combated as a matter of urgency with a joint effort by all the European Member States. This report, by clearly addressing the logic of subsidiarity driving the EU Treaty regarding criminal matters, calls for an improved synergy between the internal and external aspects of security and highlights the importance of ensuring that measures implementing the ISS are in compliance with the Union’s fundamental rights obligations. I also very positively welcome the capacity of the report to clearly explain how border management and human mobility are not just security issues, but key features of a wider political strategy, that have to involve the security dimension as well as immigration, asylum and development policies. In this sense, free movement and fundamental rights maintain their central importance for the application of ISS dispositions: the EU, as an area of freedom and justice, must keep these as leading principles.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since it clarifies the importance of a wide-ranging approach to the EU’s security strategy, based on a holistic concept of human security encompassing human rights, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, good governance and peace. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the internal security strategy should include a parliamentary dimension and not limit itself to a question of intergovernmental policy, since both parliaments – European and national – play an active part in setting the EU’s priorities and evaluating its policies.

  Göran Färm, Anna Hedh, Olle Ludvigsson, Jens Nilsson and Åsa Westlund (S&D), in writing. – (SV) We Swedish Social Democrats voted in favour of the report on the European Union’s internal security strategy because we support its main message, which is that the security strategy must focus on the areas where EU cooperation brings clear added value, while at the same time respecting subsidiarity.

Paragraph 19 refers to the development of a European judicial culture. We agree that we need to increase levels of mutual trust between the Member States with regard to judicial issues. However, we believe that this should be achieved primarily by raising the fundamental and procedural rights in the Member States to a uniform level and not by creating an overall European judicial culture.

We do not support increased links between the common security and defence policy (CSDP) and the activities in the area of justice and home affairs (JHA). In addition, we are not in favour of greater cooperation between the EU and NATO.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We live in a very complex world with diverse threats of various types, such as terrorism, serious international crime, mafias, cybercrime, economic crime, money laundering and corruption, as well as natural disasters and failures of existing infrastructure. Although very different, all these threats jeopardise the security of the European public and, for this very reason, the institutions should have a clear strategy to ensure that the EU remains an area of freedom, security and justice, but also of security. As the report says, the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be the basis of a robust internal security strategy, in line with the principles enshrined in the Treaty, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Underlying this report are the guidelines of the Stockholm Programme and the path for which the Treaty of Lisbon paved the way. It takes the view that EU security policy must be anchored to a specific EU rule of law, subject to oversight at European level. That is the starting point for developing an ‘EU internal security strategy’ that protects the EU from ‘terrorism and other threats’. Against the current backdrop, many of the possible implications of this vision are clear. This is all the truer when we consider that ‘all security policy must include a prevention component, which is particularly essential in a period in which economic and social inequalities are growing’. It continues, however, by suggesting soon afterwards that ‘EU security measures (...) have to (...) focus on targeted law enforcement and intelligence activities with proven capacity to lower crime rates and prevent terrorist attacks’. Despite a few assertions on human rights and the principle of subsidiarity, the entire report is along the lines of a drift towards security and repression that does not help to tackle effectively the causes of terrorism. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left has been stressing its opposition to this vision for a long time. We voted against.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am voting in favour of Rita Borsellino’s report to strengthen the European Union’s internal security strategy. Over the last 30 years, a succession of serious events, such as natural disasters and terrorist and mafia atrocities, has profoundly shaken public opinion, thus hindering economic development, undermining the political integrity of the countries affected, and eroding trust between citizens and institutions. To regain this trust, a broader synergy must be created between social and institutional agents to consolidate the area of freedom, security and justice in terms of respect for fundamental rights. It is no longer useful to examine social phenomena in a local context; we now need to look beyond national boundaries. We must ensure security by maintaining existing strategies and finding innovate ways to supplement them: to be credible, we must earn the trust of the European peoples and address their needs more effectively.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The internal security of the EU and its security policies are priority areas in the policies of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty established the foundations for the development of a security programme. This is divided between the European Union and the Member States, whereby it is subject to democratic oversight at both EU and national levels. The protection of the lives and safety of EU citizens is paramount. Security in the European Union must continue to be strengthened through effective measures to combat serious and organised crime, terrorism, radicalism and extremism, cybercrime and other threats. I consider it essential to strengthen the management of the external borders and increase resilience to natural disasters as well as to man-made disasters. All security measures must also be in accordance with the obligations of the EU in the field of fundamental rights and they must be focused on targeted enforcement of the law; it is essential to prove their ability to reduce crime rates and prevent terrorist attacks. It is also particularly important to create prevention mechanisms and mechanisms that enable us to detect signs of threats with sufficient advance notice. The recent Arab Spring events provide evidence that the Union’s internal security is inextricably linked to the security situation in countries that are located in its neighbourhood. It is therefore necessary to develop a synergy between the EU, third countries and international organisations such as NATO and the OSCE. We should also take a comprehensive approach towards the European Security Strategy.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As the EU pursues its goal to build a European area of freedom, security and justice, it needs a strong internal security strategy. The own-initiative report that we have adopted by a very wide majority therefore stipulates, first and foremost, that this strategy and all measures that are taken must thoroughly satisfy the obligations placed on them in terms of fundamental rights and upholding the rule of law. Our report then goes on to stress that the strategy must be backed by sufficient financial resources in the next budget period, to allow the European Union to actually address these challenges, and to do so in a comprehensive, coordinated and coherent way. Lastly, our strategy sets out five key areas for action in which the EU provides added value, and for which we need greater European cooperation. I am delighted that this report has been adopted.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I supported the own-initiative report by my colleague, Rita Borsellino, as I consider it our responsibility to add a new dimension to the EU’s internal security strategy, both to make it more democratic and to ensure it pays greater attention to fundamental rights. Firstly, the European Parliament, like our national parliaments, must make its voice heard in evaluating and establishing the priorities of a policy that has been left solely in the hands of national governments for too long. Secondly, I believe that respect for human rights is vital if this policy is to maintain its credibility. Lastly, whilst the principle of subsidiarity is unquestionable in the context of such a sensitive policy as security, it is essential that Member States work more closely together, so that they can deal with threats to their citizens’ security as effectively as possible, whilst abiding by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

  Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (SV) I have voted against the report. The main reason for this is the fact that some of the paragraphs in the report emphasise the importance of a move towards greater federalism in the area of internal security, with Europol and Eurojust being among the instruments used to achieve this. Also, I do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards in this report in relation to the integrity of citizens with regard to IT security issues.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Organised crime is a wide-reaching problem that calls for a concrete, coordinated response by Member States. Organised crime networks extend beyond national borders, and action based on intergovernmental cooperation is required at operational level. The European Union’s internal security strategy, adopted in 2010, sets out five strategic objectives to make the territory of the Union more secure: combating international criminal networks, preventing terrorism, increasing security levels in cyberspace, strengthening border management and increasing resilience to both natural and man-made crises and disasters. It is now time to carry out an initial evaluation of the progress that has been achieved and the areas that can be improved. Parliament was therefore keen to add its point of view, and to stress that the fight against terrorism and organised crime must remain the key priorities of this strategy, whilst fundamental rights, the principles of international protection and the rule of law must absolutely be upheld. Parliament also wished to draw attention to the fact that security policy falls under the shared jurisdiction of the EU and individual Member States, but that it is also important to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The UK and Ireland fall largely outside the scope of Title V of Part Three TFEU, and I expect that exemption to be retained after Scottish independence. Nevertheless, Scotland will also retain the right to opt in to individual provisions under that Title. I recognise that many important aspects in the war against serious organised crime and terrorism have added value to be gained by EU-wide cooperation. This report recognises the role of both Member States and the EU in this field and, on balance, I was able to vote in favour.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the resolution because the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has further consolidated the area of freedom, security and justice in terms of respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. Policies in this area are a shared competence between the Union and the Member States. The Commission communication on the internal security strategy (ISS) for the period 2010-2014 has identified five priority areas in which the EU can provide added value; namely, fighting and preventing serious and organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, strengthening the management of the external borders, and building resilience to natural and man-made disasters. The EP welcomes the work undertaken in order to set up an ISS and the main principles underpinning the European Security Model as developed in the ISS, especially as regards the reinforced relationship between security, freedom and privacy and cooperation and solidarity between Member States. EU security measures and cooperation have to comply with the Union’s fundamental rights obligations and focus on targeted law enforcement and intelligence activities with proven capacity to lower crime rates and prevent terrorist attacks. It is important to ensure coherence and synergies between the internal and external aspects of security, and it is necessary to ensure that measures and actions implementing the ISS are in compliance with the Union’s fundamental rights obligations, as well as its external policy objectives and international human rights and humanitarian law.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This own-initiative report by my fellow Member, Rita Borsellino, was adopted in plenary by 503 votes to 55, with 56 abstentions. The report provides an overview of the most urgent security challenges facing the European Union in the coming years, and supports the Commission’s five strategic objectives and the actions proposed in its communication.

However, it also asks the Commission to make the fight against terrorism and organised crime a top priority, and to step up its efforts in terms of responding to natural and man-made disasters.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In recent years, Member States have often had to face up to events which required exceptional coordination and a previously prepared plan of action for dealing with situations which threaten the security of the citizens. I am not thinking only of terrorist attacks, but also of environmental catastrophes and food crises. Therefore, I consider the creation of a security strategy for the continent of Europe to be a priority matter. There must be a system which coordinates decision-making centres, the action they take and methods of funding the plan for dealing with these unfortunate events.

Another matter is coordination of the European Union’s security strategy with similar plans made by each of the Member States. This is imperative for the efficient operation of the system in the event of a threat. I hope we will never have occasion to check if our strategy for action when faced by a threat is fit for purpose. However, it is always necessary to be prepared for such an eventuality.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. – At a time of concerns over people trafficking and terrorism, no one in this Chamber today can deny the need to support the need for better security for citizens of EU countries.

However, any strategy for the EU’s internal security should be based on cooperation between Member States and not on a ‘one size fits all’ EU strategy that overrides national strategies.

While this report refers to several potential security threats such as organised crime, terrorism, cybercrime, corruption and challenges to border management, it also proposes more ‘Europeanisation’ in the pursuit of better security for our citizens. Unfortunately, this is typical of the debates in this House, where many MEPs believe that whatever the problem, the solution is more Europe!

Instead, we should be stepping up cross-border cooperation not only within the EU, but with non-EU countries. By working together, we can at least try to make countries both inside and outside the EU safer places for citizens across the world.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on the Union’s internal security strategy. The issue to be highlighted here is the need for closer cooperation between the external and internal security dimensions, and it is important that the report has called, once again, for such cooperation to be established. One of the areas in which cooperation between these two security dimensions could be mandatory is cybersecurity. Such cooperation would include practical cooperation among various institutions, Member States, partner organisations and third countries.

I note with regret that while both the Commission communication on the first annual report and the AFET opinion stress the role of cybersecurity, the report in question reduces the issue to that of ‘cybercrime’. The EU institutions and Member States need to realise fully that most current security threats are in the cyber sphere. In the near future, the role of cyber attacks will increase dramatically. It is urgent to mainstream cybersecurity into all areas, making it our primary security concern.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In Italy, the memory is still raw of the tragedy that has struck a secondary school in Brindisi, in which a schoolgirl has died and many people have been injured. This event has reawakened a strong sense of insecurity among citizens about organised crime. We need a European Union internal security strategy to be able to take more agile, coordinated action and to strike at the various criminal nerve centres at European level, thus alleviating concern among Europe’s citizens. Such a strategy is predicated on the active integration of the European agencies, on the security institutions (Europol, Frontex and Eurojust, among others) and on a clear vision of the objectives and critical factors to be addressed. I therefore recommend that a monitoring and control tool be used to oversee the work of the bodies responsible for internal security in order to improve their operational effectiveness and results.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which emphasises that freedom, security and justice are objectives that must be pursued in parallel, and expresses the belief that implementation of the EU Charter must be the core of any fully-fledged internal security strategy while recalling that, in order to achieve freedom and justice, security must always be pursued in accordance with the principles of the Treaties, the rule of law and the Union’s fundamental rights obligations.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Crime is changing and is taking on new dimensions. Likewise, terrorism remains a real threat. Cybercrime continues to grow and is costing EUR 750 million per year according to a recent report from Europol. The security of our shared borders is an ever present challenge. Natural or man-made disasters are increasingly frequent and serious. Faced with the extent of these threats, concerted action is needed. We ought to draw up a clear European framework based on a well thought-out strategy if we are to safeguard the internal security of the European Union. Complementarity between European and national efforts must also be strengthened.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) In order to tackle the major threats to the European Union’s internal security, a uniform, integrated approach needs to be adopted. This means that a strategy is required providing every European citizen with a more secure environment. However, this security must respect the common values and priorities, as well as human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and democracy.

The key factors for providing a secure environment for Europe’s citizens must come about through the involvement of European institutions, as well as political, economic and social actors in security strategies, through strengthening the mechanisms for preventing petty crime, terrorism and major crime, as well as through cooperation and solidarity between Member States. At the same time, concrete measures must be adopted to promote democracy, peace and stability in the countries neighbouring the European Union, thereby facilitating the creation of a common area of stability, security and progress. I should mention that all the measures taken to tighten security must have the main beneficiaries foremost in mind: Europe’s citizens.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the Borsellino report. The European Parliament is now a fully-fledged institutional actor in the field of security policies and is therefore entitled to participate actively in determining the features and priorities of the internal security strategy (ISS) and of the EU Security Model and in evaluating those instruments, including through regular monitoring exercises on the implementation of the ISS.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I notice that this report calls for a knowledge-based analysis of the threats. I associate myself with the request. It is high time that security policy be based on threats which are real and not imagined.

I also notice that the text recommends the allocation of more resources to the fight against corruption as I had recommended last September. I welcome this move. I am again glad to see that the discrepancy between the stigmatisation of petty crime and the weakness of the measures taken against environmental, economic and corporate crime is denounced here.

I cannot, however, vote for a report which supports the strategy of complete securitisation of the Commission. Furthermore, the text talks up cooperation with NATO in internal security matters. I voted against.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The internal security strategy (ISS) for the period 2010-2014 has identified five priority areas in which the EU can provide added value; namely, fighting and preventing serious and organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime, strengthening the management of the external borders, and building resilience to natural and man-made disasters. In any case, I consider freedom, security and justice to be objectives that must be pursued in parallel, so implementation of the EU Charter must be the core of any fully-fledged ISS. In order for us to achieve freedom and justice, security must always be pursued in accordance with the principles of the Treaties, the rule of law and the EU’s fundamental rights obligations. It is the pursuit of these objectives that will make the European Union ISS a success.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The fight against terrorism and organised crime is, and must remain, a vital priority in the internal security strategy (ISS). However, the fight against corruption is equally essential. The EU must know not only how to react, but also how to prevent and interpret. A common system for evaluating threats must therefore be developed, so as to permit the early detection of signs of violent radicalisation or threats. A comprehensive approach is essential to obtain an effective security policy within the European Union. The judicial systems of the Member States should be able to work together in the most effective way, including with the help of Europol and Eurojust. There must be synergies between internal and external aspects of security. Particular attention must be paid to security and border management. Full respect for the primacy of the law and fundamental rights is an essential component and must remain inseparable from this internal security strategy in the EU. A clear division of tasks between EU and national levels is vital. Moreover, Parliament needs to be part of the process as regards EU security policy guidance.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The EP and national parliaments must be at the centre of the process for the definition of internal security priorities and strategies in the EU. A strong democratic dimension is badly needed and fundamental rights must always be the core of the internal security strategy of the EU. Therefore, I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The EU has a highly complex structure. Therefore, a very comprehensive approach is needed to produce an EU security strategy if we are to have one at some point. It is important to be aware that the EU threw away its chances when it relaxed its borders and literally opened its doors to criminals. The EU has become a more unsafe place for us all to live in because it seems to have lost control. We live in an imperfect world and we cannot always make things seem better simply by talking about them. We must not ignore the fact that the Member States are responsible for security and justice and that the EU is therefore interfering in their sphere of authority. If you compare collaboration between the Member States and cooperation at EU level, there is no identifiable added value. It is important to remember as well that there are different legal systems in place (the Anglo-Saxon and the European systems) and that we would be preventing the Member States from exercising their legal rights if we moved to a uniform system. Because of the points I have mentioned, I am unable to vote in favour of this proposal and, therefore, I have voted against it.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) There is a clear need to establish an EU internal security strategy which would help to respond in a coordinated, collective and effective manner to various kinds of challenges to internal security. I welcome the provision that freedom, security and justice are objectives that must be pursued in parallel and that the implementation of the EU Charter must be one of the strategy’s essential elements. It is nevertheless regrettable that, at the same time as we are striving to develop a European judicial culture, to ensure the coordination of Member States’ actions regarding the management of the external borders, a framework for the use and coordination of EU and national instruments, there was a very painful case in which, as a result of derogations from EU legislation, a citizen of a third country, suspected of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and who was arrested in an EU Member State, was released without being passed to the justice authorities of the EU Member State that brought charges against him. This inability to cooperate and a lack of solidarity goes against the spirit of the security strategy developed for the whole EU and undermines the Member States’ opportunities to seek justice. I therefore hope that the mid-term review of the implementation of the Stockholm Programme and other related assessments will take such cases into account so that a similar situation does not occur again.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The purpose of the European Union’s future internal security model is to protect European citizens and their rights and freedoms. The strategy for a European Security Model, which is also being discussed in the new parliamentary committee on organised crime, corruption and money laundering, is a response to the terrorist and mafia threats against which the EU needs to establish principles and mechanisms of protection in order to create a secure social context in which citizens feel safe in going about their everyday lives. What is new this time is that the response capability must transcend national boundaries; indeed, the importance of a common effort organised at EU level is clear.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the report. European security policy is closely bound up with the concept of the rule of law in the EU, as the Treaty of Lisbon makes perfectly clear. Certainly, action to strengthen and apply that policy cannot overlook democratic values, human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is clear from the Stockholm Programme that Europe has achieved a partial reduction in acts that qualify as organised crime, but it has not developed its full potential to respond to this modern-day threat. That is why the next steps, as referred to in the report, must focus on four basic points, namely: firstly, a clear division of responsibilities between the EU and the Member States; secondly, increased competences for Parliament, as provided for in the Treaty; thirdly, securing adequate financial resources to implement the strategy in question under the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 and, fourthly, completing and codifying acts that qualify as organised crime, which the EU is endeavouring to combat together with the Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the proposals tabled by the European Parliament on the European Union’s internal security strategy (ISS). I would stress the need for Parliament to be recognised as a fully-fledged institutional actor in the field of security policy. It is therefore entitled to participate actively in determining the features and priorities of the ISS and of the EU Security Model, and in evaluating those instruments, including through regular monitoring exercises on the implementation of the ISS, to be conducted jointly by the European Parliament, national parliaments and the Council.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All security policy must include a prevention component and, in a period in which economic and social inequalities are growing, this preventative aspect is particularly important. Despite the financial restrictions resulting from the crisis we are experiencing, I would stress that it is indispensable to include adequate financial resources in the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 for implementing this strategy through the related fund.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The own-initiative report on the internal security strategy follows and should be read together with other own-initiative reports in the internal security cluster on organised crime (Alfano/ALDE, resolution P7_TA-PROV (2011)0459 adopted on 25.11.2011), which led to the Special committee on organised crime, corruption and money laundering (CRIM), and on counterterrorism (In ’t Veld/ALDE, resolution P7_TA-PROV (2011)0577 adopted on 14.12.2011). In recognising that the EU has an additional value in ensuring a high level of security, we should not go along with the dominant discourse that there can be no individual liberty without us all becoming ‘pre-suspects’ and having to accept ‘continued and comprehensive state surveillance’ (as exemplified by the Data Retention Directive, and the PNR, TFTS and borders package proposals) to ensure collective security. The starting point should be an individual’s liberty from the state, and justification of law enforcement measures in the sense of them being both necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. Now that there has been a (partial) transfer of sovereignty from the Member States to the EU in the area of justice and home affairs, we need to redefine ‘checks and balances’ to ensure security measures respect individual freedoms in a supranational context.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The report by Ms Borsellino is, for the most part, deserving of support, since it is fundamental that the fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption be faced and coordinated across borders. It is also right to provide detailed regulations to protect those people at risk of attacks, and their families, as well as the victims of criminal or terrorist acts.

The fight against the spread of illegal content on Internet sites must not be forgotten, particularly with regard to child pornography sites and those that incite terrorism. A sticking point is that of facilitating freedom of movement, greater solidarity and security at external borders. While I do agree on defence and external border controls, I think it is wrong to force Member States to take in people they do not want and let them circulate freely, just for the sake of solidarity. On these grounds, I have decided to abstain.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) This own-initiative report welcomes the work carried out in order to establish a European Union internal security strategy. By virtue of the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament is actually entitled to take the lead on this issue, setting priorities and defining the future internal security model. I consider the work carried out by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), and by Ms Borsellino, to be significant. The key areas of European intervention are highlighted here and the primary objective seems to be that of achieving greater cooperation among the Member States’ courts and police, in order to tackle the threats arising from organised crime, terrorism, corruption, cybercrime and also natural disasters. I fully agree with the intention to create a common European area of freedom, security and justice and to adopt a unified strategy for all Member States. I believe that there is a great need to step up efforts in order to improve the consistency of the information and data which is used to assess the risks borne by EU bodies and to guarantee transparency in the methods used, thereby achieving the basic purpose of ensuring full protection of citizens.

  Petri Sarvamaa (PPE), in writing. – (FI) Ms Borsellino’s report on the European Union’s internal security strategy is a comprehensive reflection of Parliament’s view of the strategic goals and the measures necessary to make the Union safer.

The report identifies key factors that impact on the future. The main objective in the report is to strengthen cooperation between the police and judicial systems within the EU, which is seen as critically important for maintaining and developing security. Special emphasis is given to the clear division of labour among the various authorities.

The report quite rightly urges us to pay more attention to the inextricable link between the internal and external dimensions of security. In plain English, this means all the threats to safety which are traditional (organised crime, violence, unrest) or, just as much, those which are more contemporary in nature, such as environmental, economic and corporate crime.

The report also points out that not only the authorities in the Member States, but also the European Parliament and the relevant EU agencies, must be involved in assessing these security threats, as well as in implementing measures to counter them. The report also very necessarily emphasises the importance of the fight against terrorism, stating that it is one of the priorities of the EU’s internal security strategy.

It is therefore with a feeling of security that I was able to vote in favour of adopting Ms Borsellino’s report.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The key common threats identified in the Member States’ internal security strategy are manifold: from organised crime to terrorism, and from cybercrime to corruption and border management. All these phenomena are interlinked and therefore, coordinated and coherent action in both areas is required for the response to be effective.

In fact, this vote highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to an EU strategy on security, based on a concept of human security anchored in human rights, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, good governance and peace. Lastly, we need enhanced cooperation with other international institutions responsible for security strategy, such as NATO and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I am pleased the rapporteur has been able to find many areas of compromise with other political parties to deliver a report which takes Parliament’s role into account and updates the EU’s security strategy. The European Parliament and national parliaments must be at the centre of the process for the definition of internal security priorities and strategies in the EU. A strong democratic dimension is badly needed and fundamental rights must always be the core of the internal security strategy of the EU.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption by a resounding majority of the report on the European Union’s internal security strategy. The adoption of this report constitutes an important step in the fight against terrorism and provides for a host of effective tools that can be implemented against all kinds of criminal activities, such as white-collar crime, organised crime, mafia activity or money laundering. The report also calls for the creation of an evaluation system for threats that are common to Member States. Finally, the report calls for the establishment of a centre for the fight against cybercrime and for the budget allocated to the internal security of the EU to be in line with the threats that impact the security of European citizens. These are the reasons why I voted in favour of this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission proposal sets out the most pressing challenges for European Union internal security policy, which should be integrated into a strategy for the coming years. This strategy is based on five main objectives for combating major crime, organised crime, cybercrime, natural disasters and border security. In this context, combating terrorism also remains a major priority for the EU’s internal security. It also sets out specific actions for the 2011-2014 period, in addition to those already under way, which it is expected could also contribute to strengthening cooperation and the relationship between the internal and external dimensions of European security. I voted for this report for those reasons.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The rapporteur lists organised crime, terrorism and cybercrime as the main issues of the EU internal security strategy. In Lithuania, the problem of organised crime is a major cause for concern. According to EU statistics, as the economic situation has worsened, the level of crime in Lithuania has grown dramatically. In recent years, the number of crimes involving the possession of drugs has grown by 19%. The Economist Intelligence Unit predicts that this growth in crime will continue in the coming years. In its latest report on crime in Europe, the international policing agency, Europol, drew attention to Lithuanian organised crime. In the report entitled Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2011, Lithuania was mentioned 24 times, mostly in the context of organised crime. By comparison, Estonia is mentioned three times in the report, and Latvia only once. According to the Europol report, Lithuanian organised crime groups have established a drug trafficking infrastructure, developing supply routes and supplier networks in almost all regions of Lithuania. Given that Lithuania is an EU Member State, this is not just a problem for Lithuania but for the whole of Europe. Since 2008, the number of criminal offences in the EU has grown by 7% every year.

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD), in writing. – (NL) The Borsellino report contains laudable recommendations for a strengthening of internal security in our European Union. It seems to me that, as long as we cling on to the ideological fanaticism of ‘open borders’, we will be fighting something of an uphill battle. Why should the reintroduction of border controls have to be rejected out of hand when so many problems are occurring with illegal activities and crime? And how is it possible, in May 2012, following the elections in Greece and France, which were dominated by these very border issues and the problems associated with Schengen, that we could approve this kind of report without debating this? All of this seems to me a denial of very real problems. The fact that desperate times call for desperate measures is something, meanwhile, that we have been experiencing first hand.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The EU needs a comprehensive and coherent ISS in order to tackle all forms of threats to freedom, security and justice for EU citizens, including mafias and growing organised crime. The ISS must comply with the Union’s fundamental rights obligations. From the institutional point of view, Parliament needs to be part of the process as regards policy guidance, implementation and evaluation of results. Cooperation with national parliaments (idea of a ‘parliamentary policy cycle’) must be strengthened. Therefore, I supported this report with my vote.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Ensuring internal security is a key element of EU internal policy. To do this, it is essential to have staff with the appropriate qualifications in the area of the EU’s internal security system, as well as in the areas of IT network security, managing crisis situations and civil security. However, in making these arrangements, we must not forget to maintain a comprehensive approach to European security strategy, the basis of which is a holistic concept of human security based on human rights, liberty, democracy, the rule of law, good government and peace. We need to demonstrate skill in combining a broad approach to human security with relations with third countries, particularly in terms of border management, migration, the fight against organised crime, terrorism and human trafficking. Looking at the recent experience of the Arab Spring, it should be remembered that the internal security of the EU is inseparably linked with the situation in the area of security in its neighbourhood and, in particular, the significance of European Neighbourhood Policy should be emphasised and synergy developed between the EU and its neighbours.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) Broadly speaking, I support the report on the European Union’s internal security strategy, for it is a fact that threats which do occur are international in nature, particularly terrorism, cybercrime and organised crime. So it is necessary to fight not only at the level of individual Member States, but also to coordinate cooperation better within the EU.

However, in relation to this I think that the report is not specific enough in terms of the role of Europol and the EU’s ability to react in the event of natural disasters which may threaten security. I strongly support increasing the EU’s potential to react to disasters. Today, the Union depends mainly on funds which are in the hands of individual Member States. In my opinion, shared resources should also be created at the level of the entire Union, which should, in the first instance, concern transportation potential and the availability of fleets of vehicles and helicopters which would be able to reach disaster sites quickly. The situation with this is not very good today.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report takes into account the stipulations of the Stockholm Programme and the Treaty of Lisbon, particularly as regards the ideas that EU security policy must be anchored to a specific EU rule of law, subject to oversight that they call ‘democratic’, not just nationally, but mainly at European level. As such, an ‘EU internal security strategy’ is being developed that they say serves to protect the EU from ‘terrorism and other threats’. Although this report is ‘moderated’ with a few assertions that human rights and the principle of subsidiarity must be respected, the majority of the report is along the lines of creating a strategy of security and repression. Little emphasis is placed on prevention, with the accent on reinforcing the conditions for punishment which, in the EU, very often means criminalising all social movements and forces that do not allow themselves to be pushed around by orders from the EU, as well as controlling the lives of the public whilst attacking their fundamental freedoms and guarantees. Obviously, we voted against.

Report: Cornelis de Jong (A7-0144/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since criminal law is different from many other areas and, by definition, restricts certain human and fundamental rights of convicted individuals. This report sets out principles and parameters that should be taken into account when developing criminal law, with interinstitutional mechanisms that make them more efficient and respect for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations. In my opinion, the European Union could and should be a global bastion for human rights defenders.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because it clearly defines the principles that should be taken into account when developing an EU approach on criminal law. So far, the European Union has often developed criminal law provisions on an ad hoc basis, thus creating the need for increased coherence. It is fundamental to acknowledge that an EU criminal law should constitute a coherent legislative system governed by a set of fundamental values in full respect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and of the European Convention on Human Rights. I also believe that the harmonisation of criminal law in the EU will contribute to the development of a common EU legal culture in relation to fighting crime and to a more coordinated action against the most serious crimes. In addition, I would like to stress the importance of the establishment of uniform minimum standards of protection at the highest possible level for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings in order to strengthen mutual trust amongst the legal systems of the Member States.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The harmonisation of European standards must also be carried out with reference to the law. Our European model is based on values, particularly in the field of criminal law. I therefore approved the adoption of strong criteria in the implementation of the new EU criminal legislation which provides that fundamental principles be recalled: respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and the absolute respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence. It goes without saying that EU criminal law must respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The EU is committed to offering its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, and with appropriate measures applied to prevent and combat crime. Coherence and high quality in EU criminal law need to be ensured because today it is fragmented and there is still no coordinating authority for all proposals containing criminal law provisions. I welcome the proposal for an interinstitutional agreement on the principles and working methods governing EU criminal law provisions, as well as the call for a clear, coordinating authority within the Commission for all proposals which contain criminal law provisions. It is also important for legal provisions to be crystal clear and to match the existing national systems.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the basis was created for the development of criminal law as part of EU Community law, which, in the past, was the exclusive competence of Member States. Despite the importance of this new provision, I would raise concerns over the risk that a raft of new EU initiatives in the field of criminal law could be an excessive burden for national administrations. Following the recent economic crisis, competent national authorities have fewer financial resources and, as such, there is an increased risk that the adoption of new legislation may not only fail to result in a better application of criminal law, but may also compromise the credibility and efficiency of EU criminal law to the obvious detriment of EU citizens. In my opinion, the European Union should adopt an extremely cautious approach to developing or amending criminal law. In addition, there must be agreement between the EU institutions regarding the principles and working methods to be applied. In order to facilitate cooperation in the future, I would argue that it is essential that the European institutions agree on some kind of common framework, which would include a set of principles governing any criminal law instrument.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because so far, the European Union has often developed criminal law provisions on an ad hoc basis, thus creating the need for increased coherence. A separate space has not been developed for criminal law provisions. In accordance with the Treaty on European Union, the Union pledges to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to, inter alia, the prevention and combating of crime. Criminal law provisions can therefore be found in instruments relating to justice and home affairs, but they can also be found in many other policy areas of the Union. There is a need for Parliament to develop its own procedures in order to ensure, together with the colegislator, a more coherent and effective criminal law system of the highest quality. It is not a criminal law provision in itself that may lead to less crime in the EU – the investigation of criminal offences and enforcement of penalties imposed for them is equally, if not more, important. The harmonisation of criminal law in the EU should contribute to the development of a common EU legal culture in relation to fighting crime, which adds up to but does not substitute national legal traditions and has a positive impact on mutual trust amongst the legal systems of the Member States.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The report proposes harmonisation of criminal law in Member States with the aim of establishing a common legal culture for combating crime. Criminal law differs from other areas of the law, specifically because, by its definition, it restricts certain human rights pertaining to the fundamental freedoms of the defendants and/or of those convicted. On many occasions, even though a person is not convicted, the criminal investigation itself may result in them being stigmatised, so that many people will tend to believe that there is no smoke without fire.

To facilitate cooperation in future, the institutions must agree on a certain kind of common framework. Such a framework could include a set of principles governing any criminal law instrument. I also think that such a framework ought to include specific guidelines on the internal procedures within each institution to ensure a coherent approach.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) Although the Treaty now formally contains the basis for new EU criminal law provisions, this does not mean that criminal law has become any less sensitive. The Treaty thus provides an emergency brake procedure, in case a Member State believes that proposed legislation affects fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. This is an exceptional procedure in the Treaty. The EU approach to criminal law should be based on a realisation that criminal law is different from other legal domains in that, by definition, it restricts certain human rights and fundamental freedoms of an accused or convicted person. In many cases, the freedom of movement is restricted, but even if the offence is only punishable by fines, at least the right to property is restricted. In addition, practical considerations should also be borne in mind. A flurry of new EU initiatives in the field of substantive criminal law may easily overburden national administrations. Proposals must be of such a nature that they can be fully implemented and enforced. Resources of the national competent authorities are limited, especially during the current economic crisis. The danger exists that the adoption of new legislation will fail to produce better enforcement, thus undermining both the credibility and the efficiency of EU substantive criminal law.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The very proposal to create an EU system of criminal law is chilling. By what authority can Brussels be the arbiter of criminal law when it has been proven so democratically bereft and unaccountable to its 500 million citizens? It lays the foundations for the creation of a European police state – something which no single member of the public in any Member State has ever voted for. We have Common Law in the UK and Scotland whose safeguards are being undermined by the creation of EU criminal law; important safeguards such as our Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. Our courts will have to abdicate their duty to serve to protect citizens against unjust accusation and imprisonment if they are forced to kowtow to unelected and undemocratic processes administered by the EU.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The link between the Council, the Commission and Parliament on criminal law matters is crucial. In the future, these institutions will certainly establish a common framework that may include a range of principles serving as the basis for any instrument of criminal law. This framework could include specific guidelines on the internal procedures adopted in each of the institutions with a view to ensuring a consistent approach. I voted for this report because it is a step in this direction.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Criminal law is a sensitive area in which the differences between the national systems remain substantial. However, the cross-border nature of many offences makes it essential to adopt criminal law measures at EU level in order to prevent criminals from being able to hide behind borders or take advantage of the differences between the national legal systems. The existence of basic rules also contributes to strengthening mutual trust between the Member States, which is essential, not only if there is to be cooperation between the various authorities, but also in order for the principle of mutual recognition to function effectively. We must take advantage of the new opportunities offered by the Treaty of Lisbon for developing EU-level criminal law that is homogenous, consistent and transparent, and that is of genuine benefit for the European public, reinforcing trust in the exercise of the rights to freedom of movement and acquisition of goods and services from other Member States. I am therefore voting for this report, which contributes to the debate on the development of a genuinely common legal culture in the EU for combating crime that can complement the national legal traditions without replacing them and reinforce mutual trust.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the EU approach on criminal law. To facilitate cooperation in future, the institutions must agree on a certain kind of common framework. Such a framework could usefully include a set of principles governing any criminal law instrument. In addition, model provisions, as included, for example, in the Council’s conclusions of November 2009, may be added. Such a framework could provide a basis for impact assessments to be prepared by the European Commission, and it could help in drafting appropriate legal analyses for the Council and Parliament. Moreover, it could contain precise guidelines for the internal procedures in each of the institutions aimed at ensuring a coherent approach.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting for this report, we have defended the robust criteria associated with the new EU criminal law, from respect for the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity to absolute respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence. Our objective was to send a message relating to the actions that the Commission intends to take on criminal law.

Any initiative brought about by the European executive must now ensure that the rights of suspects and accused persons be respected, with the Commission envisaging, in particular, provisions relating to protecting EU financial markets, protecting EU financial interests, protecting the euro against counterfeiting or serious breaches of the rules on data protection.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the issue of criminal law at EU level. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, criminal law has become an EU competence. Unfortunately, Parliament is not taking on a coordination role and is not competent to tackle all the legislative proposals that include criminal law provisions, since these must be transposed into national law. I take a positive view of the principles and parameters set out in this report to be taken into account when drafting criminal law: the creation of mechanisms intended to facilitate interinstitutional cooperation, the maximum possible respect for the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and other international human rights instruments, and funding for solidarity campaigns relating to human rights.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Criminal law was considered an exclusive Member State competence for many years, which only changed with the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Since then, the EU has been creating a series of criminal regulations that are not always incorporated in the most appropriate way. ‘EU criminal law’ currently includes very diverse regulations that are not only instruments of justice and home affairs policy but also encompass the financial sector, fraud, counterfeiting, serious breaches of EU data protection rules, customs offences, environmental offences and certain aspects of internal market policy. These are clearly very diverse areas of policy but, even so, it is crucial to ensure consistency and quality for the effective application of EU criminal law.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There is a great deal of ground that could be covered in relation to judicial cooperation, to cooperation on criminal investigations and to combating crime. Some steps have been taken in this regard, but others could and should still be taken. The increased movement of people and capital, as well as the various forms of cross-border crime, including economic crimes, make that necessary. Cooperation between Member States should still be extended in the area of policies for preventing high-level economic crime, a field in which the political will to do more and better has been wilting. However, the report goes beyond this approach, proposing harmonisation on criminal matters, which we consider unacceptable. This is an area in which the Member States must retain their sovereignty. We do not accept the harmonisation of criminal policies, nor the constitution of shared codes for criminal matters. We therefore voted against this report.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Criminal law is different from other legal domains in that it restricts the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the accused and/or convicted person. Although these restrictions are legal and legitimate, in each case, the issue of proportionality must be considered very sensitively. In legislative proposals governing criminal law, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are essential. However, we need to establish minimum standards of protection, and at the highest possible level. Citizens of the EU must be assured that their safety is taken seriously. Harmonisation of criminal law will assist Member States in the fight against crime, and should contribute to the development of a common legal culture and have a positive impact on mutual trust. When creating new legal instruments, however, we must fully respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the International Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as other international legal instruments governing human rights to which each of the Member States are bound. On the other hand, however, excessive use of legislation leads to a decline in the efficiency of criminal law. The fragmented approach to EU criminal law followed so far cannot be considered to be correct. I consider it our duty to ensure a high-quality and consistent approach, thereby maximising common efforts to combat serious and cross-border crime in particular, as well as crime which threatens the achievement of the objectives of European Union policies.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon laid the foundations for greater European integration in the field of criminal law. Without prejudice to the rights of Member States, which are not affected by this report, which instead reaffirms their competence in the main areas of criminal law, strengthening the European criminal justice system would help to increase coherence and, as a consequence, certainty. Measures such as strengthening Parliament’s legal advisory service and promoting greater interinstitutional coordination are a step forward in the process of defining guidelines and fundamental principles at EU level, something that is vital for ensuring that new European legislation on criminal matters is properly adopted.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which sets out a framework for the future development of an EU criminal policy. In the building of a European area of liberties and justice, the criminal sphere has always been treated somewhat separately since it is a rather sensitive area directly affecting regulatory powers. Yet, at the current time, it is difficult to imagine that criminal law should fall outside the scope of constructing a Europe based on laws. The communitisation of criminal law is a considerable challenge, but also a necessity in terms of large-scale crime and cross-border crime, and this is the issue addressed by this report. Moreover, I welcome the perspectives provided by such communitisation in Europe: firstly, ‘eurocrimes’, as well as the creation of a genuine European Public Prosecutor’s Office, whose remit must go well beyond the mere protection of the financial interests of the European Union.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The harmonisation of criminal law continues to be a sensitive issue. While the Treaty of Lisbon communitarised this matter, to the extent that the Treaty permits the EU to make use of it to strengthen the implementation of its policies, criminal law remains at the heart of national sovereignty and the diversity of national laws does not make the task easy. However, a step must be made in this direction to respond to the concerns of European citizens who do not want the perpetrators of crime to be able to hide beyond borders or exploit the differences between national legal systems.

We must define the minimal rules concerning offences, judicial competences and sanctions. The goal must, above all, be to favour the application of the principle of mutual recognition in practice. Finally, any exploitation of criminal law, by which some would have us believe that the introduction of new rules would enable crime to be beaten, must be avoided. It would merely be for show and would disregard the fact that other tools exist and should be implemented.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The UK and Ireland have the choice to opt in to individual measures proposed in terms of an EU-wide approach to criminal law, and I understand that the Scottish Government plays a full role in deciding when it is appropriate to do so. Nevertheless, I consider that certain aspects of the de Jong report would serve to undermine long-standing principles of Scottish criminal law. Accordingly, I abstained on the final vote.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the resolution on an EU approach on criminal law because the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has led to more opportunities to regulate this area at EU level, and the aim is therefore to better harmonise the concept of substantive criminal law, and make it clearer and more understandable. However, proposals for EU substantive criminal law provisions must fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and criminal law must fully respect the fundamental rights of suspected, accused or convicted persons.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the pillar structure was abandoned and the basis was created for the development of criminal law as part of EU Community law.

However, it is quite clear that the EU did not develop a separate space for criminal law provisions. Such provisions can be found not only in instruments relating to justice, but also in those relating to home affairs.

This own-initiative report invites the Commission to guarantee a high-quality and coherent EU approach on criminal law. In light of this, the Commission has created an inter-service coordination group on criminal law. In his report, Cornelis de Jong calls for a Commissioner in charge of criminal law matters to be appointed.

Moreover, the report draws attention to the importance of mutual recognition, the harmonisation of protection rules and the respect for the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Finally, it points out that key areas of criminal law must be left to the Member States.

  Syed Kamall (ECR), in writing. – Criminal law remains, and should continue to remain, the domain of national governments, and not the European Union.

At the same time, we should be looking at steps for better cooperation between governments and police forces to tackle cross-border crime, including people trafficking, smuggling and terrorism. But it should be on the basis of cooperation and not coercion, and must respect the civil rights of citizens of EU countries.

In 2005, seven EU countries signed the Prüm Convention to share fingerprint, DNA and vehicle licence data, but under the German Presidency in 2008, these measures were subsumed into the police and judicial cooperation provisions of EU law. Unfortunately, the ever Euro-fanatical Labour government of the time in Britain signed up to these changes, It was this sleight of hand that makes me suspicious of any discussions on this subject at the EU level.

So, EU attempts to fight cross-border crime should be based on a respect for cooperation, a respect for civil liberties and a healthy respect for national sovereignty.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (NL) From a technical point of view, I have no comments to make about this report, and it is a good thing if countries work together to combat cross-border crime. However, Member States must determine their own criminal law and, above all, their own criminal sanctions. There must be no interference from Europe. As the European Parliament, and as representatives of the people, this is a message that we should have sent out more clearly today. Above all, I do not agree with recitals G and M, which relate to the harmonisation of criminal law.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I believe the EU has to take a very careful approach when developing additional or reviewing existing criminal law provisions. Its track record is not perfect, as has been aptly demonstrated by a group of academics, the European Criminal Policy Initiative. They mentioned, inter alia, the use of many cross references in legal texts as a violation of the lex certa principle: legislation has to be clear-cut and easily understandable so that it becomes predictable for all whether an act amounts to a criminal offence or not. This holds even more so for directives, since these have to be transposed into national law and any lack of clarity can lead to diverging interpretations, which can easily enhance confusion instead of reducing it.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By integrating criminal law with community law, the Lisbon Treaty prompts us to act. From now on, we must strengthen existing cooperation in the field of criminal law and rethink our national and European approach. Greater coordination is needed between the European institutions in this area. We must also develop mutual recognition whilst, at the same time, preserving the key principles of criminal law, such as the presumption of innocence.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The harmonisation of criminal law in the EU should contribute to the development of a common EU legal culture in relation to fighting crime. That is why I agree that harmonisation measures should be proposed primarily with a view to supporting the application of the principle of mutual recognition in practice. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon brought new challenges in the development and integration of criminal law into EU law. As criminal law is an area of the law that can restrict the rights, freedoms and guarantees of the accused and/or the convicted person, we should always bear in mind the necessity test. As such, the EU will have to act very prudently when developing additional provisions or revising existing criminal provisions, so as to ensure that certain human rights and fundamental freedoms will never be affected.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The Lisbon Treaty lays the foundations for new European provisions in the field of criminal law. However, this area remains very sensitive. That is why clear and transparent rules must be established on how and when European criminal law is used. These rules must fully respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It is crucial that any European criminal law legislation guarantees the rights afforded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, while also respecting the different legal systems and traditions of each Member State. It was necessary to set up an interinstitutional working group within which Parliament will participate in defining the scope and application of appropriate criminal law sanctions at EU level. Within this framework, the information service will be a useful tool for the work of MEPs, thus ensuring the quality of Parliament’s work as a colegislator.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report looks into the issue of criminal law having become a part of EU competences with the Treaty of Lisbon. It is clear that criminal law is different from other legal domains in that it, by definition, restricts certain human rights and fundamental freedoms of the accused/convicted person and the Treaty also sees an exceptional procedure – the emergency brake – for the Member States in this area of law; a careful approach to developing EU criminal law has to be taken. I voted in favour.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the de Jong report on an EU approach on criminal law because it is a good analysis of the state of play in the construction of a European criminal law system, which has been made more important by the Treaty of Lisbon. Indeed, increasing European integration, not just economically but also as regards ‘freedom, security and justice’, is inseparable from the issue of the integration of criminal law and criminal procedure. Furthermore, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which protects the European public from the EU itself, could require criminal protection instruments. The gradual setting out of ‘federal’ criminal law is also an essential pillar in the construction of a genuine European ‘polity’, which is the basis of the constitutionalisation of the European Union.

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) If a judicial area exists in the European Union, even if only partially, as is currently the case, then it is normal, right and advisable for it to develop in the field of criminal law in particular, in order to avoid the inconsistencies we are seeing and to provide Member States and the EU with guidelines aimed at harmonisation. The Commission’s November 2011 document on criminal policy is excellent in my opinion, as is the study by Parliament on harmonisation. The subject is a sensitive one and directly affects the sovereignty of the Member States.

However, there is no doubt that it is necessary to manage this sovereignty jointly in certain areas, albeit with great care and sensitivity. In customs, for example, it is useful for the functioning of the internal market and its users. In criminal law, it would probably avoid certain anomalies that affect hundreds of citizens who are of a different nationality from the state in which it is applied in a non-uniform way: for example, issuing European arrest warrants (designed to combat terrorism) against citizens who move to Germany with their children, thereby automatically changing a civil procedure into a criminal procedure.

If the European approach to criminal law will help eliminate these aberrations, it will be a praiseworthy legal achievement.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Union’s legal system all too often lacks coherence and certainty, especially with regard to criminal law. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has brought about a major acceleration of European criminal legislation, so much so that the Commission has already published a communication in favour of a single European criminal law. Clearly there is still a long road ahead but, in spite of resistance from some Member States and procedural difficulties, the process has begun. Parliament, partly thanks to my vote, has judged these first steps positively and has signalled the need for an internal legal advisory service to assess and weigh up the proposals balanced against the law of the Member States.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The abolition of the EU pillar structure under the Treaty of Lisbon paved the way for closer collaboration at Member State level in terms of criminal law and the European approach to it. One sign of the new policies is that the Treaty now makes provision for an emergency brake procedure if a Member State considers that the proposed legislation would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. However, the increase in the number of such cases now arising at European level is generating certain practical problems. For example, an abundance of new EU initiatives can easily overload national administrations. This report, which I supported, therefore proposes that specific, very careful approaches be adopted, in order to safeguard consistency and high standards in an area of law which is open to various interpretations and in which there is a very real risk of serious divergences between the Member States.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I share the rapporteur’s concern regarding the risk that adopting new legislation will not lead to better control, thereby damaging the credibility and effectiveness of the EU’s substantive criminal law. This means the EU will have to act very prudently when developing additional provisions or revising existing criminal provisions. I voted for this report for these reasons.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, a basis has been created for developing criminal legislation and integrating it into EU law. As this is a very sensitive area, so as to ensure the quality and consistency of the EU’s approach to criminal law, it is crucial that the EU institutions improve their respective internal structures and agree amongst themselves on the working principles and methods. I voted for this report because I believe the measures advocated – particularly, the call for an interinstitutional agreement to facilitate cooperation on criminal matters between the Commission, the Council and Parliament – could contribute to consolidating trust between the Member States’ legal systems and developing a common EU legal culture in the fight against crime.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today, during the plenary session in Strasbourg, we voted on the report by Mr de Jong. This own-initiative report states that in order to guarantee a coherent and high-quality European strategy on criminal law, the three institutions should agree on principles and working methods.

Attention is focused on the importance of mutual recognition, harmonisation of protection standards and the principle of the presumption of innocence. The main areas of criminal law will be the responsibility of the Member States, whilst a ‘coordinating authority’ should be appointed within the European Commission.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The report’s cautious approach to the development of EU criminal law deserves support, given the impact on the rights of suspects/accused persons and convicts and respecting the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Such a cautious approach also fits with our general preference for crime prevention over repression. Approximating criminal law among the Member States is a very difficult task given its close relationship with social and political choices and the direct impact this has on people’s liberties. Furthermore there are differences in the levels of sanctions and prison regimes (including which part of the sentence is actually served). Therefore here, more than anywhere else, it is important that the legislation containing criminal definitions and sanctions is crystal clear and not open to differences in interpretation, something which is often resorted to in political compromises among the Member States (practice of constructive ambiguity). A coherent approach based on the principles mentioned in the report needs to be followed from the moment EU legislation is envisaged until the moment the draft legislation is negotiated between Parliament and the Council and then implemented in the Member States.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report by Mr de Jong stresses that in order to guarantee coherent and high-quality European legislation on criminal law, the three institutions must reach an agreement on principles and working methods. I am in agreement with this own-initiative report due to the serious approach that was taken in regulating such a delicate policy area. In particular, I agree with the importance given to mutual recognition, harmonisation of protection standards and the principle of the presumption of innocence. I support the creation of a common European legal culture and of a uniform and coherent strategy as well as the promotion of greater institutional coordination, while ensuring that the main areas of criminal law remain the responsibility of the Member States. The law must be extremely clear and easy to understand, which is why I agree that the European Commission should appoint a specific coordinating authority.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The new Treaty makes it easier for us to adopt criminal laws, in basically all areas of the EU, but, at the same time, requires us to be more cautious when adopting and passing new rules, so as to ensure that fundamental rights and the most traditional principles of criminal law are respected. In my opinion, recourse to criminal prosecution for purely symbolic reasons should be avoided, as well as merely rhetorical appeals to the Charter of Fundamental Rights or other international documents drawn up for their protection.

Amongst the proposals in the document we have voted on this morning, of particular interest to me is the call to allocate additional funds to strengthen Parliament’s legal advisory service, which enables review and systematic evaluation of proposals on criminal matters and the promotion of interinstitutional coordination for the purpose of getting to grips with the issues to be acted on, as well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing legislation and the possible impact of the legislation to be adopted.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) I voted in favour of the report by Cornelis de Jong on an EU approach to criminal law because it sets out a number of boundary markers for criminal law at EU level, including the fact that the subsidiarity principle must be fully respected. At the same time, the report establishes that if EU legislation is to be made at all, the legislation must adhere to a number of basic principles of criminal law. However, my voting in favour should by no means be taken to mean that I support further harmonisation of criminal law at EU level.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report which proposes mechanisms to facilitate interinstitutional cooperation in the field, ultimate respect for the EU Charter and other international human rights instruments, and the creation of a human rights check.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU has not developed a separate area relating to the provisions of criminal law and these are not just instruments of the field of justice and home affairs, but also many other areas of EU policy. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the pillars structure has disappeared and a basis has been introduced for the development of criminal law as an integral part of EU law. It is therefore important to know how to ensure the coherence and quality of a field of the law that seems to include such diverse areas of policy. In order to ensure the EU has a high-quality and consistent approach to criminal law, the three EU institutions mentioned would not only have to improve their internal structures, but also agree amongst themselves on the important working principles and methods.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) We must establish a genuine common justice area in the EU. Citizens must believe that their rights will be defended wherever they are located in the 27 Member States. Recently, the European Commission admitted that ‘for a long time, the EU has tried to build the European criminal justice area with one hand tied behind its back’. In my opinion, there have been many occasions when the EU also covered its eyes with the other hand. The rapporteur states that growing trust is a prerequisite for common recognition throughout the EU of judicial decisions taken in other Member States. Common minimum standards must be set with regard to the right to a fair trial and the rights of the victims of crime in order to increase this trust. This is a problem in Lithuania. Given the many reports published by the European Council on Foreign Relations, judges in Lithuania are part of the problem because they opt for a more complex system which they can manipulate to their advantage, for example, a ‘tax’ for changing the trial date. According to data from a Eurobarometer poll carried out earlier this year, Lithuanians have little confidence in the courts – only 22% of Lithuanians trust the courts.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The Lisbon Treaty and the abandoning of the pillar structure simplified the path to the development of EU criminal law in the context of the EU as an area of freedom, security and justice. The report highlights the principles of criminal law (principle of individual guilt, legal certainty, non retroactivity, ne bis in idem and presumption of innocence). Moreover, judicial cooperation in criminal law is based on the principle of mutual recognition. To fully apply this principle, some flanking measures are needed to develop and legitimise ‘mutual trust’ – within an EU common criminal legal culture. Among these measures are harmonisation of substantive criminal law (crimes and sanctions) and common uniform minimum standards of protection for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings and therefore, this report has to be supported, which I did by my vote in favour.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report sets out several general principles governing criminal law and stresses that ‘harmonisation measures should be proposed (...) with a view to supporting the application of the principle of mutual recognition’, whilst supporting ‘the development of a common EU legal culture in relation to fighting crime’. We consider criminal matters an area that falls exclusively to the sovereign actions and policies of the various Member States. As such, we do not advocate the harmonisation of criminal policies and the constitution of shared codes for criminal matters. In this regard, there are other paths to follow and explore in relation to combating crime, such as judicial cooperation, cooperation on investigations and combating crime. Moreover, promoting policies that reduce social inequalities and promote important social, economic and labour rights would play a key role in crime prevention. That is definitely not the path that the European Union has been following.

Report: María Irigoyen Pérez (A7-0155/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since I believe there is an urgent need for a new consumer protection agenda that extols the protection of vulnerable consumers in the European Union. In fact, given the diverse needs, abilities and circumstances of consumers, I consider it crucial that consideration of consumer vulnerability be a key task of this new agenda. Consumers should be given more information and awareness raising campaigns should be put in place.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The protection of vulnerable consumers is a priority and we must therefore call for a genuine European strategy in this area. The rights of vulnerable consumers must be reinforced as much as possible. European legislation, through the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, protects European citizens by dealing with their cases on a case-by-case basis. Today, I am therefore in favour of a comprehensive strategy which will prevent unfair commercial practices in the future. The report adopts a sectoral approach to cover the different forms of vulnerability. For example, we should no longer be penalised for the lack of information on complaint and redress schemes.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) According to a recent Eurobarometer survey, only one in two consumers is happy with the information provided to them. Vulnerable groups, particularly, have difficulties understanding the options available to them and their rights.

I support what is in the report as regards vulnerable, elderly consumers, particularly in terms of digital services. Since more and more information is being posted online, elderly consumers cannot access it and they find it more difficult now to access resources for implementing their rights. Consumers who have no Internet access, for one reason or another, suffer because they cannot avail themselves of online commercial services or obtain information in relation to their rights. Therefore, a significant portion of the internal market is closed to them, they pay more for products and they depend heavily on other people. Information on consumers’ rights must be provided, not only through official channels, but also through consumer associations and regional offices which are more conspicuous and easier to access for consumers with mobility problems or who do not have access to the Internet.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. The objective of legislation defending EU consumers is to ensure common consumer protection against unfair business practices, misleading advertising and unfair contract terms, but there must be special protection for vulnerable consumers and they must be targeted by a separate strategy. I agree with the calls for the Commission and the Member States to closely analyse consumer behaviour and situations that may place certain groups in vulnerable situations, in order to provide protection for all consumers, regardless of their ability. Many consumers’ vulnerability results precisely from their lack of assertiveness and comprehension of the information they receive or of the options available, or from their lack of awareness of the existing complaint and redress schemes. I therefore welcome the European Parliament’s proposals to pay more attention to consumer information and education campaigns, to simplify complaint procedures and tighten advertising standards, etc.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) European Union consumer policy should be ambitious and should confer a high level of protection on consumers, paying particular attention to the most vulnerable. This report, for which I voted, calls on the Commission and Member States to adopt specific legislative measures guaranteeing adequate protection for vulnerable consumers. This should involve not just the authorities but also companies and suppliers, so as to make the contractual balance more transparent and less opaque. It also draws attention to the vulnerability of older consumers in the context of the digitisation of services. The creation of a strategy to strengthen the rights of the most vulnerable consumers will contribute to their social inclusion and to the move towards a fairer and more tolerant society, as well as to ensuring a more dynamic, safer and more competitive internal market.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Protecting consumers and, even more so, vulnerable consumers, must be seen as the basis for the development of the European project. This own-initiative report proposes real solutions for protecting this principle, which is why I decided to vote in favour of its adoption.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because promoting consumers’ rights and their protection are core values for developing relevant European Union policies, especially for reinforcing the single market, and for meeting the Europe 2020 goals. All consumers, at some point in their life, can become vulnerable because of external factors and their interactions with the market or because they have difficulties in accessing and comprehending relevant consumer information and therefore need special protection. The widely used concept of vulnerable consumers targets a heterogeneous group comprised of persons who are considered as such because of their mental, physical or psychological disability, age, credulity or gender. This concept should also include consumers who are placed in a state of temporary powerlessness resulting from a gap between their individual state and characteristics or their external environment, taking into account criteria such as education, their social and financial situation, or access to the Internet. The ambition for EU consumer policy should be a high level of empowerment and protection for every consumer. In creating a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers, it is essential to give them the opportunity to participate in the single market, to contribute not only to the social inclusion of such consumers and to the creation of a more just and tolerant society, but also to a more dynamic, safe and competitive interior market.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Current regulations on consumer rights are inadequate, and a better strategy is required to strengthen the rights of vulnerable consumers. The report proposes solutions for problem sectors such as finance, transport and the Internet. In the transport sector, in spite of existing legislation, passengers continue to encounter difficulties on a frequent basis when their trip is cancelled or there are delays, especially people with disabilities.

I think that, as part of the planned revision of EU passenger rights legislation, the situation of vulnerable consumers must be taken into account, especially persons with reduced mobility and disabilities. I believe that devising such a strategy contributes not only to the social inclusion of these consumers, but also to progress towards a more just and tolerant society.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome and endorse the report, and wish to highlight its balanced, realistic nature. In these areas, there is a high risk of working at cross purposes, whereby laws are made in defence of certain sections of society that actually end up being harmed by unexpected effects of the legislation. Another risk that the report has been careful to avoid is that of ending up serving up an abstract model of the nanny state with the laudable but illusory intention of eliminating the risks connected with carrying out our responsibilities as citizens.

Amongst the praiseworthy recommendations made, I would highlight the protection of consumers against bad practices, which are regrettably widespread in the consumer credit industry, which has exploded along with the crisis. These practices, which promote a reckless attitude to debt, are also harmful in terms of the difficult task of consolidating our public accounts, since lower household debt is an important advantage over, for example, the United States. Protecting vulnerable consumers is morally justifiable but also helps us maintain welfare networks in our countries, which are often called on to deal with the effects of bad practices that harm the most vulnerable.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by María Irigoyen Pérez on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. Unfair business practices, misleading advertising and the lack of information about some products have a strong impact on the most vulnerable consumers. Our priority is to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable consumers at all costs. Thus, for this group of consumers to be better included at the heart of the single market, it is worth targeting the causes and improving their protection. In this regard, some sectors such as food, transport, the Internet, liberalised markets, justice and digital services must be subject to increased controls in order to facilitate greater independence for consumers. To this effect, it is worth quickly drawing up stricter rules on advertising for children, making the digital adaptation of services for elderly people an educational process and improving information for those with visual impairments.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In spite of existing legislation, consumers still frequently encounter difficulties when travelling and often find themselves in vulnerable situations, especially if their journey is cancelled or delayed, and these difficulties are exacerbated when the consumer suffers from a disability. I would therefore like to call on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure better information provision and access to claim procedures regarding, inter alia, passengers’ rights and transparency of fares. The Commission, in its planned revision of EU passenger rights legislation, must take into account the situation of vulnerable consumers, especially persons with reduced mobility and disabilities, and adapt the compensation levels, criteria and mechanisms, while ensuring that current levels are not reduced. The digitisation of services may mean that consumers who, for various reasons, cannot access or use the Internet, could find themselves in a situation of vulnerability, as they cannot take full advantage of the benefits of online commerce and are therefore excluded from a substantial part of the internal market, paying more for the same products or being dependent on assistance from others. The Commission and the Member States must therefore eliminate the barriers to cross-border e-commerce through the development of an effective policy which pays special attention to the needs of vulnerable consumers in all measures aimed at closing the digital divide.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – The United Kingdom has already established a number of independent bodies and organisations to protect consumers against unscrupulous advertising, misleading product sales and so forth. For example, the Financial Ombudsman regulates the financial sector, while the Advertising Standards Authority determines whether advertising is accurate and appropriate. Currently, the UK Government is looking into the protection of minors from overtly sexualised consumerism and exposure to risks to their well-being. The Office of Fair Trade oversees the protection of British consumers as a whole. Legislation such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 already exist to serve the consumer. Some of the legislation is UK application of EU law. Complaints are made to Consumer Direct, which provides legal advice and redirects individual complaints to the Trading Standards office for investigation. Creating an entire stratum of European law muddies the waters, leaving both consumers and merchants at risk from excessive bureaucracy and a compensation culture. While I agree with the proposals set out in the report, it is my belief that the UK should be the only author of such regulations.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because consumer protection is always an important topic of debate, and certain measures and regulations need to be adopted by the EU to achieve this. In this regard, it is paramount that there are product safety standards and that measures are introduced to protect the rights and interests of consumers, especially against misleading advertising, which presents consumers with an image of the product that does not match the reality. I think that it is relevant to analyse the sectors which make consumers more vulnerable and require an increased level of protection.

These include, in particular, the financial sector (the price and quality of the product must be presented in a proper, sufficiently clear manner), food sector (control over advertising so that it reflects the real product and its benefits), as well as transport or the Internet. Furthermore, consumers must be offered the wherewithal to enjoy to the full the benefits of a deregulated market, enabling them to make an enlightened choice about the most relevant offerings. Last but not least, with a view to increasing consumer confidence in the internal market, it is absolutely vital to ensure appropriate access to judicial or alternative methods of redress, with the development of the latter being essential.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Given that they can easily find themselves in situations of vulnerability, consumers must be subject to specific protection measures from European legislators. I therefore welcome the adoption of the Irigoyen Pérez report. I support this initiative, which aims to strengthen the rights of consumers and keep them better informed of the risks that they face. I note that with the increase in web content targeting consumers, we must redouble our vigilance. I believe that the most important thing today is to ensure that these new protection measures are implemented in a uniform way across all Member States.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I support the creation of a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers that enables their participation in the single market, thereby contributing, not just to their social inclusion and progress towards a fairer and more tolerant society, but also to ensuring a more dynamic, safer and more competitive internal market.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe has 500 million consumers, whose spending accounts for 56% of the EU’s GDP. Empowered consumers, duly protected and in a position to benefit from the single market, can contribute significantly to stimulating innovation and growth within a more dynamic, more efficient and fairer internal market. It is essential that EU consumer policy be able to pay particular attention to the specific needs of the most vulnerable consumers, by means of a specific strategy for increasing their ability to make decisions effectively and independently. It must be borne in mind that all consumers can become vulnerable consumers over the course of their lives, for reasons that may be temporary or permanent, may be inherent to their physical or mental state, or may result from outside reasons like not knowing the language, the use of new technologies, etc. This means the issue of vulnerable consumers should be approached in a horizontal way and take into account their various needs, capabilities and circumstances. Specific measures should be adopted ensuring adequate protection: these should go beyond mere information, particularly in certain areas, such as telecommunications, access to the courts, food, financial services, etc.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Although supplying appropriate information to consumers is necessary to guarantee their protection, this is not enough in some cases, especially for vulnerable consumers. This report therefore calls on the Commission to consider this, developing protection tools for the most vulnerable categories that go beyond mere information. By adopting the principle that each consumer may, during their lifetime, become a vulnerable consumer, the proposal avoids supplying too rigid a definition of vulnerability. There is also a need for action in the online sector, identified in the motion amongst the at-risk areas, in which the ineffectiveness of age verification systems exposes underage consumers to misleading adverts, and in which social networks allow sellers to promote their own products through targeted advertising, suggesting brands of interest within the social network, taking advantage of social pressure. Since I am sure the guidelines set out in the motion help identify an effective strategy for the protection of consumers, in particular, those who are vulnerable, I voted in favour of this report.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We voted in favour of the own-initiative report on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. We welcome the fact that the report highlights the importance of subsidiarity and that it does not aim to establish different levels of protection for consumers. Instead, the starting point is a high level of protection for everyone. We believe that vulnerable consumers should be given the same opportunities to make free and informed choices. Therefore, we support self-regulatory initiatives and increased cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and industry in order to give consumers greater power.

We also welcome the fact that the report emphasises the importance of responsible advertising aimed at children on TV and on the Internet, because children are not always able to understand and evaluate the message that is being conveyed. We agree that advertising should not be regulated at an EU level, but, therefore, we believe that it is extremely important for companies to take part in the voluntary initiatives and to comply with the codes of conduct that have been set up.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) The European project has led to the emergence of a single market: a common area for buying, selling and moving around. Consumers are therefore an integral part of this. As consumers, we can all one day find ourselves in a situation of vulnerability. There is not one vulnerable consumer, but several vulnerable consumers. This report provides a flexible approach to enable protection for all. It recommends, in particular, that children and young people be better protected still faced with advertising for foods that are too fatty, salty, or sugary. The report is also concerned with access to information and complaint procedures for travellers. These are very specific recommendations, which are useful for European citizens, and that is why I voted in favour of this report.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By voting for this report, we have invited the European Commission and encouraged the 27 Member States to ‘maintain constant and close analysis of social and consumer behaviour and situations that may place certain groups or individuals in vulnerable situations, for instance, by analysing consumer claims’. We have also encouraged them to fight against vulnerability through specific measures, which, where appropriate, will protect all consumers ‘regardless of ability and at whatever stage of life’.

We have particularly insisted on the need to enhance consumers’ awareness regarding product safety, particularly through targeting children and pregnant women, and called on the Commission to carry out a detailed analysis of the impact of misleading and aggressive advertising, particularly on children and adolescents. The EU and its Member States are immediately being asked to invest more in consumer information and education campaigns, since the vulnerability of many consumers derives from their lack of assertiveness, from their lack of comprehension of the information they receive or of the options available to them, and from their lack of awareness of the complaint and redress schemes available to them.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report concerning a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers because I believe it is essential to provide an adequate, and therefore updated, approach to consumer protection. This report does precisely this: it calls for an adaptation of the definition of vulnerable consumers which is synchronised with the changing nature of consumption in Europe, not only regarding the goods that are consumed but also the evolving categories of consumers. Given the extraordinary importance of the internal market for the European Union’s economy and growth, a solid and trustworthy legal basis for consumer protection must imperatively be established. Europe should provide itself with effective legislative means to avoid any form of abuse towards its citizens, in particular, the most vulnerable ones. However, it is also fundamental that a right balance between individual freedom and consumer choices is struck. The sectors identified by the report, namely finance, food, transport, Internet, free markets and access to justice, will have to be carefully regulated according to the driving principle of this dossier: consumers are susceptible to becoming vulnerable consumers over the course of their lives.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Consumer rights and their protection under EU law constitute one of the core principles of the workings of the internal market. I consider adequate consumer protection and security key to the smooth running of the markets and to trade; they are an essential condition of competitiveness and growth. Of all consumers, however, some deserve particular protection since they are, for various reasons, considered more vulnerable: children, adolescents, older people, disabled people, etc. While I acknowledge this need, I also think strengthening consumers’ rights essentially involves strengthening the market’s obligations as regards correct information, according to the particular needs of each group.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report follows on from a previous report, by a rapporteur from the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, focusing on the specific case of vulnerable consumers, a complex concept that it defines in a wide-ranging and comprehensive way. The rapporteur proposes that the European Commission and the Member States develop strategies aimed at reinforcing the rights of vulnerable consumers in areas such as telecommunications, access to the courts, energy, transport, etc. It makes suggestions about, for example, strengthening pre-contractual and contractual information requirements, and a stronger right of withdrawal when the provider or seller has not, inter alia, made the relevant information available clearly and comprehensibly. The ‘vulnerable consumer’ concept also includes children, older people and women. It also suggests paying particular attention to the specific conditions of certain individuals, such as those without access to the Internet or those with disabilities. It also suggests stricter advertising standards, requiring better information about risks and preventing exaggeration of the potential benefits; it even mentions the specific case of financial products. We take a positive view of the fact that the majority of the amendments tabled by our group have been accepted. We voted in favour.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The promotion of consumers’ rights and their protection create a basis for the development of relevant EU policies and it is important for the achievement of the objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. The consumer may be vulnerable for a number of reasons – because of their mental, psychological or physical disability, age, sex, or credulity, or if they are in a state of temporary powerlessness resulting, for example, from an adverse social or financial situation. Vulnerable consumers require special protection and it is important to take into account their specific needs and enhance their capabilities. Member States must take appropriate measures in this regard and ensure adequate guarantees. The most dangerous areas, where the level of vulnerability has been shown to be greatest, include energy, food, transportation, financial services, access to justice and telecommunications. In order to protect vulnerable consumers, we need to provide them with easily accessible and understandable information. As regards the requirement to provide sufficient information, I believe we need to draw attention to the fact that some categories of consumer are not aware of the existing complaint and redress schemes, especially in cross-border or e-commerce cases. The development of an effective strategy for the strengthening and protection of the rights of vulnerable consumers will ensure their equitable participation in the single market, contribute to their social inclusion, and will additionally guarantee that the single internal market of the European Union will be safer, stronger and more competitive.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This text is, in my opinion, absolutely worthy of support, for three reasons. Firstly, it proposes reinforcement of the rights of vulnerable consumers through a horizontal approach, that is, by considering the different needs and abilities of consumers, as well as the many circumstances in which they may find themselves. Secondly, I welcome the basic principle underlying the report, whereby all consumers could become vulnerable over the course of their lives, for exogenous or endogenous reasons. Finally, the concrete measures proposed in the report are designed to improve existing tools and their effectiveness, and to ensure the provision of easily available and understandable information for consumers. That is why I voted in favour.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The outcome of the vote has made it clear that everyone finds consumer protection important. However, unless we take actual steps, there can be no effective consumer protection, as consumers will continue to feel just as vulnerable as before.

It definitely marks a step in the right direction that the European Parliament intends to continue its consumer-friendly activities, and I also welcome the fact that my fellow Members voted in favour of reinforcing consumer protection. Still, as long as the terms and conditions applied by banks remain incomprehensible to consumers, and as long as there is only a code of conduct rather than binding legislation that restricts banks in amending their contracts unilaterally, the immeasurable gap between consumers and these companies is here to stay.

Similarly, the moratorium on eviction can be considered merely as temporary assistance, as the debtor in difficulty still needs to evacuate his house or flat when the moratorium expires, and consumers cannot hope that their salaries will increase at the same rate as the interests on their loans.

Thus, conciliation bodies, which play an exceedingly important role in the speedy, simple and free settlement of consumers’ legal disputes, must be strengthened in the future. However, in order for this to have an effect on consumer protection, all those important changes that social organisations representing consumer interests have long been pressing for need to be implemented.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One of the most frequent criticisms levelled at the European Union concerns the democratic deficit, or the lack of opportunities for citizens to influence European decision-making processes. As the only institution whose members are directly elected by citizens, the European Parliament is particularly sensitive to these issues and, in 2010, it adopted the report on the proposal for a regulation on the citizens’ initiative: this is an opportunity for citizens to make their voices heard, and to bring issues of interest to the attention of the European institutions. An early example was seen a few weeks ago, when a committee of citizens living in Austria, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania and Spain presented an initiative to improve EU exchange programmes.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. – The Irigoyen Pérez opinion correctly highlights that well informed, empowered consumers, once offered the proper protections, can be the engine of growth and increased competitiveness for the Union. However, it is clear that consumers in many sectors remain very vulnerable, above all, in relation to financial products. Financial institutions often understate the risk of financial products to retail investors who are not familiar with financial risk. Consumer policy that is fit for purpose should be oriented not only towards providing the relevant legal protection, but also towards strengthening consumers’ power to make their own informed decisions and exercise their rights. The implementation of a comprehensive system of alternative and online dispute resolution for consumers, which would make resolving disputes between consumers and traders quicker, cheaper and easier, is an important initiative in this regard. I would now call on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary further concrete legislative steps to address consumer vulnerability, particularly in relation to the advertisement of financial products and advertisements targeting children and adolescents.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Many debates in the European Parliament concern the protection of consumers. All consumers deserve protection and it is difficult to understand many of the distinctions that have been referred to. Young people and people with specific disabilities are, of course, always highlighted in all the proposals. The aim should be to achieve greater transparency and to produce better descriptions of the responsibilities of those who sell or provide products or services, in the interests of all consumers, including those who are particularly vulnerable.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which calls for the establishment of a strategy to protect vulnerable consumers. There may be several criteria determining the vulnerability of consumers, such as age, disability, but also poor understanding of new technologies, which may overwhelm them when faced with the pressures of marketing, misleading advertising, or with unfair contract terms. The rights of European consumers must be adapted to particular situations.

  Małgorzata Handzlik (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Consumers are a very important part of the single market, and among them are those who require special attention. The assumption that, in fact, all of us can become vulnerable consumers at some point in our lives is a valuable observation which should be taken into account when framing EU policy and, in particular, initiatives aimed at strengthening the single market.

I would like to stress this, for example, in the context of discussion on the development of social enterprises. Alongside business objectives, social enterprises also pursue social objectives, thanks to which they better understand the needs of vulnerable consumers and are able to meet those needs more effectively. Therefore, by recognising the role of social enterprises in the single market we will help improve conditions for particularly vulnerable consumers. In this context, I would also like to stress the need to give better information to consumers in general, and even more so in the case of vulnerable consumers. Reliable information enables consumers to be active and more aware of their rights, and they more readily make use of the procedures provided for them.

In the case of vulnerable consumers, the type of information supplied is of enormous importance, because this group of consumers needs a wider range of information to be able to participate fully in the single market. The report accurately identifies what are currently the most problematic sectors. The identification of areas which may constitute the greatest threat to the security of consumers is an important step on the road to strengthening their protection.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On Tuesday, 22 May, MEPs approved, almost unanimously, the report on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. This report postulates that all consumers are susceptible to becoming vulnerable consumers over the course of their lives. The causes may be endogenous (reduced physical or mental abilities such as children, seniors or the disabled) or exogenous (education, etc.). It must therefore be guaranteed that these citizens are properly protected but also made aware of their responsibilities. With this report, Parliament intends to put forward its contribution to the debate launched by the Commission on this subject. It should be highlighted that the Commission published, on the very same day that this report was adopted, its strategy for strengthening consumer confidence, the European Consumer Agenda.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – This report quite rightly calls for a strengthening of vulnerable consumers’ rights whilst noting that this should be done in a proportionate manner. Certain aspects of consumer law are currently reserved in the UK to the Westminster parliament whilst others fall within the remit of the Scottish parliament. Much of consumer law is now regulated at EU level in the interests of the internal market’s smooth functioning. Westminster’s role in Scottish consumer law is therefore increasingly redundant – and should be brought to an end.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE), in writing. – (SV) We voted in favour of the own-initiative report on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. We welcome the fact that the report highlights the importance of subsidiarity and that it does not aim to establish different levels of protection for consumers. Instead, the starting point is a high level of protection for everyone. We believe that vulnerable consumers should be given the same opportunities to make free and informed choices. Therefore, we support self-regulatory initiatives and increased cooperation between the Commission, the Member States and industry in order to give consumers greater power.

We also welcome the fact that the report emphasises the importance of responsible advertising aimed at children on TV and on the Internet, because children are not always able to understand and evaluate the message that is being conveyed. We agree that advertising should not be regulated at an EU level but, therefore, we believe that it is extremely important for companies to take part in the voluntary initiatives and to comply with the codes of conduct that have been set up.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers because the diversity of vulnerable situations, both when consumers are placed under statutory protection and when they are in a specific situation of sectoral or temporary vulnerability, hinders a uniform approach and the adoption of a comprehensive legislative instrument. The existing legislation and policies in place therefore address the problem of vulnerability on a case-by-case basis. European legislation must address the problem of vulnerability among consumers as a horizontal task, taking into account consumers’ various needs, abilities and circumstances. The rapporteur has addressed specifically the following sectors: the financial sector, food, transport, Internet, liberalised markets and access to justice. Attention is also drawn to the vulnerability of senior consumers, in particular, in the context of the digitisation of services, and because of the added cost that the management of such services poses for brick-and-mortar offices and stores, which means, in many cases, that they pay more for the same products.

  Kent Johansson, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) It is important to provide effective protection for all consumers who are buying goods on the European market. The key factor is that consumers have access to straightforward and reliable information about goods and services. The consumers who need effective protection are those who cannot make use of the information that is available. If we make the definition of a vulnerable consumer too broad, we risk reducing the protection available for people who really need special support.

Those of us with liberal views believe that the term ‘vulnerable’ should be based on individuals’ needs and not the group they belong to. Our opinions were not given a hearing during the process of drawing up the report, but we are not voting against it because it highlights an important issue which we believe needs further discussion.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because it contributes to the discussion initiated by the Commission on the protection of vulnerable consumers, particularly in view of the publication of the Consumer Agenda, which aims to define the Commission’s main priorities and future efforts in the area of consumer policy.

As shadow rapporteur on this report, I defended several important points, particularly a clarification of the definition of vulnerable consumers (extending beyond the classic sense, associated with physical or mental disability, to cover the notion of situational vulnerability), the strengthening of the European strategy not only through a development in the legal corpus and effective enforcement of rights but also through consumer empowerment (access to information, consumer education), taking into account vulnerability as a result of the development of new practices associated with new information and communication technologies (behavioural advertising, for example), and finally, the need to make businesses aware of their responsibilities in this area and to recognise the initiatives that they develop in the field of self-regulation.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In the day of the single market, the rights of the European consumer are an extremely important question for all citizens. Many people still do not know their privileges and do not know how to enforce their rights, nor are they familiar with the requirements which should be met by sellers at the point of sale of their products. If consumers did have this information, they would be able to make rapid and appropriate decisions when choosing a product and, if faulty goods were purchased, would be able to recover their money efficiently and easily or exchange the article concerned.

The European Commission stresses the importance of informing consumers of their rights and of the possibility of obtaining a refund or complaining. However, as the rapporteur stresses, an information campaign may not be sufficient help, particularly in relation to consumers who are particularly vulnerable to abuse from sellers. Such consumers include children as well as elderly and disabled people. We should therefore take care to provide the right legal protection to those of our citizens who most need it.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the resolution on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers because the people of Latvia would benefit from greater consumer protection in the European Union. We still have different rules in various EU Member States and the degree of consumer protection varies. The resolution emphasises the need to do more in this area. That is to say, we must plug the gaps in the legislation in order to remedy the deficiencies and adapt to the existing situation. However, the most important issue is the differing quality of goods in EU countries. It is no secret that the quality of products of the same brand can be lower in Eastern European countries than the quality of those on sale in Western Europe. This is grossly unfair, and the EU must rectify the situation. That is why I made a proposal that gained support and has been included in the final text of the resolution. Work in this area will continue in the EU, and I shall work on proposals that will protect Latvian consumers and ensure they are included in draft legislation.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), in writing. – (SK) Belonging to the European Union ensures a significant degree of protection for consumers by establishing equal levels of safety for numerous consumer goods and by introducing measures to protect consumers’ wider interests from unfair business practices, misleading advertising and unfair contract terms. However, the general concept of ‘consumers’ subsumes a specific category, that of vulnerable consumers, who require special protection. These include children, seniors, the disabled, and also those who are vulnerable due to a lack of knowledge of the language or a lack of education. The creation of a strategy for strengthening the rights of these vulnerable consumers is certainly necessary and I support its immediate development by the Commission.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I am seriously concerned that the proposed method of protecting vulnerable consumers does not amount to a functional model of consumer protection, particularly as it is based on the preferential protection of a specified number of consumers. Consumer protection should always be based on application of the principle of equal treatment in relation to all groups of consumers. In addition, the fact that the group of vulnerable consumers comprises a dynamically changing set of addressees which is very hard to define undermines the entire proposed philosophy of greater protection for vulnerable consumers. This all underlines the impossibility of defining such a group in legislative terms. It is not changed in any way by the fact that the term ‘vulnerable consumer’ has already been used in the directive concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. Here, however, it is based on unfair competition practices, in relation to which an economic interest can be unambiguously quantified, both in the form of profit and in the form of damages. If this interest is broadened to include health, safety or morality, it will be difficult to define in legislative terms and, consequently, impossible to put into practice.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The new forms of commerce and different channels for buying products inevitably require a strengthening of consumer rights, in particular, for the most vulnerable. According to Ms Irigoyen Pérez’s report, which I voted in favour of, we have to move in this direction, adopting a wide-ranging approach. Consumer rights can be strengthened through an improved legal corpus, more extensive and easily understandable information campaigns and, furthermore, by making consumers aware of their responsibilities. In this sense, and also considering the results of recent research available to us, particular attention must be paid to buying behaviour with regard to financial products. We find consumers in this sector face the most illegal practices, which should be tackled robustly through greater protective information.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I supported the own-initiative report by my colleague, María Irigoyen Pérez, on a strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. Through this text, Parliament is showing its determination to prevent consumer vulnerability and protect vulnerable consumers. Every European citizen must recognise that everyone is susceptible to becoming a vulnerable consumer over the course of their lives (travel to a foreign country, illness, old age, use of new commercial technology, etc.). I also welcome the fact that the current definition of the notion of a vulnerable consumer has been retained. Changing this notion would have brought about risks for consumer protection. It is essential that such a notion remains balanced, neither too vague nor too precise, so that it can cope with all situations of consumer vulnerability.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report and agree with the rapporteur that the creation of a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers, in order to permit their participation in the single market, contributes not only to the social inclusion of such consumers and to advancement toward a more just and tolerant society, but also to ensuring a more dynamic, safe and competitive internal market. However, this specific protection of vulnerable consumers should not, in any circumstances, lead to the creation of two different levels of protection.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully agree that the strategy for the rights of vulnerable consumers must focus on reinforcing their rights and ensuring that those rights are effectively safeguarded and enforced, as well as providing consumers with all necessary means to ensure that they can take the appropriate decisions and be assertive, irrespective of the instrument used. I voted in favour.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report aims to protect ‘vulnerable consumers’. It attempts to define the category of person concerned, but must, in several areas, turn to the evidence: everyone is affected. This is just one step away from admitting that ‘consumers’ are people and that their interests are not guaranteed by free and unfettered competition. This text obstinately refuses to take this step.

It claims that competition ‘benefits consumers if they are properly informed’. Vulnerability must therefore be the result of a simple lack of information. Whilst, of course, it is necessary to better regulate information for people about the products and services that they use, turning the lack of information into the main cause of vulnerability is a sham. The millions of people plunged into poverty by austerity policies and the deregulation of the labour market have become vulnerable. For them, it is impossible to purchase quality products and services, whether they are informed or not. This text is full of good intentions but reveals an obscene social blindness.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I take the view that defending consumers is always an issue that concerns all of us if we are to be able to continue building an ever-more balanced internal market. To that end, it is imperative to create product safety standards, and measures must be introduced to protect the rights and interests of consumers, especially against misleading advertising that offers consumers an image of the product not compatible with reality. The most sensitive specific sectors are finance, food, transport and the Internet. Moreover, consumers should be given the means for enjoying the benefits of a liberalised market, enabling them to make informed choices. Finally, to increase consumer confidence in the internal market, it is absolutely necessary to ensure better access to the courts.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Though the single market must work to ensure a high standard of protection for all consumers, it must pay particular attention to vulnerable consumers in order to take into account their specific needs. All consumers are susceptible to becoming vulnerable over the course of their lives. The diversity of situations of vulnerability, however, makes it difficult to adopt a uniform approach and general measures. This vulnerability requires special protection and a specific strategy. The capacity of vulnerable people to take optimal decisions independently must be strengthened, information and education must be improved, and they must be allowed access to the same goods and services as all consumers. Particular attention must be paid to people with disabilities as well as to children and adolescents who must be made aware of the risks of aggressive or misleading advertising. The latter are, moreover, particularly vulnerable faced with the use of new communications technologies such as smartphones, online games and social networks. Mention could also be made of elderly people or those in precarious situations who are cut off from the digital world. Faced with all of these situations, flexible legislation is required which is able to adapt to different cases of vulnerability.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The upcoming Consumer Agenda must address the problem of vulnerability among consumers as a horizontal task, taking into account consumers’ various needs, abilities and circumstances. The resolution calls on the EU and the Member States to pay more attention to, and invest more in, consumer information and education campaigns. I consider this initiative as a first step in that direction. I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) There should be a uniform level of protection for consumers within the EU and, in particular, protection against unfair business practices, misleading advertising and improper contract terms. Children, adolescents, older people and people with disabilities are, of course, particularly vulnerable. This is also the case with people who do not understand the local language, have a lack of knowledge or are forced to use new technologies with which they are not familiar. The protection must cover not only their financial interests, but also other areas, such as health and safety. In particular, in the case of the failure to fulfil the legal obligation to provide information and of the right of withdrawal, most importantly for cross-border online purchases, there are still problems in enforcing the law. The financial sector remains problematic because of its complexity. Similarly, there is still a lack of price transparency among low-cost airlines, for example. Despite the fact that the basic intentions of this report are good, it remains difficult to enforce these measures on behalf of consumers. Therefore, I cannot vote in favour of the report.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) All European Union citizens might find themselves in the group of vulnerable consumers at some time in their lives. There could be several reasons, but the most common ones include advanced age, or medical or mental disability and, last but not least, there are children, of course. The definition of vulnerable consumers that we have used hitherto has been very general and the report by Ms Irigoyen Pérez is an attempt to improve it. This report therefore focuses on the most pressing issues in this area, such as misleading television and online advertising aimed at children and adolescents, or standardisation of products for the disabled. Other areas can also include telecommunications services, especially mobile services operators, which are increasingly focused on children and adolescents. For this type of service, the overview of charges must be clear, transparent and understandable for everyone. Every day, we come across cases where people have found themselves in not inconsiderable difficulties due to false or misleading advertising, sometimes resulting in bankruptcy or total loss of property. Many companies actually seek out vulnerable consumers, most commonly seniors, in order to deceive them. Their activities are at first sight lawful, but are also morally quite wrong. The sheer number of such cases demonstrates the need to strengthen the rights of vulnerable consumers.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the strategy on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers, and I consider that the comments made in this report are vital and must be taken into account as part of future regulations as soon as possible. The fact that, according to the most recent Eurobarometer survey, less than 50% of consumers feel that they are properly informed and protected gives particular cause for concern.

Furthermore, another figure mentioned in the report is even alarming: 70% of financial institutions’ and companies’ websites make basic errors with regard to the products on offer, while the costs are presented in a misleading way. Under these circumstances, the problems faced by vulnerable consumers need to be subject to tight regulations and deterrent sanctions.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) Although citizens of the Member States of the European Union are better protected as consumers than the inhabitants of any other part of the world, we have by no means achieved all of the set objectives. One of the most topical problems in this area is how to guarantee the rights and protection of the most vulnerable consumers. In order to achieve this, the Commission and the Member States should work together to develop an appropriate strategy. Today, it is clear that the awareness-raising work that has been undertaken via campaigns up to now is insufficient, especially for people who simply do not know of or understand the existing options or the mechanisms for complaint resolution and compensation. Developments in recent years have shown that consumer protection and, in particular, the protection of the most vulnerable consumers, need to be improved, above all in the areas of financial services, flights offered by low-cost carriers, Internet advertising and the availability of legal protection. Among other things, we must take a more serious attitude towards ensuring that children, young people and the elderly obtain and understand information in relation to their nutritional choices, with regard to the large-scale campaigns concerning foods with high sugar, fat and salt content.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Consumers receive thousands of messages a day about various goods and services available, thereby increasing the risk of their becoming more vulnerable in certain sectors, such as nutrition and the financial sector. It is true that the market tries to generate needs among consumers, especially vulnerable consumers, that do not actually exist, thereby attaining its objective through inadequate education and information for consumers about their legal rights. We therefore need a more consistent EU strategy to strengthen the rights of vulnerable consumers. This being so, I voted in favour of this report because it strengthens the participation of consumers in the single market, thereby both ensuring they are protected and creating a more dynamic and competitive internal market.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I agree with the idea of strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers, whilst closely monitoring social habits and changes in social and consumption behaviour that could make certain groups and/or individuals vulnerable. This should be done in a balanced way involving continuous communication with stakeholders.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – We need to do more to strengthen the rights of vulnerable consumers. We need a broad and coherent legislative strategy to tackle vulnerability, taking into account the complexity of such situations. Vulnerable consumers must have effective access to alternative dispute resolution, either free of charge or at the lowest possible cost.

The EU, Member States and businesses need to take the appropriate measures to ensure that consumers have access to understandable and comparable information about fees and means of redress, and can easily switch providers, especially in the telecommunication and energy sectors.

We need to have better information and access to claim procedures regarding, inter alia, passengers’ rights and transparency of fares. EU passengers’ rights legislation must take into account the situation of vulnerable consumers. We need to conduct a detailed analysis of the impact of misleading and aggressive advertising on vulnerable consumers, especially children and adolescents.

There must be stricter advertising standards for sophisticated financial products aimed at retail investors who may not have a good understanding of the risks and losses that an investor may incur.

We need enhanced consumer awareness regarding product safety, especially for vulnerable consumer groups like pregnant women and children.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I support Ms Irigoyen Pérez’s initiative, which addresses a key issue for the fair functioning of the market: the protection of consumers’ rights and, in particular, those of the most vulnerable consumers, from unfair practices. We need to increase consumers’ sense of empowerment through accessible and understandable information. This applies to sensitive areas, such as financial products, and in the field of new technologies and social media, where we need to think about how to protect the consumer.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The promotion of consumers’ rights and their protection are core values for the development of EU policy, particularly for reinforcing the single market and pursing the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, the umbrella term ‘consumers’ includes a specific category to which particular attention should be paid: vulnerable consumers. This report rightly aims to contribute to creating a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers. To this end, it calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt in their legislation specific measures to ensure appropriate protection for such consumers, especially in those areas where the level of vulnerability has been shown to be greater – finance, food, transport, the Internet, access to the courts, transport and energy) – and, specifically, in the Consumer Agenda and the Consumer Programme 2014-2020. I voted in favour.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) I have just voted in favour of the report on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. The report is all the more important because of technological development, for example. Technological advances and electronic services are making such rapid progress that not everyone has the chance or ability to keep up with it all. Elderly people, for example, are in this group. Younger consumers are, however, susceptible to the influence of advertising. For this reason, it is very important to protect children and young people, for example, from aggressive, dishonest and alcohol-related advertising.

Ultimately, the internal market, like the EU as a whole, exists for the people. That is why it and economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of vulnerable consumers.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I applaud Ms Irigoyen Pérez for her work. The adoption of this report, having regard to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer practices in the internal market, and Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, reaffirms that belonging to the European Union ensures an additional degree of protection for consumers.

This report is based on the principle that all consumers can be considered vulnerable and, in particular, emphasises how the creation of a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers, in order to permit their participation in the single market, contributes not only to the social inclusion of such consumers and to advancement toward a more just and tolerant society, but also to ensuring a more dynamic, safe and competitive internal market.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The creation of a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers, in order to permit their participation in the single market, contributes not only to the social inclusion of such consumers and to advancement toward a more just and tolerant society, but also to ensuring a more dynamic, safe and competitive interior market. However, this specific protection of vulnerable consumers should not, in any case, lead to the creation of two different levels of protection.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this document because greater protection must be given to European consumers, especially the most vulnerable and those at risk of unemployment. To do this, we must act quickly, through a specific and wide-ranging strategy which takes account of social habits and changes in the behaviour of those consumers most at risk.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report on the strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers, as they form a special category of consumers which needs special protection and a specific strategy. This vulnerability can result from both endogenous causes, where the consumer’s vulnerability is the result of temporary or permanent causes that are inherent to the consumer or his or her physical or mental situation, or exogenous causes, namely those caused by external agents such as a lack of information.

I agree with the notion that the reinforcement of vulnerable consumers’ rights does not only entail regulatory development but, above all, efforts to promote consumer empowerment through the provision of accessible and understandable information. I think the new Consumer Programme 2014-2020 should prioritise the reinforcement of vulnerable consumers’ rights, paying particular attention to those with disabilities, for example, reading accessibility for visually impaired persons and the use of universally recognised symbols.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I welcome the report by Ms Irigoyen Pérez, which aims to ensure equal treatment and the elimination of discrimination in the internal market and, in particular, protection of the most vulnerable consumers. This is to be achieved through a targeted strategy which consists of promoting programmes to support consumer information and education, uniform application of standards in all Member States and transparent pricing, especially with regard to e-commerce. We also need stricter rules on advertising, which is misleading at times, and a greater control over the information given to the public in order to avoid buyers making ill-informed choices. Consumers need to be better protected when buying and they must be carefully looked after, by creating legislation on adequate, clear and precise information, which will help achieve a more transparent and competitive single market.

  Andreas Schwab (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Fortunately, it has been possible to modify the report on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers in such a way that there is no uniform definition of when consumers are particularly vulnerable. Instead, the decision must be made on the basis of each individual situation. That is right and proper. All consumers require different levels of protection depending on their age, vulnerability and situation. It is good that the report does not suggest anything different.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) One of the objectives of the European Union is to protect consumers’ wider interests from unfair business practises, misleading advertising and unfair contract terms. In a complex social and economic context, there are some consumers who – for various reasons – prove weaker and more vulnerable than others.

Among the particularly problematic sectors for consumers are the financial sector, food, transport, the Internet, liberalised markets and access to justice. One of the goals of this vote is to clarify the term ‘vulnerable’, so as to harmonise the issue and regulations surrounding it. The creation of a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers contributes not only to the social inclusion of such customers and to advancement towards a more just and tolerant society, but also to ensuring a more dynamic, safe and competitive internal market.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D) , in writing. – (EL) Firstly, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her exceptional report and to welcome the thrust of the report, the purpose of which is to mainstream the concept of vulnerable consumers across the various legislative and political EU bodies whose purpose is to protect consumers, taking account of the different needs, capabilities and circumstances that apply to them. Most importantly, the report calls for the European Union and the Member States to pay more attention to, and to invest in, consumer information and education campaigns that target the right messages at the right consumer segment. Generally speaking, a strategy for strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers, in order to permit their participation in the single market, contributes not only to their social inclusion and to advancement towards a more just and tolerant society, but also to ensuring a more dynamic, safe and competitive internal market. However, we must ensure that this specific protection for vulnerable consumers does not, under any circumstances, translate into two different levels of protection.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. – I was thoroughly pleased to support this report. The Socialist rapporteur did an excellent job of highlighting the extensive work that national governments have still to do to ensure that vulnerable consumers are protected. I hope that this report is given the attention it deserves and that we begin to see a crackdown on misleading advertising across all the Member States.

  Michèle Striffler (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the ‘strategy for strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers’. The report mentions the diversity of forms of vulnerability associated with physical or mental disability, but also takes into account the disability associated with a lack of knowledge of the language, lack of education or, simply, the need to use new technology with which the consumer is not familiar. The European Union must guarantee higher standards of protection for all consumers, by introducing measures protecting their interests against unfair business practices, misleading advertising and unfair contract terms. As a member of the Board of Directors of the European Consumer Centre, I fully supported the adoption of this report.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In November 2011, the European Commission tabled the proposal for a regulation on a consumer programme 2014-2020, intended to make consumer rights central to the single market. I am voting for this report, since it aims to stimulate consumer spending, which accounts for 56% of the EU’s GDP, thereby contributing decisively to restarting economic growth and wealth generation. I believe consumers should be protected from potential situations of commercial vulnerability, that the available information could be improved, and that safety standards guaranteeing that the market works effectively should be developed. At a time of serious budgetary difficulties, I consider it necessary to protect consumers from the financial markets: there should be more regulation of the economy and more information leading to effective financial education should be made available.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the report on strengthening the rights of vulnerable consumers. Liberalisation of the markets has increased competition, which can benefit consumers if they are properly informed and able to compare prices and choose their providers. The lack of transparency in the main markets, including in the energy and transport sectors, may cause further difficulties for consumers, in particular when identifying which is the appropriate tariff for their needs, switching providers and understanding the items billed. I call on the Commission and Member States to take the appropriate measures to ensure that all consumers have access to clear, understandable and comparable information about tariffs, conditions and means of redress, and can easily switch providers. In spite of existing legislation, vulnerable consumers still encounter difficulties when travelling. We call on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure better provision of information and rapid access both to claims procedures regarding passengers’ rights and the mechanisms for resolving them. We call, as part of these procedures, for the situation of vulnerable consumers to be taken into account, especially of persons with reduced mobility.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) I welcome the rapporteur’s basic argument that strengthening the rights of the most vulnerable consumers contributes not only to the social inclusion of such consumers and a more just society, but also to ensuring a more competitive interior market. The rapporteur rightly notes that better consumer information is important for reducing the vulnerability of consumers. However, information alone is not enough. A Eurobarometer survey has revealed that Lithuanian consumers need a stronger consumer protection system. The survey showed that only 37% of Lithuanian consumers believe that they are adequately protected by existing consumer protection measures, compared with 59% in the EU. Lithuanian consumers are reluctant to trust government organisations that are supposed to protect their interests. Only 37% of Lithuanians believe that the authorities will protect their interests (compared with the EU average of 54%). Slightly more Lithuanians would trust consumer support associations – 42% of Lithuanians trust independent consumer organisations, which defend their consumers’ rights. The problem, as revealed by the World Bank report, is the fact that consumer organisations receive limited funding from governments, which is not enough. The ideal solution would be for government funding to be supplemented with funding from European agencies or for the latter to work with existing European consumer associations.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – Consumers in the EU still lack sufficient protection; I believe more needs to be done to strengthen their rights, which is why I voted in favour of this report. The report suggests solutions for tackling common problems in sectors such as transport, finance and the Internet, reflecting that the protection and promotion of consumer rights are at the heart of European policies. Existing requirements on product information and product suitability do not do enough to protect vulnerable consumers, especially not the elderly. The report, which has my full support, calls for clear and simple information on products and services. Current rules do not do enough to protect travellers, especially when there are delays or cancellations and fares that are difficult to understand can lead to some consumers paying three times more than others. It is important to strengthen the rights of vulnerable consumers, which is why I supported this report as it calls on the Commission to take vulnerable travellers into account when revising EU passenger rights legislation.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – The rapporteur asks for strengthening of the rights of vulnerable consumers in what is considered an essential value in achieving the internal market; it is fundamental to define a framework to ensure the protection of consumers, above all, in situations of sectoral or temporary vulnerability, but with respect for their freedom and right to choose, and therefore this report has to be supported, which I did by my vote in favour. This report is focusing on the fact that vulnerability is greater in the financial sector, food, transport, the Internet, liberalised markets and access to justice.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), in writing. – (PL) Consumer protection is an extremely important aspect of the European Union economy. At the present time, when producers are fighting each other to sell their products (sometimes illegally, sometimes at any cost), the people who buy these products – the consumers – often fall victim to various means of getting round the law and the rights of consumers. Cases of this type concern, in particular, a failure to inform consumers of the precise ingredients of a particular product (in the case of food). Often, consumers themselves are not fully aware of the rights they enjoy to compensation or to make complaints in cases where it is clear they were misled by the producer. In particular, consumers are not aware of their rights in the case of door-to-door sales and online and cross-border commerce. It is hardly necessary to add, here, that disabled people in particular face additional difficulties in ensuring proper enforcement of their rights as consumers, and are often wronged as a result. Furthermore, research shows that groups which are particularly vulnerable because of this feel discouraged from taking action when problems do occur. Therefore, it is very important that permanent information campaigns be conducted in the Member States, as this would make consumers aware of the rights to which they have recourse. I hope that taking such action will lead, in the longer term, to an improvement in seller-consumer relations, so that consumers will not be in a hopeless situation (as is often the case) when disputes arise.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The concern shown by the Socialists for poor people is almost moving. Until now, I thought that it was sufficient for consumers to have enough information. In the explanatory statement, however, the rapporteur leads us to believe that consumers either do not understand, are not pushy enough, or they do not know how to complain. They are vulnerable and we need to take care of them. The rapporteur is correct in one respect: some people really are more vulnerable, such as elderly people or children. Their vulnerability is due to the weakening of family and neighbourhood relations. They need intergenerational solidarity, and not officials who do their shopping for them.

Report: Hans-Peter Martin (A7-0439/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report on the issuance of euro coins. I agree with its proposal, since the European Central Bank and the European Commission will be able to consider the issue of EUR 1 and EUR 2 notes in the future, thereby reducing the number of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins in circulation, and will make the currency more manageable and widely accepted. Finally, and most important of all, as with the report on the issuance of commemorative coins, I would re-emphasise that Europe needs to be more streamlined and effective: if this will lead to administrative simplification, it should be implemented.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report concerns the technical specifications concerning the issuance of euro coins. It also calls on the Commission to assess the impact of putting EUR 1 or EUR 2 banknotes into circulation. I supported it, while waiting to read the conclusions of this study.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I agree with the proposals set out by the European Parliament that the European Commission should conduct an impact assessment on the possible issuance of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes and draft a report setting out the advantages and disadvantages of issuing EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report because I think that binding regulations need to be introduced on issuing euro coins in order to guarantee greater transparency. Given that euro coins circulate throughout the entire euro area, their features are a matter of common interest for Member States.

I should point out that having too many banknotes and coins in circulation could result in inflation. In fact, it is the role of the European Central Bank (ECB) to provide stability. In this context, the ECB must control the issuance of euro coins.

I should highlight that reducing the number of commemorative coins will increase their value, while also simplifying the administrative procedures involved. At the same time, I think that Member States should be able to issue collector coins, making them distinct from the coins in circulation.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report tackles the question of the issuance of euro coins. Its core concerns are the introduction of mandatory provisions and an integrated framework for the issuance of euro coins in all the Member States, and the increased transparency and security of this process. In this regard, future consideration of the issuance of EUR 1 and EUR 2 notes is suggested, given the benefits this would bring, particularly as regards making the currency more manageable and widely accepted. Moreover, reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation will also be of benefit because it would increase their value by virtue of their greater scarcity. The report also includes a proposal that the Commission conduct an impact study into the continued issuance of the euro’s 1 cent and 2 cent coins. These proposals are timely and beneficial, so I voted for this report.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the issue of the optimisation of the euro currency is relevant since the euro has established itself as an important international currency, increasing the need for investment and promoting trade ties. The single currency and monetary policy of the countries of the euro area foster closer trade and financial ties. This increasing economic integration encourages closer coordination of economic policies. Although this report concerns the issuance of euro coins, one possibility for the euro currency in future, which the European Central Bank and the European Commission could also consider, is the issuance of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes. Although the issuance of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes would reduce the number of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins in circulation, the use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes would, at the same time, have advantages for Member States: it would increase the currency’s manageability and acceptance and would have a positive influence on European tourism without impairing the value placed on other euro coins. The issuance of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes would increase the value of euro collector coins. The reduction in the number of commemorative coins in circulation would help simplify the administrative procedures involved and, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin even more.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report, especially the commitment to conduct an impact assessment on the circulation of one and two cent coins and the proposed introduction of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes. As part of the spontaneous adjustments the internal markets are making in response to the crisis, the introduction of EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes could have positive effects for consumers, particularly in the states most affected by a fall in demand and especially in certain sectors, such as food and on-demand public services.

It is now accepted that the introduction of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins in some states has contributed to a rise in consumer prices and an implicit, but no less real in relation to purchasing power, overvaluation, beyond the predetermined value in national currency. As such, a research initiative in this regard, which is also necessary in view of possible coordination with the European Central Bank and national bank authorities, will certainly be very useful in devising internal market recovery strategies in the states most affected by the crisis.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – For once, the Commission seems to have the right idea about the euro – mint fewer coins. Perhaps the Commission should instead consider the possibility that the euro itself may soon become a commemorative coin symbolising the failures of an ideologically bereft supra-national organisation that fell apart. It is likely that within a year, certain Member States may have returned to their own currencies, thus rendering their nation-specific denomination of the euro eventually invalid. I would wholeheartedly implore that such countries do not mint any commemorative coins and seek to mint nationally-determined currencies instead.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved and increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the issuance of euro coins. Although issuing EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes would reduce the number of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins in circulation, the use of such banknotes would, at the same time, also benefit Member States. Issuing EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes would increase the manageability and acceptance of the currency and have a positive influence on European tourism without diminishing the value of the other euro coins intended for circulation. Issuing EUR 1 and EUR 2 banknotes would also increase the value of euro collector coins. Reducing the number of commemorative coins in circulation will simplify the administrative procedures involved, not to mention, by virtue of their greater scarcity, increase the value of each commemorative coin.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it makes proposals aimed at optimising the euro. I think the issuance of EUR 1 and EUR 2 notes would be positive: first, it would make collector euro coins more valuable and, second, it would make the currency more manageable and widely accepted, which could have a positive effect on European tourism.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I would congratulate the rapporteur on his work. I entirely support his position on the need to optimise the euro and cut administrative costs.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report states that ‘the lack of mandatory provisions for issuance of euro coins may result in different practices among Member States and does not achieve a sufficiently integrated framework for the single currency’. It also claims that, for the purposes of transparency and legal certainty, binding rules on the issuance of euro coins need to be introduced. Amongst other things, it proposes differentiation between circulation coins and collector coins, which are not, by definition, issued with a view to entering circulation, although they can be brought into circulation at their face value or at a higher value. It proposes that collector coins become legal tender in all Member States and not just their country of issue. Despite the relevance of some of the report’s provisions, we have doubts about others, such as the proposal of questioning the continued issuance of 1 cent and 2 cent coins.