Пълен протокол на разискванията

Четвъртък, 13 декември 2012 г. - Страсбург

8. Многогодишна рамкова програма за Агенцията на ЕС за основните права (разискване)

  El Presidente. − El primer punto en el orden del día es el debate sobre la recomendación de Tatjana Ždanoka, en nombre de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, sobre el proyecto de Decisión del Consejo por la que se establece un marco plurianual para el período 2013-2017 para la Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea (10449/2012 - C7-0169/2012 - 2011/0431(APP)) (A7-0361/2012)).

  Tatjana Ždanoka, rapporteur. − Mr President, the proposal for a Council decision that we are discussing today seeks to establish the Multiannual Framework for the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) for the next five years, as required by the regulation establishing FRA. The Commission, when preparing the proposal, in comparison with the framework currently in force, expanded the notion of discrimination, excluded citizens’ participation, but included Roma integration, as well as police and judicial cooperation. However, the Council excluded police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

My position as rapporteur is that the Multiannual Framework for FRA for the next five years could and should be formulated better. I agree with the FRA management board and a number of human rights NGOs that FRA’s area of work should explicitly encompass social rights. Also, the thematic area concerning Roma integration should preferably be reformulated. The concept of multiple discrimination should also be explicitly mentioned and included.

I also deeply regret the lack of agreement in the Council as regards the inclusion of the proposed new thematic areas of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the new Multiannual Financial Framework. Last but not least, I am concerned by the reported attempts of several Member States in the Council to exclude discrimination based on membership of a national minority from the thematic areas. I find such attempts unacceptable.

In other circumstances, I would invite the European Parliament to decline to consent in order to find a better solution. However, FRA needs new thematic areas to work on and ensure continuity in its activities. Unless there is a new Multiannual Framework in place by the beginning of 2013, FRA can only work if there is a specific request from an institution.

Given such considerations, two months ago I suggested that the European Parliament gives its consent to the new Multiannual Framework by the end of this year. This approach was supported by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on 8 November, but the first indications were that FRA would still remain outside the Multiannual Framework, since there is no unanimity in the Council. In the meantime, the United Kingdom has declared in the Council that it, while agreeing on the substance, will use parliamentary scrutiny. It means that the UK parliament will postpone the adoption of the mandate formally for several months, at least until April.

To our regret, we do not have the Cyprus Presidency with us today. This Monday I had a bilateral meeting with Mr Loukas Louka, Minister of Justice and Public Order in Cyprus. Thanks to my insistent request made during this conversation that we be provided with a written declaration, we now have the letter of Mr Loukas Louka sent on Tuesday to the LIBE Chair, which says, and I quote: ‘The Presidency proposed to the Council to address a request to the Agency to proceed in implementation of its current annual work programme 2013 while waiting for the adoption of the new Multiannual Framework’. So, this is a request. Therefore, I hope that FRA will work on a request of the Council.

In this situation, and while still following the consultations with shadows, I have nevertheless decided to propose that Parliament gives its consent today, in order to demonstrate that only one of two co-legislators must be held liable for the failure to guarantee the full working capacities of the Fundamental Rights Agency in a timely manner.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, let me first thank Ms Ždanoka for proposing that Parliament gives its consent to the draft Multiannual Framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency on the basis of the draft agreed by the Council. I appreciate also the remarks made by the rapporteur to the effect that, while the situation is far from excellent, it would be better to accept it. We know that the Fundamental Rights Agency plays an invaluable role in gathering comparative data, and we need such data as evidence to underpin our policies in the field of fundamental rights. So we need the agency to be able to continue its work.

Let me cite two examples that show how the agency has innovated in order to help us to carry out very far-reaching legislative or decision-making work at the level of the institutions.

Firstly, the agency played a crucial role in underpinning the effectiveness of our policies in relation to the Roma minority. In 2012 the agency adopted a Roma multiannual programme running up to 2020. It will provide us with the information we need to assess whether the Member States’ efforts to integrate the Roma population bring about real change in the daily life of the Roma in terms of education, housing, health and employment. We need this information in order to take the next steps required.

Another example has been the agency’s work on access to justice and the survey on the perception of discrimination and hate crimes against LGTB people that the agency is conducting at the request of the Commission. It plans to publish the results of the survey in 2013. These are only some examples of the very valuable work the agency conducts. They show why we need it to continue and why its work should not be interrupted.

Besides these very concrete actions, the agency also builds up strong methodologies and insights concerning the exchange of experiences and the identification of best practices. So all this is needed but unfortunately, as the rapporteur has already said, the good work of the agency is being jeopardised, as the Council will not be in a position to adopt the Multiannual Framework for the agency by the end of December this year, as required by Union law.

We all knew about this deadline and we have put a lot of intense effort into working with the Council. That is also the reason why there has been this concession to the Council, which means that the agency will not be able to initiate work on police or judicial cooperation on criminal matters on its own initiative under the new Multiannual Framework. It can only work in this field if there is a request from Parliament, from the Council or from the Commission.

I really regret this solution and I will make a formal declaration to that effect when the proposal is formally approved. Because — and this is a fundamental point — we cannot ignore the fact that we have a new Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon, with all its consequences. We do not have a pillar structure any more; there is only one European law. The Fundamental Rights Agency needs to be able to collect data on fundamental rights in a comparable manner, including in the old ‘third pillar’ domains of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. But, as you know, when you have a unanimity rule you are blocked. There was no other option: to arrive at unanimity, concessions had to be made.

Despite all this, one Member State has failed to take the necessary steps that would have ensured that the Multiannual Framework was adopted in time. The Commission regrets this delay because it will have repercussions on the work of the Agency and its staff, which will be in ‘caretaker mode’ as from January. This again shows that the requirement for unanimity is not a great help in our institutional work.

The Commission takes note that the Justice Ministers discussed this issue on 7 December in the Council and that a request has been made to enable the agency to work during the interim period. This is a last-minute ‘patch’; fortunately we have this option, but in any case it is only a temporary solution. Every effort should continue to be made by all the Member States to ensure the swift adoption of the Multiannual Framework as early as possible in 2013. This is the only way to ensure that the agency can work at full speed to contribute to our work on the protection of fundamental rights.

Let me clarify nevertheless for this House that the Multiannual Framework which we are discussing is neither a work programme nor the instrument that establishes the powers and the tasks of the agency. The agency’s work programmes are adopted each year by the management board within the thematic areas determined by the Multiannual Framework.

President, let me conclude by saying that the Commission appreciates the sense of responsibility of the rapporteur and of Parliament.

  Kinga Gál, a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt alelnök asszony, kedves kollégáim! Szeretnék mindenekelőtt gratulálni képviselőtársamnak, Ždanoka asszonynak a jelentéséért, amelyben mind a Parlament, mind az ügynökség érdekeit szem előtt tartva hozta meg döntését, és ezzel a Néppárt is egyetért. Több mint hat évvel ezelőtt abban a szerencsés helyzetben voltam, hogy jelentéstevőként részese lehettem az Alapjogi Ügynökség létrehozásának. Az azóta eltelt időben folyamatosan figyelemmel kísérem az ügynökség munkáját, amely minden kétséget kizáróan elengedhetetlen segítőjévé vált munkánknak, a miénknek is itt a Parlamentben, és ahogy látjuk, a Bizottságénak is.

Öt éve éppen az ügynökség első keretprogramjáról volt vita ebben a Házban. Az akkori vitában azzal érveltünk, hogy az ügynökség mandátumának kidolgozásában egyforma súllyal kell részt vennie az Unió mindhárom intézményének, tehát a Parlamentnek is. Sajnáljuk, hogy most is, az Európai Parlament nem tudott részletesebben belefolyni a mostani tárgyalásokba, viszont fontosnak tartjuk, hogy a Lisszaboni Szerződés életbelépése után három évvel, végre az ügynökség is mihamarabb egy posztlisszaboni státuszba léphessen. A Parlament nem kíván akadálya lenni annak, hogy az ügynökség normális ütemben folytathassa munkáját január 1-jét követően, ezért adja beleegyezését az eljárásba. Bízzunk benne, hogy a Tanácsban is minél hamarabb elgördül az akadály az elől, hogy kiterjeszthessék az ügynökség mandátumát a rendőri és igazságügyi együttműködés területére is. Reméljük, hogy a ciprusi elnökség által javasolt áthidaló megoldás csak ideiglenes intézkedés, és a mandátuma ennek az ügynökségnek végre kiterjedhet a rendőrségi és igazságügyi együttműködésre. Annak ellenére úgy gondoljuk, hogy ez a megoldás hozzájárulhat ahhoz, hogy az ügynökség munkájának folytonossága biztosítva legyen. Ebben kérem az Önök támogatását, hogy adjuk meg ezt a rábólintását az Európai Parlamentnek, illetve kérem a tagállamok támogatását is.

  Anna Hedh, för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att tacka föredraganden, Tatjana Ždanoka, för ett utmärkt och inkluderande samarbete. EU:s byrå för grundläggande rättigheter är ett oerhört viktigt verktyg för oss som står upp för EU:s medborgares rättigheter – och inte bara för en gemensam inre marknad. Genom sina expertkunskaper och väl underbyggda rapporter och analyser av lagförslag bidrar byrån oerhört mycket till vårt lagstiftningsarbete och i förlängningen till ett EU där de grundläggande rättigheterna betyder någonting i praktiken. Bara genom att samla in oberoende kunskap kan vi jobba mot alla de överträdelser som faktiskt sker i EU. Detta betänkande om ett flerårigt ramprogram för byrån för grundläggande rättigheter som kommer att styra byråns arbete 2013–2017 är därför oerhört viktigt.

Ett stort problem för min politiska grupp har varit att polissamarbetet och samarbetet i straffrättsliga frågor som efter Lissabonfördragets ikraftträdande har blivit en del av EU:s politik inte uttryckligen omfattas av byråns mandat. Detta betyder att vi inte kan dra nytta av byråns hjälp i det ofta känsliga arbete som rör detta område. Motståndet från medlemsstaterna är beklagligt.

S&D-gruppen ville ursprungligen inte godkänna en överenskommelse om ett flerårigt ramprogram som inte innehåller polissamarbete. Då detta emellertid skulle kunna innebära att byrån står utan mandat efter årsskiftet, valde vi trots allt att godkänna betänkandet.

Jag kan samtidigt inte dölja att jag finner det oerhört beklagligt att ministerrådet inte klarar av att slutföra sitt arbete i tid. Jag vill särskilt rikta en uppmaning till de medlemsstater som försöker förhindra ett långtgående mandat för byrån och för de grundläggande rättigheterna att tänka om och visa mer ansvar för sina medborgares rättigheter.

  Nathalie Griesbeck, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, en ouverture de session, vous avez rappelé qu'il y avait beaucoup de dames dans la salle – je suis la énième à prendre la parole – il y a aussi quelques hommes. C'était un peu la même chose hier soir, fort tard, lors du débat sur la Syrie.

Venons-en au sujet. Nous avons décidé, au sein de mon groupe parlementaire, de voter contre ce projet de décision du Conseil sur le mandat pluriannuel de l'Agence des droits fondamentaux parce qu'il exclut la coopération policière et la justice criminelle du mandat de l'Agence.

Je veux dire clairement que nous voulons une politique européenne qui soit puissante sur les droits de l'homme et qui soit à la hauteur du prix Nobel que nous venons de recevoir, une politique puissante qui a accordé à l'Agence des pouvoirs accrus de vigilance et de sanctions. Dans ce cadre, l'Agence des droits doit être encore plus indépendante pour contrôler et dénoncer, le cas échéant, les actions de l'Europe ou des États membres qui violent les droits de l'homme.

L'Agence fait un excellent travail, Madame la Commissaire, vous l'avez rappelé et je vous en remercie, ainsi que pour les propos que vous avez tenus la semaine dernière, lors de la Journée de l'Agence, qui était marquée par votre courage et la clarté de votre position à l'égard de la situation.

Malheureusement, ce qu'on a sur la table, aujourd'hui, est le contraire de tout cela. C'est une sorte de gâteau empoisonné que nous avons du mal à digérer et que nous devrions rejeter. Le Conseil, sur l'insistance de certains États, a décidé de refuser à l'Agence la possibilité de travailler sur ces domaines – l'ancien troisième pilier –, qui est maintenant communautarisé par le traité. En fait, la décision du Conseil est prise en violation des traités et vise le secteur où les droits des citoyens européens sont touchés directement. Tout cela nous préoccupe sérieusement, comme l'ont rappelé les collègues. Le comble, à mes yeux, étant que certains États – dont le Royaume-Uni – aient soulevé des réserves parlementaires qui empêchent l'entrée en vigueur du mandat à partir du mois de janvier 2013, réserves qui seront soulevées au printemps. L'Agence n'aura donc pas de mandat de travail pendant plusieurs mois. Pour éviter tout cela, le Conseil va donc approuver des conclusions, qui constituent une sorte de stratagème de légalité "douteuse" pour permettre à l'Agence de travailler de janvier jusqu'en avril.

Madame Reding, vous venez de critiquer l'attitude de certains États qui bloquent les principaux dossiers européens qui touchent les droits de l'homme, comme d'autres dossiers, ainsi que l'adhésion à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. À quelques jours aussi de la Journée mondiale des droits de l'homme, permettez-moi de demander: "est-ce ainsi que l'Europe envisage de faire face aux défis populistes, racistes, partisans, qui frappent nos démocraties et nos États de droit?".

En tant que Parlement, nous souhaitons rejeter cet imbroglio dans lequel le Conseil nous a piégés. En tant que groupe, nous en appelons, premièrement, au Conseil pour qu'il revoie son projet de décision pour le rendre conforme aux traités et, deuxièmement, Madame la Commissaire, nous comptons sur vous pour que vous proposiez, dans les mois à venir, une révision du règlement de l'Agence pour la renforcer, la rendre encore davantage indépendante – est-ce parce qu'elle est efficace qu'elle fait peur aux États membres? – et que nous parvenions à développer une politique européenne puissante et forte sur les droits de l'homme, qui respecte la démocratie et l'état de droit en Europe.

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, dank aan collega Tatjana Ždanoka, die een ongelooflijk ingewikkelde strategische afweging moet maken. Laat ik even met u terugblikken op deze week: maandag nam de heer Van Rompuy de Nobelprijs voor de vrede in ontvangst, samen met de heer Schulz en de heer Barroso, dinsdagavond debatteerden we over de staat van de mensenrechten in de Europese Unie in 2010 en 2011, woensdagochtend hebben wij hier een ceremonie gehad om te vieren dat de Europese Unie de Nobelprijs voor de vrede heeft gekregen, woensdagmiddag hadden we hier de vertegenwoordigers van de winnaars van de Sacharov-prijs, woensdagavond mochten we hier spreken over het mensenrechtenniveau in de rest van de wereld, en vandaag staan we hier te praten over de werkzaamheden van het Bureau voor de grondrechten.

We hebben de hele week over mensenrechten gesproken, soms was het een genoegen, maar soms was het om te huilen. Dat is het nu dus! Want hoe is het toch mogelijk dat we, waar het gaat om de mensenrechten in de wereld, met het vingertje kunnen wijzen en heel scherp zijn, maar daar, waar het gaat om de mensenrechten in Europa, door de Raad wordt gezegd dat het best wel een onsje minder kan.

Ik wil graag de heer Schulz citeren, die woensdagochtend hier in de plenaire vergadering het volgende zei: "Vrede begint voor mij bij de afwezigheid van het woord "maar". Democratie is goed, "maar" ..., mensenrechten moeten worden gegarandeerd, "maar" ..., tolerantie is goed, "maar" ..., en hij vervolgt en eindigt met "Dat kan niet". Volgens mij moeten we af van het woord "maar", moeten we wederzijds de mensenrechten respecteren, zonder dat er sprake is van het woord "maar".

Bij het Bureau voor de grondrechten en zijn werkzaamheden voor het komend jaar is er zo'n grote "maar". Ze mogen eigenlijk niets doen wat ze niet gevraagd wordt, maar in hun taakomschrijving zit één cruciaal ding niet, en dat is justitiële samenwerking. Lidstaten willen geen pottenkijkers in hun onderzoek naar strafzaken en in hun manier van het opslaan en uitwisselen van data.

Ik vind dat erg storend, en je ziet wat daar van komt; ik denk aan het Europees aanhoudingsbevel, waarbij burgers van het ene land naar het andere land gebracht worden, vast komen te zitten onder soms verschrikkelijke omstandigheden in voorarrest dat ongelooflijk lang kan duren; vervolgens worden ze voor een rechter gebracht, wellicht voor een vergrijp dat te klein is om zo uit het leven te worden gerukt. Justitiële samenwerking hoort echt onderdeel te zijn van de onderzoeksmogelijkheden van het Bureau voor de grondrechten. Zolang dat niet gebeurt, zijn we eigenlijk bezig met wegkijken en zeggen: "ja, maar met de lidstaten en hun strafzaken zit het allemaal wel goed" of "we vinden eigenlijk dat de mensenrechten daar wat minder gelden".

Ik denk dat dit Parlement zijn rug recht hoort te houden. Het is verstandig dat wij nu tóch instemmen. Wij houden daarmee onze rug recht, maar ik zou wel in herinnering willen brengen dat het debat wat we deze week hebben gehad over de staat van de mensenrechten in Europa de afgelopen jaren een politiek tintje heeft gekregen; ik vraag mij af of dat wel de juiste weg is.

  El Presidente. − Veo que el señor Zijlstra desea realizar una pregunta a la señora Sargentini con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul», pero está inscrito en la lista para intervenir luego, así que si hace una pregunta ahora pierde su turno para intervenir más adelante y me figuro que no quiere perder ese turno.

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the Fundamental Rights Agency is of course one of those agencies on which my group has certain mixed feelings. On the one hand, it does valuable work in collecting and disseminating data on topics relating to fundamental rights but, on the other hand, it sometimes doubles up on the work the Commission is already doing. It also has a tendency to push out the boundaries of its areas of work instead of remaining focused on the basic criteria under which it was established.

However, my group much appreciates the work of the agency, particularly in areas such as the rights of the child, victims’ rights, discrimination and intolerance. What we do not really appreciate is the determination by the agency, the Commission and sometimes colleagues here in Parliament, to expand the work into the very sensitive areas of police and judicial cooperation. We believe the Member States should be the main drivers of cooperation and collaboration in those areas, and of course they should also have their own fundamental rights watchdogs in place in the Member States.

As a UK Conservative, I can say that my government generally supports the deal that is now on the table, but owing to constitutional and legal requirements we are required to go through a parliamentary scrutiny procedure before confirming our support. I have heard other speakers referring to that fact. It is a necessary requirement in the UK. I do, however, hope that the matter is concluded successfully and in the meantime I would like to thank the Commissioner in particular for her work in this general area and for the remarks that she has made to us this morning.

  John Bufton, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I staunchly advocate the need for a society built upon tolerance and equality, yet what we have here in the form of the Fundamental Rights Agency is a wasteful, unnecessary and fraudulent operation which undermines the very objectives it purports to represent.

In 2004, a study carried out by the agency’s predecessor on anti-Semitism in Europe seriously massaged statistics to suggest that white nationalists, rather than Muslim youths, were the main perpetrators of anti-Jewish racist incidents, a ploy that the President of the European Jewish Congress, Cobi Benatoff, attacked as intellectual dishonesty and moral treachery. A recent study on homophobia, costing EUR 370 000, did not even have a mechanism to verify responses and, as such, could not deliver any conclusive report on attitudes and trends in Europe.

The Agency costs GBP 20 million a year, an utterly ridiculous amount of money when in the UK we have our well-functioning Equality and Human Rights Commission. Even Amnesty International has been a critic of the Fundamental Rights Agency, which largely duplicates the work of extant organisations and, where it does carry out independent research, has demonstrated that the research is subject to such manipulation it is actually of detriment to honest efforts to protect fundamental rights.

  El Presidente. − Veo que hay una solicitud del señor Tannock para formular una pregunta al señor Bufton con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul».

Señor Tannock, si hace usted esta pregunta, pierde su turno para intervenir luego como orador con el tiempo que le corresponde de un minuto y medio. Quiero hacérselo notar porque probablemente le interese más intervenir luego que no hacer la pregunta ahora.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I have to say that I was not aware that there is a rule that you lose your speaking time if you ask a question. It seems to be contrary to the spirit of parliamentary debate. However, if that is the case, I will resile on this request to pose a question to Mr Bufton because he used the word ‘fraudulent’, which I thought was slightly over the top. But I will speak in my due turn.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). - Voorzitter, we hebben het vandaag over het werkprogramma van het Bureau van de Europese Unie voor de grondrechten. Dat bureau verleent bijstand en expertise op het gebied van grondrechten aan de instellingen van de Unie en de lidstaten. Maar om een lidstaat van de Unie te mogen zijn, moet een staat al stabiele instellingen hebben, en die moeten waarborgen bieden op het gebied van de democratie, de rechtsstaat, de mensenrechten, de eerbiediging van minderheden en hun bescherming.

De lidstaten kennen deze grondrechten dus al lang, anders waren ze geen lid van de Unie. Daarmee is dit bureau dus volledig overbodig. Het bureau wordt vooral gebruikt als symbool van de Europese moraal; dan kunnen wij aan de rest van de wereld laten zien hoe hoog wij de mensenrechten in het vaandel hebben, hoe geweldig goed wij het toch doen op dit oude continent. Maar de reclamezuil moet wel wat te doen hebben, en daarom kwam het bureau met het plan om van gratis gezondheidszorg voor illegalen een plicht van de lidstaten te maken. Er worden steeds nieuwe grondrechten verzonnen.

Voorzitter, échte grondrechten zijn het recht van vereniging, van drukpers, de vrijheid van meningsuiting, maar daar is dit Europees Parlement helemaal geen voorstander van. Onze Voorzitter Schulz veroordeelde laatst hier nog de verspreiding van een film. Grondrechten worden hier niet serieus genomen en worden slechts als politiek speelgoed gebruikt. Het bureau bestaat alleen ter meerdere eer en glorie van de moraalridders in het Europees Parlement en daarom vind ik dat het bureau opgeheven zou moeten worden. Dat scheelt geld en ergernis.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, Senhora Vice-Presidente Reding, Senhoras e Senhores deputados, a agência dos direitos fundamentais tem vindo desde 2007 a contribuir de forma significativa para o reforço da proteção dos direitos fundamentais e para aumentar a coerência e a coesão da política da União Europeia em matéria de direitos humanos. Ao contrário de outras vozes que se pronunciaram desvalorizando a intervenção desta agência, eu quero sublinhar o seu papel muito positivo. O primeiro quadro plurianual da agência deverá terminar no final de 2012, sendo no âmbito deste quadro que se estabelecem os domínios temáticos que deverão nortear a atividade da agência. A título excecional, a agência pode desenvolver atividades fora desses domínios temáticos desde que os seus recursos financeiros e humanos o permitam. Ora, o Parlamento Europeu nos últimos anos tem vindo insistentemente a solicitar um reforço dos poderes e do orçamento desta agência, pelo que saudamos a proposta que nos foi apresentada pela Comissão relativamente ao novo quadro plurianual entre 2013 e 2017. A Comissão propôs, e bem, que se alargassem os domínios temáticos à cooperação policial e judiciária que, como sabemos, é uma área extremamente sensível no que diz respeito aos direitos humanos.

Tal como a Comissária Reding, lamento que o Conselho tenha colocado tantos entraves a este reforço da proteção dos direitos fundamentais da União Europeia, nomeadamente a inclusão da proteção policial e judiciária. Concordo com a nossa colega Tatjana Ždanoka, que aproveito para cumprimentar pelo seu excelente trabalho, no sentido de não podermos esperar de forma a tentar alcançar o melhor compromisso, porque isso iria colocar em causa a continuidade do trabalho da agência. Lamento também que, uma vez mais, assistamos ao nonsense da regra da unanimidade. Neste caso foi o Reino Unido que recusou dar o seu voto e, ao fazer isso, bloqueou a aprovação do novo quadro plurianual pondo em risco a continuidade do trabalho da agência. O mesmo Reino Unido que, em matérias orçamentais e na área da justiça e dos assuntos internos, tem revelado um nefasto protagonismo anti-europeu.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Die Tätigkeit der Grundrechteagentur sollte unbestritten sein. Ohne deren Existenz wäre es nur schwer möglich, eine Evaluierung der in der Charta und anderen verbindlichen Dokumenten festgeschriebenen Rechte vorzunehmen. Darüber hinaus hat sie auch die Funktion, immer wieder die Beachtung und Einhaltung von Grundrechten anzumahnen. Menschenrechte sind unteilbar und allgemein gültig. Die Menschen in Europa brauchen Sicherheit, dass sie sich unbeschadet ihrer individuellen Eigenart in allen Mitgliedstaaten und in allen Lebenssituationen darauf verlassen können.

Der Mehrjahresrahmen für die Grundrechteagentur ist daher grundsätzlich zu begrüßen, denn er ist notwendig. Es verwundert freilich, dass der Rat nicht dem Vorschlag der Kommission gefolgt ist, in dem Bereich der Agentur auch die justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen festzulegen, wie es eigentlich dem Vertrag von Lissabon entsprechen würde. Strafsachen sind nach Auffassung des Rates explizit vom Tätigkeitsbereich ausgenommen. Damit erhält die Agentur keine Möglichkeit, von sich aus in so wichtigen Bereichen wie bei der Einhaltung der Menschenrechte bei Strafverfolgungsverfahren, bei Gerichtsverfahren und im Strafvollzug Anklage zu erheben.

Die Beachtung von Menschenrechten muss für alle Behörden, die für die Einhaltung der Gesetze zuständig sind, also auch für Polizei und Justiz gelten, vor allem der Schutz persönlicher Daten muss in diesem Zusammenhang garantiert sein. Der Schutz persönlicher Daten ist eine der Grundrechtsfragen des 21. Jahrhunderts.

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). - Enako kot poročevalka v senci naše poslanske skupine, kolegica Griesbeck, želim poudariti, da smo zainteresirani za učinkovito delo Agencije za temeljne pravice, da pa imamo resen problem podpreti projekt, ki že vnaprej izključuje sodelovanje policije in pravosodnih organov iz mandata te agencije.

S tem ko je Svet podlegel restriktivnim zahtevam nekaterih držav članic, delamo iz agencije, ki naj bi svetovala, kako v največji meri zagotoviti usklajeno in odločno zaščito načel in vrednot, na katerih počiva Evropska unija, tigra brez zob.

Pričakujem torej, da bosta Svet in Komisija pripravila revidiran predlog večletnega okvirja, ki bo takšen, da ne bo samo zagotovil agenciji kontinuirano delo, ampak ji dal status, ki bo jamčil neodvisen in... od politik držav članic neodvisen status.

Dovolite mi, spoštovani kolegi, da se zahvalim poročevalki in pri tem poudarim, da je agencija v prvem obdobju svojega dela dokazala, da takšno ustanovo potrebujemo, saj nudi zaščito najobčutljivejšemu delu evropskega prebivalstva.

Izkoristil bom tudi to priložnost in spomnil na konferenco v Evropskem parlamentu na evropski dan invalidov, 3. decembra, ko so se na nas obrnili z zahtevo, da na ravni Evropske unije bolj natančno in obvezujoče uskladimo zakonodajo, ki bo omogočila vključitev teh ljudi v polno veljavno zasebno in profesionalno življenje.

Ob koncu bi se rad pridružil kritičnemu mnenju poročevalke do poskusov izključevanja skrbi za narodnostne manjšine iz mandata agencije.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the EU Agency on Fundamental Rights is something whose necessity – particularly at a time of economic austerity – and value added I remain sceptical about, given the overlapping roles of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the OSCE, etc. I nevertheless support the agency’s efforts to improve the lives of ordinary citizens by combating discrimination and promoting human rights.

It is clear that a mandate has been provided to tackle, amongst other things, racism, homophobia, violence against women and children: issues which continue to blight the lives of far too many people within the Union. I also fully sign up to the new proposals to extend the remit to Roma integration, particularly given the long history on our continent of persecution and marginalisation of that community. Even now the Roma are treated as second-class citizens by many states and anything that can be done to improve their social and economic position is much to be welcomed.

In addition, unlike many speakers, I support the Council’s veto regarding the agency’s right to meddle in police and judicial cooperation matters, which are far better dealt with elsewhere.

So whilst I maintain considerable reservations about the functionality of the agency, particularly against the backdrop of the current financial crisis and the need to economise, I welcome its new mandate and look forward to assessing its progress in the coming years. Over this period it must meet the challenges of rights and liberties in an increasingly globalised world, where the EU is rightly held to its highest standards.

  Frank Vanhecke (EFD). - Voorzitter, een fundamentele vaststelling. Ik denk dat het Bureau voor de grondrechten een van die Europese instellingen is die compleet overbodig zijn en dus maar het best meteen kunnen worden opgedoekt; een mooie besparing van een kleine 25 miljoen euro per jaar. De relevantie van deze opvolger van het toch beruchte Europees Waarnemingscentrum voor racisme en vreemdelingenhaat, destijds opgericht als een soort antidemocratische reactie op het succes van identitaire en eurokritische partijen in Europa, is mij eigenlijk een raadsel.

Zulke instellingen bestaan al - ruim gesubsidieerd - in al onze lidstaten. Zelfs voor mensen die dit nuttig werk vinden - waar ik niet toe behoor - moet het toch stilaan een beetje te veel van het goede worden. Wat ik denk is dat het in deze instellingen meestal niet gaat over de bestrijding van echt racisme of echte xenofobie, maar dat dit slechts een mom is om de zeer reëel bestaande immigratieproblemen onder de mat te vegen en de vrije meningsuiting daarover te kortwieken.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Bereits als die Europäische Stelle zur Beobachtung von Rassismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit zur Grundrechtsagentur ausgebaut wurde, war ja klar, dass es gewisse Überschneidungen in der Aufgabenstellung gibt. Nicht zuletzt sind ja etwa auch der Europarat und die OSZE für Menschenrechte zuständig.

Für den Steuerzahler ist es heute sicher unverständlich, dass etwa der im Sommer 2012 eingesetzte Sonderbeauftragte für Menschenrechte und der Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarates genau dieselbe Arbeit machen sollen. Aufgrund dieser Doppelgleisigkeiten werden die Steuerzahler in Zeiten, in denen quer durch Europa Sparpakete geschnürt werden müssen, nur schwer verstehen, warum die Grundrechtsagentur allein im Jahre 2012 mit einem Budget von 20 Millionen Euro ausgestattet ist, zumal sich diese EU-Einrichtung entgegen ihrem Namen weniger um den Schutz der Grundrechte kümmert, sondern vielmehr um die politisch-korrekte Bespitzelung kritischer Bürger sowie um Lobbying für Zuwanderer aus der dritten Welt und für obskure Randgruppen.

Deshalb ist es meines Erachtens höchste Zeit, dass nicht nur der Subventionsdschungel der Europäischen Union durchforstet wird, sondern vor allem auch der bei den verschiedenen EU-Agenturen. Dazu zählt insbesondere diese EU-Grundrechtsagentur, die auf ihre Sinnhaftigkeit überprüft werden sollte.

Der durch das Ansichreißen immer neuer Zuständigkeiten sowie durch die Gründung fragwürdiger EU-Einrichtungen entstehende stetig wachsende Finanzbedarf der EU muss endlich eingebremst werden, allzumal in Zeiten der Krise.

  Hubert Pirker (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Frau Vizepräsidentin, Sie haben gemeint, die Arbeit der Menschenrechtsagentur sei gefährdet, weil der Rat den Arbeitsplan nicht rechtzeitig verabschiedet hat. Ich glaube, die Arbeit der Agentur ist vielmehr dadurch gefährdet, dass es gravierende Mängel im Management dieser Agentur gibt.

Ich verweise nur darauf, dass das Europäische Parlament im Zusammenhang mit dem Entlastungsbeschluss die Agentur nachdrücklich aufgefordert hat, die Planung des Haushaltsvollzugs zu verbessern, nachdem es eine Mittelübertragung von fast 7 Millionen gegeben hat und es bei den Einstellungsverfahren äußerst große Probleme gegeben hat – es konnten lediglich 59 der notwendigen 72 Stellen besetzt werden.

Besonders interessant sind die Haushaltsentwicklung dieser Agentur ebenso wie die Personalentwicklung der Agentur über die Jahre. Das Budget hat sich innerhalb von 4 Jahren um 117 % auf derzeit 20 Millionen erhöht, allein vom Jahr 2009 auf das Jahr 2010 um über 17 %. Besonders dramatisch finde ich, dass von diesem Budget von 20 Millionen zwei Drittel für den Bereich der Verwaltung verbraucht werden und nur ein Drittel für operative Aufgabenstellungen eingesetzt werden.

Und sieht man sich die Personalentwicklung an, dann hat sich das Personal in dieser Agentur innerhalb von vier Jahren verdreifacht. Daher ersuche ich die Kommission dringend – und ich empfehle es auch dringend –, die Agentur genau auf ihre Effizienz hin zu überprüfen, das Budget, die Budgetverwaltung zu überprüfen und auch die Personalverwaltung zu kontrollieren, bevor es weitere Beschlüsse über die Jahresplanung und über das Budget gibt.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Działalność agencji, o której mówimy, jest ściśle związana z Kartą Praw Podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Mam przed sobą bardzo ważny, nawet powiem – kluczowy – w moim przekonaniu fragment art. 11.: „Każdy ma prawo do wolności wypowiedzi. (...).” Cytuję Kartę praw podstawowych w tej debacie, dedykując to rządowi mojego kraju, który jej nie ratyfikował. Miał do tego pełne prawo, ale brak ratyfikacji Karty przełożył się na brak respektowania wolności wypowiedzi w moim kraju i zwalnianie dziennikarzy. Ta sytuacja jest absolutnie nie do przyjęcia. W Polsce jest tłumiona wolność mediów, liczni dziennikarze są wyrzucani z pracy, rząd wpływa na prywatnych właścicieli mediów, zwłaszcza gazet, aby dokonywali takich właśnie zwolnień wśród tych dziennikarzy, którzy krytykują rząd. Chciałem to powiedzieć właśnie dzisiaj, podczas debaty o Agencji Praw Podstawowych.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Európska únia je založená na univerzálnych hodnotách, akými sú ľudské práva a slobody, a aktívne prispieva k ich zachovaniu a rozvoju. Za účelom dodržiavania ľudských práv, ktoré sa stali spoločnou a zdieľanou hodnotou všetkých členských štátov EÚ, bola zriadená aj Agentúra pre základné práva zaoberajúca sa ľudsko-právnou situáciou v 27 štátoch EÚ.

Tu by som chcel podporiť myšlienky, ktoré vyslovil predrečník – kolega Pirker, že na jednej strane máme agentúru, ale musí lepšie fungovať. Nesmie 2/3 svojho rozpočtu dávať len na administratívu a nepoužívať ju na to, na čo bola zriadená. Agentúra EÚ pre základné práva má plniť svoje úlohy výhradne v tematických oblastiach určených vo viacročnom finančnom rámci, a preto má byť viacročný rámec pre agentúru na roky 2013 – 2017 dôkladne formulovaný berúc do úvahy nové práva a povinnosti EÚ vyplývajúce práve z Lisabonskej zmluvy.

Podľa môjho názoru by sa do činnosti agentúry mali vyslovene zahrnúť práva osôb so zdravotným postihnutím, to zdôrazňujem, ktoré vyplývajú z Dohovoru OSN o právach osôb so zdravotným postihnutím, ktorý EÚ ratifikovala v januári 2011. Tento dokument totiž zabezpečuje, aby ľudia so zdravotným postihnutím mohli využívať svoje práva na rovnakom základe ako všetci ostatní občania. Zároveň som naklonený myšlienke, aby boli do viacročného rámca zahrnuté aj nové tematické oblasti, akými sú policajná a súdna spolupráca v trestných veciach, keďže sa na ne už vzťahuje rozsah pôsobnosti agentúry.

A na záver by som rád povedal, že fungovanie a zameranie agentúry musí reflektovať celkové zmeny v legislatíve EÚ. Vykonávanie činnosti agentúry v nových tematických oblastiach tak prispeje k dôkladnej ochrane základných práv v Európskej únii.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, Commissioner, I share your frustration on this issue. As a Member from the United Kingdom, I would like to say to my government that it must make up its mind whether it is in or whether it is out. When it comes to human rights, I believe that it is doing itself enormous damage on the international stage.

I have prepared a speech, but I will disregard it. I would say to those honourable Members who have spoken against this that it is precisely because you are against it that I am in favour of it. What do we have to fear from being held accountable for our human rights record? What do we have to fear from the promotion and the defence of human rights? People in these galleries expect that this Union is a Union based on fundamental values. It was born out of the ashes of the Second World War and a determination that we would never see a repeat of minorities being taken away and scapegoated simply because they were different. Their human rights were trashed.

So let me say to you, with your excuses about budgets, staff, costs, management, administration: Do you know what? You know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Human rights are priceless, and we on this side of the House will vote this through, because a negative vote will do the dirty work of those Member States that want to obstruct this Agency and do not want to be held accountable for their human rights record. Commissioner, I am with you.

  El Presidente. − El señor Pirker ha solicitado formular una pregunta con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul», pero ya ha intervenido antes, así que no le voy a conceder la palabra.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). - Pane předsedající, musím otevřeně říci, že jsem nebyl zastáncem Agentury Evropské unie pro základní práva. Už jenom proto, že v této oblasti dlouhodobě působí Rada Evropy. Tuto organizaci považuji za zbytečnou.

Pokud však nějaké unijní instituce máme, musí se pohybovat v prostředí právní jistoty. Apeluji proto na to, abychom nenapadali rozhodnutí Rady, které usiluje o to, aby rozsah činnosti agentury byl v souladu s principem právní jistoty zakotven jasným a právně nezpochybnitelným způsobem.

Z věcného hlediska bych pak rád dodal, že nevidím žádný důvod pro rozšíření působnosti agentury na oblast policejní spolupráce a justiční spolupráce v trestních věcech. Podle mého názoru již v současnosti v Evropě rozhodně nechybí orgány a mechanismy chránící práva jednotlivce proti zvůli orgánů členských států. Navíc se agentura může i podle dosavadních předpisů věnovat všem aktuálním tématům policejní a justiční spolupráce, pokud ji o názor požádá Rada, Komise nebo Evropský parlament.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario Reding, questa settimana è stata connotata distintamente da ampie riflessioni, dibattiti e voti sulla questione relativa alla tutela dei diritti umani. Non vi è dubbio che vi sia ancor oggi, cara signora Vicepresidente, uno scarto evidente fra la previsione relativa alla tutela dei diritti fondamentali e la loro effettiva protezione. Proprio questo è l'ambito nel quale dovremmo sostanzialmente muoverci.

Questa è una settimana nella quale abbiamo visto fatti importanti, a cominciare dalla consegna del Premio Nobel per la pace. Pace e cultura si sposano concretamente con un'esigenza fondamentale, quella di ampliare i settori tematici dei quali si può occupare l'Agenzia.

Abbiamo preso atto che il Consiglio non era dello stesso avviso rispetto alla cooperazione di polizia e a quella giudiziaria. Riteniamo che, in un momento nel quale il Parlamento europeo decide di istituire la commissione speciale contro le mafie, la corruzione e il riciclaggio, vi sia invece l'esigenza di acquisire anche significative informazioni che l'Agenzia potrebbe dare. Nel contempo, non dobbiamo dimenticare che comunque anche altri comparti sono tenuti in debita considerazione dall'Agenzia, tra cui quello dei disabili, la protezione delle vittime dei reati e ancora il contrasto alla discriminazione di genere, di lingua, di religione e di orientamento sessuale.

Quello che conta oggi più che mai è tuttavia un accesso reale e autentico nei confronti della giustizia, una giustizia che deve coniugarsi con tempi certi e diritti fondamentali che vanno garantiti certamente con i programmi e il lavoro che sono appannaggio dell'Agenzia, ma anche con una cornice di riferimento che è quella sulla quale noi oggi ci stiamo confrontando.

Sono dell'avviso che il lavoro della collega Ždanoka sia da sostenere e per questo ritengo che il Parlamento potrà dare un ulteriore impulso perché anche il tema della cooperazione giudiziaria e di polizia possa finalmente far parte degli ambiti tematici di competenza dell'Agenzia.

  El Presidente. − Señorías, no quiero retirarme sin desearles a todos ustedes y a la Comisaria unas buenas fiestas de fin de año y un año próximo lleno de aciertos y de felicidades, tanto en lo personal como en lo institucional.

Por otra parte, quiero decirles que, como habrán podido comprobar, existe una cierta descoordinación en la interpretación que los Vicepresidentes y el propio Presidente hacemos del uso de los procedimientos de la «tarjeta azul» y de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»). Yo voy a volver a pedir a la Mesa que nos esforcemos por homogeneizar la interpretación de estos dos procedimientos porque esta descoordinación está dando lugar a que haya Vicepresidentes o el propio Presidente que los utilicen de manera muy distinta a como lo hacemos otros, que prestamos mucha atención al uso del tiempo y al tiempo que utiliza cada parlamentario y cada Grupo y, en particular, a aquellos diputados que están en los debates o que no están y solo aparecen para hacer una pregunta o para inscribir su nombre en la lista correspondiente al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»).

Les agradezco asimismo su paciencia y su comprensión en relación con la manera en que he ejercido la Presidencia durante todos estos meses.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΣΤΑΜΚΟΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - Az alapjogok érvényesülésének figyelemmel követése az Európai Unió egyik legfontosabb feladata, az Alapjogi Ügynökség pedig ennek legkiválóbb eszköze.

Amennyiben az EU valóban a szabadságon, a biztonságon és a jog érvényesülésén alapuló térség szeretne lenni, akkor ennek érdekében éppen az alapjogok maradéktalan, minden tagállamban azonos mércék szerinti biztosítása a legfontosabb. Szomorú, hogy az Uniónak számos tekintetben nincsenek meg az eszközei e jogelvek biztosítására, ezért történhet meg az, hogy a tagállamok különbözőképpen viszonyulnak a kérdéshez.

Ha komolyan vesszük az általunk közösen lefektetett szabályokat, akkor léteznie kell egy olyan kényszerítő erőnek – akár Uniós szinten is –, amely lehetővé teszi az alapjogok biztosítását. Olvasva az előadó álláspontját, sajnos nem lepődtem meg azon, hogy a Tanácsban számos tagállam kísérletet tett a nemzeti kisebbségek hátrányos megkülönböztetésére. Néhány tagállam legszívesebben szőnyeg alá söpörné a területén élő nemzeti kisebbségek problémáit. Ennek oka, hogy a mai napig nem biztosított a jogegyenlőség az élet minden területén. Több tagállam távolról sem tett meg mindent a nemzeti kisebbségek jogainak védelmében.

Itt az ideje, hogy ne csak a tagjelöltek esetében kérdezzen rá az EU a kisebbségvédelmi intézkedésekre, hanem a tagállamok esetében is monitorozza a folyamatokat. Ha pedig az uniós polgárok számára ugyanazok az alapjogok biztosítottak, és ezek érvényesülését az Unió garantálja, akkor a nemzeti kisebbségek helyzete nem lehet tagállami belügy.

A nemzeti kisebbségek nem bevándorlók, nem az utóbbi száz év migrációs folyamatainak eredményeképpen alakultak ki, hanem évszázadok óta ugyanazon a területen élő közösségek. Helyzetükre a megoldás ezért az, ami a kontinens többi részén bevált gyakorlatnak minősül: az önkormányzás valamilyen formájának biztosítása a tagállami keretek tiszteletben tartásával.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, intervengo per esprimere il mio apprezzamento per il senso di responsabilità che ha mostrato la collega Ždanoka ai colleghi e a tutti quanti i relatori ombra nel portare comunque a termine il lavoro di questa relazione e chiederne la votazione al Parlamento, pur nella insoddisfazione dichiarata rispetto al mancato ottenimento di un allargamento del mandato – lo chiamo così – per l'Agenzia.

Io ho trovato il dibattito di stamattina in alcune parti eccessivamente fazioso e strumentale. L'Agenzia è un organo di supporto, un organo di assistenza per le istituzioni dell'UE e per gli Stati membri, alla quale questi possono rivolgersi nel momento in cui hanno un problema di applicazione del diritto comunitario in relazione ai diritti fondamentali.

Con Lisbona la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione è diventata parte integrante del materiale trattatizio al quale noi ci dobbiamo ispirare. Questo dato io lo verifico quotidianamente come presidente della commissione per le petizioni, in quanto a me si rivolgono i cittadini chiedendomi di entrare nel merito della correttezza dei comportamenti delle istituzioni per quanto attiene alla pratica e al rispetto dei diritti fondamentali.

Credo che il supporto dell'Agenzia in termini di informazione, di studio e di approfondimento in tutta la gamma dei diritti fondamentali, in cui noi abbiamo iscritto la nostra azione recependo la Carta dei diritti fondamentali, sia importantissimo. Ritengo inoltre che questo mandato, implicitamente contenuto nell'approvazione del piano pluriennale, non possa e non debba intendersi limitativo. Quello a cui noi dovremmo ispirarci è il programma contenuto negli articoli della Carta dei diritti fondamentali.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Vicepresidente della Commissione, oggi si sta sviluppando il classico dibattito che ci anima sempre in situazioni come questa. Rinnovare l'azione di un'agenzia, soprattutto in tempi di crisi come quelli che stiamo attraversando, porta con sé sempre la stessa domanda: è giusto spendere nuove risorse, mantenere strutture sia fisiche che funzionali e stabilizzare vincoli, talvolta ingerenze e conflitti istituzionali? Anche questa mattina ci troviamo a riflettere se rinnovare l'Agenzia dell'Unione europea per i diritti fondamentali per il prossimo quadro pluriennale e se questo sia giusto oppure no.

Una cosa con certezza la possiamo però dire: la cooperazione giudiziaria che questa Agenzia determina è cosa buona e giusta, soprattutto nel campo dei diritti fondamentali che sono così sensibili per le nostre istituzioni europee. Inoltre, con tutta evidenza, non ci possiamo permettere di bloccare il quadro pluriennale rischiando di fermare o comunque limitare l'operato di un istituto che interviene nell'ambito del razzismo, della tutela dei minori, dell'asilo e contro discriminazioni di ogni genere per la tutela della giustizia e la partecipazione dei cittadini. Sono temi troppo importanti e che ci stanno a cuore per fermarli e per non dare il nostro assenso.

So che in molti Stati membri esistono istituzioni o agenzie che funzionano molto bene e che hanno lo stesso campo di azione, ma lo scopo dell'Agenzia europea è proprio quello di poter coordinare il meglio di quanto accade nei nostri Stati membri e migliorare le lacune esistenti, è la possibilità di comparare dati e di vedere come globalmente si sviluppano alcuni fenomeni per poter dare delle risposte con conseguenti politiche adeguate. Certo, questo ha un costo, ma cosa non ce l'ha? Probabilmente alcuni costi vanno razionalizzati, ma penso sia davvero importante andare avanti e valutare poi con serenità i risultati.

  Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, fundamental values and rights are indivisible. They are the constitutional foundations on which our societies and our Europe base themselves. They should be the compass for all our actions at regional, national and European levels. They should be the compass for respecting the rights of all our citizens in all policy domains – social, economic and security.

The discussions in the Council have shown that certain Member States oppose the inclusion of the former third pillar areas, which no longer exist, in the FRA’s Multiannual Framework as a matter of principle. Their position would be the same if we had put forward a proposal to modify the FRA regulation, and that is why I am convinced that it is unnecessary and even counterproductive.

I would like, as a principle, and as a message to those Member States and to some Members of this House, to underline the following. We cannot ignore the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. Perhaps, during the Christmas break, reading our treaties and fundamental texts would help some Ministers and some Members of Parliament to understand the context and the significance of the basic rules on which our common fate is based.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, rapporteur. − Mr President, I am very grateful to Mrs Reding for her statement. I would like to repeat the excellent words of Mr Cashman, that human rights are priceless. I would also like to congratulate you all – including also Mr Kjaerum, Director of the Fundamental Rights Agency, and his staff – on the 64th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we celebrated three days ago. By the way, we also celebrated in Latvia the 20th anniversary of an NGO which I created called the Latvian Human Rights Committee.

I also hope, Mrs Reding, that the Commission will evaluate in 2013 the tasks, areas of activities and working methods of FRA. I very much hope that FRA will work on new elements of the Lisbon Treaty, such as police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, not only on request, but also by having it in the new multiannual framework, which can be revised with also revision of the regulation on FRA.

I must also thank all the shadow rapporteurs for your work, although the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs decided not to support our stance to give consent. Some speakers – Mr Kirkhope and Mr Tannock – are not here but their speeches just proved my assumption that the real reason for using parliamentary scrutiny in the House of Commons is not a procedural one, but just a political one.

Once more thanks to all of us, and I hope that the Parliament will give its consent to the multiannual framework of FRA today.

  Πρόεδρος. - Η συζήτηση έληξε.

Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί σήμερα, Πέμπτη 13 Δεκεμβρίου, στις 12 το μεσημέρι.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), na piśmie. – Pomimo ogólnego poparcia dla projektu Rady w sprawie wieloletnich ram dla Agencji Praw Podstawowych UE szczególnie niepokojący jest brak uwzględnienia wśród priorytetów prac Agencji współpracy policyjnej i współpracy wymiarów sprawiedliwości w sprawach karnych. Wraz z wejściem w życie Traktatu z Lizbony obszary te stały się częścią prawodawstwa UE i w związku z tym powinny znaleźć się w zakresie prac Agencji. Prowadząc działalność w obszarach współpracy wymiarów sprawiedliwości w sprawach karnych i współpracy policyjnej, Agencja przyczynia się do realizacji celu Unii, jakim jest zapewnienie zgodności przyjmowanych środków oraz ich wykonania z Kartą praw podstawowych. Wiążący prawnie charakter Karty praw podstawowych oraz zniesienie dawnej struktury 3 filarów stanowią dodatkowy argument za ponownym włączeniem tych obszarów do zakresu działania Agencji.

Moje dzisiejsze poparcie dla tego projektu wynika z troski o zapewnienie ciągłości prac Agencji. Jednocześnie zgodnie z rekomendacją Parlamentu uważam, że Komisja powinna jak najszybciej dokonać przeglądu zakresu prac Agencji i zaproponować w przyszłym roku jego rozszerzenie o wyżej wymienione kwestie. Liczę, że Rada, zgodnie z literą prawa, zgodzi się ponownie uwzględnić te dziedziny w zakresie prac Agencji.