Index 
 Vorige 
 Volgende 
 Volledige tekst 
Volledig verslag van de vergaderingen
Dinsdag 21 mei 2013 - Straatsburg Herziene uitgave

14. Tenuitvoerlegging van het Programma van Stockholm en totstandbrenging van de ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid (debat)
Video van de redevoeringen
Notulen
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über

– die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an den Rat über die Umsetzung des Programms von Stockholm und des Raums der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts von Klaus-Heiner Lehne im Namen des Rechtsausschusses, von Juan Fernando López Aguilar im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres, und von Carlo Casini im Namen des Ausschusses für konstitutionelle Fragen (2013/2617(RSP)) (O-000046/2013–B7-0202/2013) und

– die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über die Umsetzung des Programms von Stockholm und des Raums der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts von Klaus-Heiner Lehne im Namen des Rechtsausschusses, von Juan Fernando López Aguilar im Namen des Ausschusses für bürgerliche Freiheiten, Justiz und Inneres, und von Carlo Casini im Namen des Ausschusses für konstitutionelle Fragen (2013/2617(RSP)) (O-000047/2013–B7-0203/2013).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Luigi Berlinguer, Autore supplente. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il programma di Stoccolma adottato nel 2010 dal Consiglio europeo è finalizzato a stabilire una serie di obiettivi da conseguire entro la fine del programma nel 2014.

Il Parlamento europeo ha due volte preso posizioni importanti, con le risoluzioni del 25 novembre 2009 e del 23 novembre 2010, e poi la Commissione ha presentato un piano d'azione per l'attuazione. Ora il programma di Stoccolma è giunto alla metà della sua durata e la commissione giuridica e la commissione per libertà civili e gli affari costituzionali hanno deciso di valutare i progressi finora compiuti al fine di identificare i passi ancora da attuare.

Io propongo una questione alla Commissione e una questione anche al Consiglio, che è il motivo dell'interrogazione orale che abbiamo proposto: focalizzare l'attenzione sul problema dell'applicazione concreta della normativa europea. Noi abbiamo prodotto in questi anni un corpus iuris europeo enorme, grandissimo, di rilievo che procede verso l'integrazione dei diritti e del diritto.

Ora, valutare i risultati compiuti non significa soltanto elencare i provvedimenti che abbiamo adottato, le norme scritte nelle leggi o in altre forme normative, ma quanto vada e arrivi ai cittadini di queste novità. Perché sappiamo che solo una piccola parte delle copiose norme prodotte raggiunge i cittadini e questo rischia di vanificare i nostri sforzi perché non permette ai cittadini di goderne. Noi produciamo uno sforzo infinitamente maggiore al suo concreto risultato nella società europea.

Allora, vorremmo avere nella valutazione di questo mid-term review risposte dalla Commissione e dal Consiglio su quali sono le ragioni che hanno portato a questo risultato, che io considero imponente sul piano della produzione normativa e largamente insufficiente sul piano dei suoi effetti pratici, e conoscendo le ragioni o esaminandole insieme vedere quali misure si possono adottare, perché l'ansia del legislatore è produrre norme, ma l'ansia del governante nel pieno senso del termine è produrre risultati in termini di benefici delle norme stesse.

Questo deve influenzare il nostro approccio a quest'attività, particolarmente in Europa dove noi siamo tutti legislatori; anche l'organo esecutivo che ha il monopolio dell'iniziativa legislativa è parte integrante della produzione e quindi può contaminare del suo bisogno di efficacia lo stesso corpo legislativo. Per questo noi chiediamo tutti questi dati e quindi abbiamo il desiderio di conoscere di più il perché abbiamo costituito il programma di Stoccolma e quali risultati dobbiamo conseguire.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Autor. − Señor Presidente, recordemos que el Programa de Estocolmo fue aprobado en diciembre del año 2009 y se trata ahora ―mediada la legislatura, cuando ya hemos sobrepasado el ecuador de este mandato― de evaluar su grado de cumplimiento. Y hemos planteado una pregunta oral con la que pretendemos dirimir dos interrogaciones fundamentales. La primera, ¿cuáles han sido los resultados del Programa hasta la fecha? Y, la segunda, ¿cuáles son los elementos principales que podrían inspirar el programa que suceda al Programa Quinquenal de Estocolmo 2009-2014?

Se trata de asegurar un espacio de libertad, justicia y seguridad ―bien cierto―, pero se trata también de evaluar cuáles han sido las consecuencias hasta la fecha. Hemos visto avances, sin duda, en el ámbito de los derechos procesales de las personas sospechosas o acusadas; hemos visto una negociación prolongada, pero todavía no concluida ―lejos de estar concluida―, para la ratificación del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que afecta a la ciudadanía y a los derechos fundamentales; hemos visto plantearse con toda crudeza el dilema de Copenhague, requisitos de democracia, respeto del Estado de Derecho y de la separación de poderes en el acceso a la Unión, pero, a partir del acceso a la Unión, una relajación de controles con respecto a la garantía de pluralismo democrático, de respeto de los derechos fundamentales, de transparencia en el acceso a los documentos.

Estamos, en estos momentos, debatiendo un ambicioso paquete de protección de datos con dos piezas ―un reglamento y una directiva― que está lejos, también, de ver el punto final.

Hemos visto desafíos en cuanto a la libre circulación de personas, incluso retrocesos planteados por algunos gobiernos de la Unión, que intentan reedificar las fronteras entre los Estados miembros, allí donde los ciudadanos apreciaban la libre circulación como una de las mayores consecuciones del espacio de libertad, justicia y seguridad, incluso de la construcción europea en toda su historia.

Vemos también cómo los avances en materia de seguridad ―proteger mejor a los ciudadanos europeos― plantean desafíos pendientes y hemos visto cómo ha emergido con mucha fuerza, con mucha virulencia, una crisis que no solamente es financiera y económica, sino también política, de legitimación y de liderazgo en la Unión Europea, con un crescendo de los populismos que plantean desafíos crudos a los valores y principios fundacionales de la Unión Europea.

Por eso, es imprescindible una pregunta con respecto al futuro del Programa de Estocolmo: ¿qué podemos hacer para inspirar un programa quinquenal que suceda al Programa de Estocolmo, del mismo modo que, al principio, hubo un Programa de la Haya y antes un Programa de Tampere? ¿Qué programa deberá haber después de Estocolmo para asegurar que el Parlamento Europeo tenga un papel decisivo, tal y como quiere el Tratado de Lisboa?

Tres años después de la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa y tres años después de la aprobación del Programa de Estocolmo es imprescindible, por tanto, ofrecer una respuesta de mayor seguridad para los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos.

Vemos cómo ―incluso todavía hoy― la Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea excluye la evaluación de la cooperación policial y judicial en materia penal. Ese es el objeto de este debate. Queremos conocer la opinión de la Comisión para poder responder a las tres preguntas formuladas en la pregunta oral. Está en juego la credibilidad del proyecto europeo, la confianza de los electores y de los ciudadanos en este proyecto europeo, y creemos que estamos cerca de la última oportunidad para darles una respuesta en materia de derechos de ciudadanía, que es la razón de ser de Europa. Si no lo hacemos ahora, es posible que cuando lo intentemos en la próxima legislatura sea demasiado tarde

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carlo Casini, Autore. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io mi domando qual è il senso di questa nostra interrogazione.

Essa è intesa alla predisposizione di una relazione d'iniziativa ad opera delle tre commissioni che hanno redatto quest'interrogazione, che operano ai sensi dell'articolo 51 del nostro regolamento. Ricordo che queste tre commissioni hanno già predisposto insieme la risoluzione approvata dal Parlamento il 25 novembre 2009 sul programma di Stoccolma, quando ancora non era entrato in vigore il trattato di Lisbona. Si trattò di una prima applicazione dell'articolo 51 e il coinvolgimento di ben tre commissioni segnala l'ampiezza e l'importanza della materia trattata.

In effetti, il programma di Stoccolma abbraccia l'intero terzo pilastro della costruzione europea che il trattato di Lisbona ha introdotto nell'ambito della sua novità principale, quella cioè di affidare alla sovranità democratica del Parlamento europeo una parte dei beni massimi per i popoli che sono la libertà, la sicurezza e la giustizia. Il loro spazio unitario nell'Europa è un obiettivo fondamentale nel processo di integrazione, così come dichiarato nel trattato di Amsterdam.

Bisogna dare atto alla Commissione di aver già riferito più volte, sia in assemblea plenaria, sia nelle sedi delle commissioni, sul progresso che ha fatto il trattato di Lisbona, ma ora si chiede, in adempimento di quanto già richiesto nella precedente nostra risoluzione del novembre 2009, una valutazione di sintesi della Commissione su ciò che è stato compiuto, ciò che resta da realizzare, sulle difficoltà incontrate, sulle ipotesi formulate per superarle.

Siamo ormai prossimi alle elezioni europee del 2014, che capitano in un momento di crisi, non solo economica ma anche di fiducia nell'Europa. È drammatico constatare che la partecipazione popolare alle elezioni europee è andata progressivamente diminuendo in tutti i paesi in modo costante, in quelli che hanno fondato l'Unione, in quelli che l'hanno arricchita nel corso del tempo, in quelli che sono entrati dopo il crollo del muro di Berlino.

Allora bisogna reagire. Nonostante questa triste constatazione, nonostante la crisi, le prossime elezioni potranno essere il momento di rilancio perché finalmente dopo tanto tempo si dovrà necessariamente parlare soltanto di Europa. Fino alle ultime elezioni il dibattito elettorale si concentrava sulla politica interna, era una sorta di verifica della politica dei governi, ma ora bisognerà dire se "Europa sì" o "Europa no".

Occorre dunque mostrare in modo concreto e comprensibile ai cittadini i risultati raggiunti e se la libertà, la giustizia e la sicurezza sono i massimi beni, proprio su questo bisogna fornire informazioni precise e convincenti.

Io mi permetterei di fare tre domande particolari. La prima: in che misura i nuovi strumenti e metodi decisionali hanno influito sulla realizzazione degli obiettivi indicati dal programma di Stoccolma? Secondo: in che modo la Commissione intende incrementare la fiducia dei cittadini e la democrazia rendendo efficaci e accolte le domande dei cittadini ai sensi dell'articolo 11 del trattato di Lisbona sull'iniziativa dei cittadini? Terzo: quali sono le intenzioni della Commissione riguardo alla costituzione della Procura europea?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I am very grateful to Parliament for the opportunity to assess the implementation of the Stockholm Programme. Your question is very wide in scope and, given the short amount of time available, I will only be able to give a limited response at this stage. Nevertheless I hope that it will become clear that we have made, and continue to make, significant progress in this whole area.

The JHA Council last December carried out a mid-term review of the Stockholm Programme. Ministers’ discussions were based on an overview of progress drawn up by the Cyprus Presidency. This overview consisted of an assessment of progress in all areas covered by the Stockholm Programme – asylum and migration, civil and criminal justice, internal security, civil protection and external relations in the JHA field.

The Council debate served as a response to the European Council’s request, when it adopted the Stockholm Programme, for a mid-term review. The Cyprus Presidency subsequently informed the President of the European Council in writing of the outcome of the Council debate. It was noted in particular, and I quote, that ‘the debate in the Council showed, in general, satisfaction with the progress made to date as well as confirmation of the need to take forward work on those elements of the Stockholm Programme which remain outstanding in order to continue to secure for our citizens an area of freedom, security and justice. The usefulness of a programme such as the Stockholm Programme was also underlined by a number of delegations as a guideline for defining legislative and operational priorities.’

The Council debate also enabled Ministers to reiterate their commitment to maintaining the right balance between security concerns and the protection of individual rights.

I cannot provide an exhaustive list of the substantial number of measures which have been agreed since 2010, but I would like to highlight a few in particular. In the area of asylum and immigration, a comprehensive set of measures relating to the Common European Asylum System is being finalised and the European Asylum Support Office has become operational. A joint EU resettlement programme was agreed and regional protection programmes further developed, and a directive on a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in Member States was adopted.

In terms of specific operational measures, the Visa Information System (or VIS) was launched, the IT agency became operational and SIS II went live last April.

In the area of justice, the Directive establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime was adopted and a regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters was agreed. As far as internal security measures are concerned, a number of important directives were adopted. These include measures to ensure better protection against large-scale cyber attacks, strengthened measures for preventing on-line child sexual abuse in order to facilitate the prosecution of perpetrators and improve the protection of child victims, and a Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings.

In general, the Council takes the view that a particular focus should now be given to implementing legislation which has already been adopted and to ensuring that measures already agreed are made fully operational.

As far as the institutional arrangements are concerned, the Council considers that the application of the ordinary legislative procedure functions well, strengthening the commitment of both our institutions to cooperate in ensuring that the area of freedom, security and justice is completed and made fully operational.

The instruments established under the Lisbon Treaty have already proved to be useful. A standing committee in the Council ensures effective operational cooperation on internal security and other measures such as the solidarity clause, which will doubtless help to further strengthen cooperation in future. The establishment of the European External Action Service continues to contribute to ensuring good coordination where there is an external dimension to JHA policies.

Overall I think we can look with some degree of satisfaction at what has been achieved under the Stockholm Programme. That, of course, should never lead us into complacency. This does not apply just to the Council but also to Parliament. I think both our institutions need to demonstrate in practice our commitment to making rapid progress on implementing the remainder of the Stockholm Programme and in fulfilling our shared objective of creating a more secure, open and fairer Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tonio Borg, membro della Commissione. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio gli oratori per questa interrogazione parlamentare, in cui tra l'altro si chiede alla Commissione non soltanto l'elenco dei risultati conseguiti durante il programma di Stoccolma, ma anche gli ostacoli che secondo la Commissione ci sono stati nell'implementazione di questo programma.

Inoltre prendo nota di quello che ha detto l'onorevole Berlinguer. D'accordo, c'è questa lista, questo elenco, ma quanta pubblicità c'è stata, in che misura tale programma è stato implementato correttamente? Il paese che conosco io, Malta, è entrato nel sistema Schengen nel 2007 e qualche volta mi dico che oggi è possibile concretamente guidare una macchina da Malta fino a Stoccolma senza essere fermati neanche una volta. Questa è una grande conquista dell'Unione europea, cioè queste frontiere che nel passato hanno creato tante guerre, come la frontiera tra la Polonia e la Germania o la frontiera tra Gorizia e Nova Gorica, oggi sono soltanto linee sulla carta geografica. Questa non è una cosa astratta, questa è una cosa concreta. Questo è soltanto un esempio, e ciò non vuol dire che non ci siano ostacoli.

Uno degli ostacoli è quello menzionato dall'onorevole Aguilar, ovvero la crescita del populismo nazionalistico nel senso peggiore del termine, cioè introdurre ostacoli alla libera circolazione delle persone con un pretesto o un altro. Ciò è stato promosso con l'idea che c'è un tentativo di demolire quello che è stato costruito con tanta pazienza, con tanti sacrifici, perché per me il sistema Schengen rappresenta una pietra miliare.

Dobbiamo essere fieri di questo e dobbiamo quindi essere sempre vigilanti e non introdurre ostacoli nell'implementazione di questo che per me è un anche un lascito per le prossime generazioni.

I would like to thank the three Members who asked this oral question on the implementation of the Stockholm Programme.

Three years ago the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights put European citizens at the centre of European integration. Putting the citizen at the heart of the European Union was a quantum leap, and the Commission that took up its office in February 2010 put the necessary steps in motion to take such a leap. Vice-President Reding, who incidentally sends her sincere apologies because for personal reasons she could not be present here with us today, and my fellow Commissioner Malmström, had the opportunity to exchange views with the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) on the mid-term review of the Stockholm Programme last December. Let me highlight some of the achievements.

In the field of justice we have had major advances in the area of civil justice, taking steps to stimulate the single market. We call this the so-called ‘justice for growth’, which in simple terms means taking concrete action which helps to put Europe back on the right track. For example, we have removed the costly and bureaucratic exequatur procedure in the Brussels I Regulation. Judgments for one Member State will automatically be recognised in another Member State.

We are also working on the insolvency package, which updates the current rules on cross-border insolvencies. We want viable business to get a second chance, also with a view to saving jobs.

The data protection reform package which is on the table will reduce administrative burdens for businesses and ensure a high level of personal data protection, but we have also made concerted progress in the criminal justice field. We are particularly proud of the advances made in the field of victims’ rights: the Victims’ Rights Directive, combined with the European Protection Order (criminal directive) and the European Protection Order (civil regulation), have improved the standing of victims of crime throughout the criminal procedure.

We have also made considerable headway on strengthening procedural rights. The adoption and publication of the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation, as well as the Directive on the right to information, increases the support for persons in criminal proceedings across the Union. I must say that this is a concrete achievement which is felt by the ordinary citizen, and I would like to thank Parliament and the Council for their joint efforts to conclude, very soon, the negotiations on the Directive on access to a lawyer. Fellow parliamentarians know that this is regulated in different ways, not only legally but also in its implementation in the Member States.

In the field of criminal law the Commission has proposed minimum rules and minimum sanctions to protect the financial interests of the European Union and the euro against counterfeiting. The aim is simple: to use criminal law to strengthen protection for common EU goods. We call on Parliament to work on these proposals as a matter of priority.

Citizens’ rights are an essential element of the European integration process. In this context, on 8 May 2013 we presented the EU Citizenship Report, the Annual Report on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Annual Report on Equality between women and men. The approach is to focus on the effective implementation of fundamental rights. In fact, the Commission has even gone beyond the Stockholm Programme, which by its nature provides strategic guidelines. But that should not be seen as a rigid corset. For example, in March 2013 the Commission presented the EU Justice Scoreboard, which seeks to assist Member States in the development of more effective justice. It provides objective, reliable and comparable data on the efficiency, quality and independence of the justice systems in all Member States. Some call it ‘name and shame’; I prefer to call it ‘name and praise’. It is an evolving tool and will gradually expand the indicators and the areas covered.

In the field of home affairs, we can be proud of what we are close to achieving on asylum. At the next plenary, Parliament is likely to vote on a common area of protection from oppression, violence, torture and fear of persecution, with common rules and common outcomes, where Member States cooperate in a display of European solidarity. The Visa Information System and the second generation Schengen Information System have gone live and are now tools enabling the correct functioning of the border-free movement that Europeans enjoy – and, I hope, will continue to enjoy – throughout most of our continent.

We have a framework in place for local Schengen cooperation and have put forward proposals for better governance of the Schengen area and improved surveillance of our borders. We may now be close to an agreement on both of these. The Frontex Agency has a new mandate for more effective operation, with stronger guarantees on fundamental rights, and we have proposed a new mandate for Europol, bringing it into the post-Lisbon Treaty era.

We have adopted an internal security strategy and are regularly reporting on its implementation. We have concluded agreements on terrorist finance tracking with the United States and on PNR with the United States and Australia. We have new directives in place against child sexual exploitation and trafficking in human beings. We have brought EU law into line with the UN Firearms Protocol. We have put forward legislation on explosive precursors and a new EU policy and reporting mechanism against corruption.

In line with our global approach on migration and mobility we have launched wide-ranging discussions with many of our neighbouring countries and have made good progress on visa facilitation, liberalisation and readmission. We have put forward proposals on third-country students and researchers as well as intra-corporate transferees and seasonal workers, while also developing a new agenda for integration of third-country nationals and furthering the debate on family reunification.

There are still important tasks to achieve. We are, for instance, working intensely on a proposal for a European Public Prosecutors Office, which would be responsible for combating crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, and other issues such as anti-corruption policies or security in cyber space remain high on the agenda. Justice and home affairs cover sensitive policy areas that were traditionally seen as solely a matter of national competence. The EU decision-making process is still adapting to the new legislative and institutional framework established by the Lisbon Treaty.

We have made a lot of legislative proposals, but I would like to stress once again the importance of the effective enforcement of the legislation that we have put in place. One particular need which was acutely revealed in the last few months concerns the rule of law, and I will conclude with this comment. As stated by President Barroso, in September last year in his State of the Union Speech, we need a better-developed set of instruments – not just the two extremes between the soft power of political persuasion and the nuclear option of Article 7 of the Treaty. We need something in between. The Commission hopes it can count on the support of Parliament for creating a new mechanism enabling the European Union to take effective action.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Minister! Panie Komisarzu! Kiedy trzy lata temu ustanawialiśmy szczegółowy zarys programu sztokholmskiego, wiedzieliśmy doskonale, że ambitny plan podjęcia wielu inicjatyw legislacyjnych, m.in. z zakresu współpracy wymiarów sprawiedliwości w sprawach cywilnych i handlowych, będzie trudny do zrealizowania. Praca legislacyjna na styku 27 prawodawstw, mająca na celu rozwiązywanie najbardziej palących problemów, które napotykają obywatele Unii, korzystając z przywilejów wolnego przepływu osób, swobodnego wyboru miejsca pracy i zamieszkania niezależnie od kraju obywatelstwa, jest żmudna i bardzo wymagająca pod względem technicznym. Jednakże zakończenie prac nad takimi projektami jak Bruksela I, Rzym III, spadki transgraniczne i wieloma innymi, o których już wspomnieli moi przedmówcy, daje ogromną satysfakcję, bo niesie ze sobą bezpośrednią, bezsprzeczną wartość dodaną dla naszych obywateli i firm operujących w przestrzeni ponadnarodowej.

Biorąc bezpośredni udział w wielu już zakończonych pracach, wiem doskonale, że nawet przy najlepszych chęciach niektóre projekty w związku ze swym technicznym, prawniczym charakterem pochłaniają wiele miesięcy, a czasami nawet lat. W ramach programu sztokholmskiego udało nam się przeprowadzić projekty legislacyjne, które, mam nadzieję, w praktyce znajdą skuteczne zastosowanie z pożytkiem dla obywateli, którzy od czasu do czasu mogą znaleźć się w trudnych życiowych sytuacjach. Żeby tak się stało, kadry sądownicze muszą znać i umieć stosować nowe przepisy dotyczące transgranicznych postępowań sądowych, spraw rozwodowych czy spadkowych.

Jako członek Komisji Prawnej wielokrotnie powtarzałem na tej sali, że prawo nieznane jest prawem najczęściej niestosowanym. Dlatego tak bardzo w naszej komisji skupiamy się na promowaniu szkoleń sędziów i prawników. Zwracamy często uwagę na ogromne znaczenie akcji informacyjnych skierowanych bezpośrednio do obywateli. Powinniśmy jaśniej i jeszcze bardziej bezpośrednio komunikować im możliwość i rozwiązania, jakie daje w praktyce prawo unijne. Pomimo niewątpliwych postępów jako Parlament Europejski wciąż czekamy na szereg projektów związanych ze wzajemnym uznawaniem dokumentów stanu cywilnego czy 14. dyrektywy prawa spółek.

Po tych kilku latach wiemy, że prace legislacyjne w obszarze wolności, bezpieczeństwa i wymiaru sprawiedliwości nie zakończą się wraz z programem sztokholmskim. Legislacja unijna będzie podążać za obywatelem i problemami, które napotyka, korzystając oczywiście z możliwości, jakie daje Unia Europejska. Wiele zostało zrobione, nie możemy jednak powiedzieć, że wszystko, i spocząć na laurach. Ogłoszona ostatnio przez Komisję Europejską inicjatywa na rzecz wzmocnienia praw obywateli Unii Europejskiej wskazuje także na kolejne kroki, które należy podjąć. W związku z tym wydaje się, że zbliżanie przepisów nie tylko w prawie cywilnym i handlowym...

(Przewodniczący odebrał mówcy głos.)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Enrique Guerrero Salom, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor Presidente, la legitimidad de los sistemas políticos, o de los proyectos políticos, se fundamenta en los resultados que proporcionan para mejorar la vida diaria y las expectativas de los ciudadanos, y también en los valores a los que se adhieren esos ciudadanos, valores que marcan la identidad de esa unión política.

Sabemos que, en estos momentos, la Unión Europea no está proporcionando a sus ciudadanos buenos resultados en términos de crecimiento, en términos de empleo, en términos de políticas públicas. ¿Y qué pasa con los valores? Porque la Unión Europea es un proyecto político basado en la libertad, basado en la solidaridad, basado en el respeto de los derechos de esos ciudadanos, y el valor fundamental es el sentido de pertenencia, el saberse parte de un proyecto territorial y político común.

Pronto se celebrarán tres años desde la aprobación del Programa de Acción de Estocolmo, y se ha avanzado mucho. Han hecho referencia a ello tanto el Comisario como la ministra del Consejo.

Pero yo querría señalar tres campos en los cuales hay problemas: el primero de ellos, la libre circulación. El Comisario señalaba que, desde Malta a Estocolmo, se puede cruzar el continente sin topar con ninguna barrera a esa libertad de movimientos. Pero eso es posible porque hace muy poco tiempo no ha cruzado Europa para ir de Alemania a Dinamarca, porque allí habría tenido un freno, o porque no es un ciudadano del este de Europa que va al Reino Unido, porque también allí habría tenido un freno a la libertad de movimientos. Sabemos que, en cuanto a Schengen, hay un conflicto entre este Parlamento y el Consejo, y sabemos que hay malos augurios sobre la libertad establecida en Schengen.

El segundo, transparencia. Tenemos sin resolver la cuestión del acceso a los documentos, y en este mismo Pleno se ha presentado una pregunta oral sobre el bloqueo que se está produciendo.

El tercero, protección de los derechos de los ciudadanos. La Comisión ha concluido la negociación con el Consejo de Europa relativa al Convenio.

Animo al Consejo a que, una vez dispongamos del dictamen del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, concluyamos este proceso y protejamos mejor los derechos de los ciudadanos.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Wikström, för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Bäste kommissionär Borg. Det är trevligt att få diskutera detta viktiga ämne med er här ikväll. Stockholmsprogrammet fokuserar ju på ett öppet Europa med medborgarna i centrum. Nu ska vi utvärdera hur det har genomförts, vad som har varit bra och var vi har arbete kvar att uträtta. I programmet fastslås det bl.a. att vi ska skapa ett gemensamt europeiskt asylsystem. Nu har vi verkligen lyckats, och det i en tid när Europas medlemsländers ekonomier har varit mycket, mycket hårt ansträngda.

Det att vi nu lyckats är en stor, stor framgång och jag kan inte nog uttrycka min glädje över detta, som kommer att höja standarden, säkerheten och rättssäkerheten för de asylsökande men också verka för solidaritet mellan våra medlemsländer när det implementerats fullt ut. Vi åtar oss också i programmet att intensifiera arbetet med vidarebosättning av flyktingar i samarbete med UNHCR, och där kvarstår det mycket arbete, för vi i EU har extremt låga siffror jämfört med andra delar av världen när det gäller att ta emot kvotflyktingar.

Jag ville också prata en hel del om arbetskraftsinvandring men tiden är mycket kort. Jag har nyligen blivit utsedd till föredragande för direktivet om studenter och forskare från tredjeländer som kommer till EU, och det är mycket angeläget att vi får det här på plats, för vi behöver stoppa flykten av forskare och experter till USA och andra länder. Vi behöver dem här i vår union.

Avslutningsvis så skulle jag också vilja påminna kommissionär Borg om att kommissionen har utfärdat ett löfte att leverera ett förslag om ömsesidigt erkännande av handlingar rörande civilstånd. Detta har kommissionen lovat i handlingsplanen för Stockholmsprogrammet men inget har gjorts. Jag vill inte tro att kommissionen har för avsikt att bryta detta löfte och som skulle kunna innebära

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Ik hoor de Europese Commissie en de Raad een lijstje opnoemen van projecten in het Stockholmprogramma, in de samenwerking voor vrijheid, veiligheid en recht, die gelukt zijn. Wij kunnen dat lijstje allemaal opnoemen. Wij moeten de staat van de Unie echter niet alleen afmeten aan de economische crisis en de situatie op de markten in Europa, maar ook aan het feit dat een heleboel van de debatten in Europa op het gebied van ethiek, van rechten van burgers, van verdachten en van vluchtelingen, stilliggen in de Raad. Dit Parlement is al jaren klaar geweest voor wat nu binnenkort komt, namelijk stemmen over het gezamenlijke asiel- en migratiebeleid. Maar de Raad vecht elkaar de tent uit en is niet in staat tot solidariteit onder lidstaten.

Het Stockholmprogramma was er van vóór het Verdrag van Lissabon. In de toekomst moeten wij niet meer dat soort grote programma's opzetten, maar wij moeten ons realiseren dat wij goed uitgebalanceerde wetgeving moeten maken, met oog voor fundamentele rechten en niet alleen maar oog voor strafrecht. Een intergouvernementeel systeem als één groot holistisch programma, dat stuk voor stuk uitgewerkt wordt, is nu langzamerhand achterhaald. Wij kunnen echt niet verder op deze weg zolang men het in de Raad niet met elkaar eens is.

Ik noem als schrijnendste voorbeeld het principe van onderling vertrouwen op het gebied van strafrechtelijke samenwerking. Het Europees aanhoudingsbevel, dat ertoe leidt dat burgers van het ene land naar het andere verplaatst worden zonder dat zij daarbij goede rechtsbijstand hebben, is typerend. Wij kunnen niet verder justitieel samenwerken wanneer wij dit doen op een manier die eigenlijk onderling wantrouwen weerspiegelt. Als de Raad een antwoord op heeft wat de toekomst moet zijn wat dit onderling wantrouwen betreft, dan hoor ik dat graag.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Timothy Kirkhope, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, today we are heading towards the end of a parliamentary term and also towards the end of the Parliament’s first term with new powers in the fields of justice and home affairs. There have been successes and failings, and my opinion has not changed: I still believe that we should seek to do less, but to do it better.

Good examples of that work include the work on cybercrime and in relation to unaccompanied minors, which is becoming a considerable problem throughout Europe. We should be ambitious but realistic in what we can achieve. I would urge the Commission and Parliament to focus on where we can contribute most and where we can add clarity and protection rather than complication. More compulsion, solidarity and harmonisation is not always better, while with better trust, cooperation and efficiency – and with the Commission ensuring strong implementation and consistency – we will create a system which respects Member States’ legal differences while ensuring effective outcomes.

A fully-harmonised criminal system and a European prosecutor is simply not the right solution. It is difficult to reflect on our work under Stockholm so far: over three years without any review or evaluation. We can achieve the best future outcome through good cooperation and communication between institutions. The much-needed review, however, is absent. In this light I would ask the Commission now to assess the Stockholm Programme’s successes and also its failings so that we can move forward together constructively but not blindly.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Thank you very much for giving way. Mr Kirkhope, do you consider that the UK should opt out of the European Arrest Warrant when it has a chance to do so next year, or not?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Timothy Kirkhope (ECR), blue-card answer. – Thank you, my Lord, for that most interesting question. The United Kingdom will of course assess the position regarding all matters, including the position of the European Arrest Warrant, the benefits and the disadvantages of that warrant, and the need for its reform. I think there are many other people in this House who would also agree with us that reform is necessary, but certainly without calculating the full effects on our people – the citizens of Britain and well as the citizens of the rest of Europe – it is impossible at this point to give a clear indication of what we may do in future on that matter.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, για την προετοιμασία του επόμενου πολυετούς προγράμματος για τον χώρο ελευθερίας, ασφάλειας και δικαιοσύνης δεν αρκεί η απαρίθμηση των προτάσεων που υπέβαλε η Επιτροπή ή που εγκρίθηκαν από τους συννομοθέτες, αλλά απαιτείται ένας γνήσιος ποιοτικός και όχι μόνο ποσοτικός έλεγχος. Είναι ανάγκη να αξιολογήσουμε την θέση μας σε σχέση με το δίλημμα δικαιώματα ή ασφάλεια. Σύμφωνα με τη δική μας εκτίμηση, σημειώνεται πάντα πρόοδος σε θέματα ασφάλειας, όπως είναι για παράδειγμα η «ταχεία διέλευση» ή τα «ευφυή σύνορα», αλλά η διαδικασία αργεί αισθητά όταν πρόκειται για θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα όπως η πρόσβαση στα έγγραφα ή η προστασία δεδομένων. Μία τέτοια τάση έχει τη σημασία της διότι οι προτάσεις που σχετίζονται με την ασφάλεια είναι πάντοτε εξωφρενικά ακριβές.

Θα μπορούσατε, αλήθεια, κύριε Επίτροπε, να μας πείτε ποιες πολιτικές θα υποβαθμιστούν περαιτέρω στο επόμενο πρόγραμμα προκειμένου να καταστεί δυνατή η χρηματοδότηση της πρότασης για τα «ευφυή σύνορα»; Αυτός ο ποιοτικός έλεγχος πρέπει επίσης να αξιολογήσει από άποψη δημοκρατικής νομιμότητας τις νέες διευθετήσεις μεταξύ θεσμικών οργάνων που εισήγαγε η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας. Από την εμπειρία μας, κρίνουμε ότι το Κοινοβούλιο παραμερίζεται συστηματικά στη διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων προκειμένου να διασκεδαστούν οι ανησυχίες των κρατών μελών στο Συμβούλιο. Χρειάζεται να υπενθυμίσω ότι, προκειμένου να ξεπεραστεί το αδιέξοδο στο Συμβούλιο σχετικά με το Eurodac, η Επιτροπή παρουσίασε νέα πρόταση, αγνοώντας πλήρως τη θέση σε πρώτη ανάγνωση του Κοινοβουλίου;

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). - Ik stel de vraag wat er eigenlijk goed is aan het programma van Stockholm. Het programma verzet zich tegen de grenscontroles die lidstaten willen kunnen uitvoeren om criminelen te weren. Het programma accepteert de onmogelijkheid om je te verweren tegen een Europees arrestatiebevel en dat heeft al geleid tot jarenlange onterechte opsluiting van vele burgers in buitenlandse cellen. Het programma streeft naar Europees strafrecht, waarmee de soevereiniteit van lidstaten wordt aangetast. En het gemeenschappelijk asielbeleid heeft niet geleid tot een vermindering of een spreiding van immigranten, maar alleen tot een concentratie ervan in een paar lidstaten.

Met dit alles staat dit programma niet ten dienste van de burger, integendeel. De centrale vraag moet zijn of de burger eigenlijk wel gediend is met het Stockholmprogramma en mijn antwoord is nee. Het programma van Stockholm is een mislukking. Het moet worden beëindigd en er moet ook geen nieuw programma meer komen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στο ερώτημα αν, μετά το πρόγραμμα της Στοκχόλμης, χρειαζόμαστε ένα νέο πρόγραμμα σε αυτή τη φάση, είναι σαφής, νομίζω, η απάντηση. Το πρόγραμμα της Στοκχόλμης ήταν και εξακολουθεί να παραμένει φιλόδοξο· η εφαρμογή του ήταν και εξακολουθεί να είναι σημαντική. Δηλώνω ότι συμφωνώ με όσα ειπώθηκαν από το Συμβούλιο και την Επιτροπή αλλά θέλω, βεβαίως, να τονίσω ότι, ειδικά σε ό,τι αφορά την τοποθέτηση της αξιότιμης κ. Υπουργού, δεν αρκεί να λέμε ότι οι υπουργοί έδειξαν ικανοποίηση και ότι προσδοκούν περισσότερα στη συνέχεια διότι μεγάλη σημασία έχει και η κριτική για όσα δεν έγιναν, η κριτική για τις καθυστερήσεις, για το πως εφαρμόστηκαν όσα έγιναν και για τις αποφάσεις που λαμβάνουμε σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο. Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι σημαντικά νομοθετήματα έχουν προχωρήσει και έχουν ολοκληρωθεί, όπως δεν υπάρχει καμία αμφιβολία και ότι η σημερινή κατάσταση, η λειτουργία των θεσμικών οργάνων στην μεταξύ των σχέση και σε σχέση με εκείνη του 2008 είναι σήμερα κατά πολύ αναβαθμισμένη. Η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας αλλάζει το πλαίσιο λειτουργίας για όλους μας και προσαρμοζόμαστε ακόμη σε αυτές τις αλλαγές. Τα τρία τελευταία χρόνια είχαμε πολύ σημαντικές εξελίξεις και νομίζω ότι η συνήθης νομοθετική διαδικασία, όπως λέγεται πλέον η συναπόφαση, λειτουργεί ολοένα και καλύτερα. Βεβαίως υπάρχουν σημαντικές ελλείψεις και σημαντικά κενά που πρέπει να καλύψουμε. Δεν είναι σίγουρο ότι έχει γίνει από όλους κατανοητή η απόλυτη ανάγκη να συμφωνήσουμε το επόμενο διάστημα ως προς τις κοινές προκλήσεις που αντιμετωπίζουμε σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο και δεν είναι σίγουρο ότι συμφωνεί και η Επιτροπή και το Συμβούλιο και βεβαίως και το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο σε κάτι τέτοιο. Μια ισορροπημένη προσέγγιση σε όλα τα θέματα είναι καθοριστικής σημασίας. Στο θέμα των προσωπικών δεδομένων που επεξεργαζόμαστε τώρα είναι απαραίτητη η προστασία των δικαιωμάτων του πολίτη όπως, ασφαλώς, και το δικαίωμά του στον ιδιωτικό του χώρο, είναι απαραίτητη όμως και η ασφάλεια. Στο πακέτο για το άσυλο των μεταναστών και των αιτούντων άσυλο, χρειάζεται η προστασία των δικαιωμάτων τους, χρειάζεται όμως και η καταπολέμηση της παράνομης μετανάστευσης. Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, αυτό που καταγράφουν οι ευρωπαϊκές μετρήσεις τούτη τη περίοδο είναι ότι οι ευρωπαίοι πολίτες νοιώθουν λιγότερο ασφαλείς σε σύγκριση με το παρελθόν. Σε αυτό ακριβώς το αίσθημα των ευρωπαίων πολιτών στηρίζεται η άνοδος του εξτρεμισμού σε πολλά κράτη μέλη, ακόμη και σε εκείνα που δεν πλήττονται εξίσου σφοδρά από την κρίση. Πρόκειται μία ακόμη μεγάλη πρόκληση για την ασφάλεια και την ελευθερία που πρέπει να εξετάσουμε.

Η κ. Υπουργός αναφέρθηκε στη ρήτρα της αλληλεγγύης. Αναφέρεται διαρκώς η ρήτρα - αναφέρθηκε και εχθές κατά την σχετική συζήτηση για το πρόγραμμα εσωτερικής επανεγκατάστασης. Σε πολλά ζητήματα όμως, η ρήτρα αυτή παραμένει απλώς θεωρία. Δεν έχουμε προχωρήσει σε πράξεις. Κυρίες και κύριοι, το 2013 έχει χαρακτηριστεί ως ‘ευρωπαϊκό έτος για τους πολίτες’ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Είναι στο χέρι μας να έχουμε τον πολίτη στο επίκεντρο των δράσεών μας και στο χώρο της ασφάλειας, της ελευθερίας και της δικαιοσύνης.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, comme le programme de Tampere, en 1999, et celui de la Haye, en 2004, le programme de Stockholm est un programme ambitieux. Mais l'évaluation à mi-parcours a un arrière-goût de regrets parce que, près de quatre ans après l'entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne, nous avons encore le sentiment, en tant que parlementaires, de travailler comme si nous étions sous une autre ère, l'ère du traité de Maastricht, une époque où le Parlement européen n'était qu'un simple organe consultatif.

Or, ce comportement parfois distant, disons, des autres institutions à l'égard du Parlement constitue une entrave de taille dans la défense des droits des citoyens européens. C'est donc à une prise de conscience de cette nouvelle donne que j'appelle le Conseil.

J'emploie le terme "regrets" également parce qu'on ne peut que constater que des pans entiers de la stratégie pour la sécurité intérieure ou la gestion des frontières extérieures, soit autant de politiques majeures pour nos concitoyens, sont de fait transférés vers des agences européennes et d'autres réseaux, sur lesquels le contrôle démocratique est plus restreint.

On peut regretter, enfin, que le principe de solidarité entre les personnes et entre les États, qui figure pourtant à l'article 80 du traité, reste lettre morte, et les difficultés que nous avons rencontrées pour parvenir à un système européen d'asile commun montrent que les questions de politique interne continuent fortement à dominer, au détriment de cette solidarité que nous appelons de nos vœux.

Bref, ce sont là un bilan et des résultats insuffisants, et le délai est bien court pour parvenir à atteindre certains objectifs concrets et importants, comme la moindre avancée connue sur la directive anti-discrimination, qui constitue un exemple frappant.

Aussi, Monsieur le Commissaire, cher collègue, j'aimerais que nous puissions vous entendre sur les renforcements à réaliser pour améliorer la crédibilité de ces institutions européennes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Jako przedstawiciel polskiej partii o nazwie Prawo i Sprawiedliwość cieszę się, że jednym z priorytetów programu sztokholmskiego jest „Europa prawa i sprawiedliwości”. Mamy niestety w Europie do czynienia z nadmiarem prawa i niedoborem sprawiedliwości. Zbyt często litera prawa wypiera ducha sprawiedliwości. Niezależny i niezawisły wymiar sprawiedliwości nie jest nieomylny. Mówię to głównie przez pryzmat doświadczeń z mojego kraju, ale po części również na gruncie znanych mi spraw z innych państw, na przykład w odniesieniu do drastycznych spraw dotyczących odbierania rodzicom dzieci. Wymiar sprawiedliwości musi być niezawisły, ale nie może być nieodpowiedzialny i wyjęty spod demokratycznej kontroli, aby władza sądowa nie stawała się swoistym państwem w państwie, a nawet państwem w wielu państwach, jeśli uwzględnić uznawalność orzeczeń. Powinniśmy tej sprawie poświęcać więcej uwagi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL). - Herr Präsident! Ich sage mal so: Es ist schon eine ziemliche Zumutung, welches Gelaber von Kommission und Rat wir uns als Abgeordnete gewissermaßen bieten lassen müssen, wenn es um die Evaluation ihres eigenen Arbeitsprogramms geht. Fakt ist: Es hat doch überhaupt keinerlei gründliche und auch qualitative Evaluation je gegeben. Das würde jedem Minister in unseren Mitgliedstaaten um die Ohren fliegen. Auch deshalb würde ihm das um die Ohren fliegen, weil das ein Bereich ist, der, wenn wir uns den Gesamthaushalt der EU anschauen, ein expandierender Bereich ist. Völlig kritiklos beispielsweise steht Frau Malmström, die heute gar nicht da ist, den Kostenexplosionen in diesem Bereich gegenüber, wenn sie ein neues und natürlich vor allem teures Sicherheitsinstrument nach dem anderen initiiert, ohne die anderen Sicherheitsinstrumente jemals evaluiert zu haben, ob sie Sinn und Zweck erfüllen, außer der Sicherheitsindustrie neue Aufträge zuzuschanzen. Es stört doch in Kommission und Rat offensichtlich überhaupt niemanden, wenn der Kostenrahmen für das SIS II rabiat überschritten wurde – smart border, registrierte Traveller-Programme, ewig viel Kosten.

Ich will als Letztes die Frage stellen ...

(Der Präsident entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). - Herr Präsident! Schade, dass Sie Frau Ernst unterbrochen haben. Ich glaube, es war ein sehr wertvoller Beitrag, den Frau Cornelia Ernst hier vorgetragen hat.

Aber kurz zu meinem Wortbeitrag: Die Verfügbarkeit von Daten, die Verfügbarkeit von Informationen für die richtigen Personen zum richtigen Zeitpunkt am richtigen Platz unter Einhaltung der Grundrechte, insbesondere des Datenschutzes und des Rechts auf Privatsphäre, ist natürlich eines der Erfolgskriterien im Bereich der inneren Sicherheit.

Darum möchte ich auf einen speziellen Punkt im Programm von Stockholm eingehen, und zwar das Informationsmanagement. Kohärenz und Konsolidierung in diesem Bereich ist ja ein sehr wesentliches Ziel des Programms von Stockholm. Es gibt ja auch einige Initiativen: Wir haben Europol als Plattform, wir haben Frontex als Plattform, wo Informationen ausgetauscht werden, wo Informationen analysiert werden. Wir haben auch die Strategie für Informationsmanagement, und genau darauf zielt auch meine Frage an den Rat und auch an die Kommission: Inwieweit ist diese Strategie für Informationsmanagement bereits umgesetzt, was gibt es für Probleme bei der Umsetzung, und was wurde bereits erreicht? Ich wäre Ihnen sehr dankbar, wenn Sie dazu vielleicht kurz einige Dinge ausführen könnten.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Vielen Dank, Herr Kollege Ehrenhauser. Frau Kollegin Ernst wird sich sicher für die Blumen von der anderen Seite des Hauses bedanken. Aber mein Auftrag ist es ja nicht, den Wert von Beiträgen zu beurteilen, sondern die Redezeit unter den Kollegen einigermaßen gleich aufzuteilen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il programma di Stoccolma rappresenta una strategia importante con azioni concrete per realizzare un vero spazio europeo di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia al servizio dei cittadini.

È stato un piano d'azione voluto nel 2010 che prevede un programma molto ambizioso. L'obiettivo era quello di dare la massima tutela a valori quali il rispetto per la persona, la dignità umana, la libertà, l'uguaglianza e la solidarietà, cercando di mettere al centro proprio il cittadino nella sua vita di tutti i giorni.

Possiamo tracciare credo un primo bilancio abbastanza positivo, mi riferisco, ad esempio, alla direttiva sull'ordine di protezione europeo, che è uno strumento giuridico di protezione assolutamente all'avanguardia; mi riferisco alla direttiva sui diritti, l'assistenza e la protezione delle vittime di reato e mi riferisco anche alle molte misure per la tutela dei minori nell'Unione europea, compresa la direttiva contro gli abusi e la pedopornografia online di cui sono stata relatrice.

Certo c'è ancora molto da fare e pertanto sarà necessaria e utile una valutazione per misurare tutte le difficoltà riscontrate nel piano di attuazione, in modo da poter apportare le necessarie correzioni e aprire una nuova fase e una migliore e coerente cooperazione tra le strategie di tutti i paesi membri.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). - A Lisszaboni Szerződés fontos változásokat hozott a bel- és igazságügyi terület döntéshozatalában, ennek azonban a gyakorlatban kevéssé látjuk az eredményét. Nem látszik a Tanács elköteleződése a végrehajtásban. Ennek legvilágosabb példája a schengeni döntéshozatal kérdése volt, amelyet a Tanács kormányközi szinten próbált tartani.

A tagállamok egy része másodlagos állampolgárként kezel többmillió romát, korlátozva a jogaikat. Az LMBT párok szabad mozgása, dokumentumaik elismerése is akadályokba ütközik. A horizontális antidiszkriminációs irányelv évek óta parkolópályán van a Tanácsban, pedig komolyan hozzájárulhatna a szabadságon, a biztonságon és a jogérvényesülésen alapuló térség megteremtéséhez.

Az alapjogok, a jogállamiság, a demokrácia alapelveinek sérülése esetén hatékonyabb eszközökre, gyorsabb beavatkozási lehetőségekre lenne szükség, hogy az EU meg tudja őrizni hitelességét, védeni tudja az értékeit, az európai polgárokat.

Sokkal komolyabb elköteleződést várunk a jövőben a tagállamoktól, a Bizottságtól pedig azt, hogy erőteljes, egyértelmű választ adjon minden olyan kísérletre, amely lebontani kívánja a közös európai értékeket. A program célja az lenne, hogy a polgárok közelebb kerüljenek Európához. Egyelőre nem ezt látjuk. Köszönöm szépen a figyelmet.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL). - Monsieur le Président, ce débat nous permet de faire un bilan du programme de Stockholm.

J'ai fait partie des citoyens européens, des citoyennes, qui ont voté pour Maastricht, qui ont cru dans ces avancées pour la citoyenneté et la justice, y compris sociale. J'ai vu les avancées réalisée l'Union européenne dans ces domaines au cours des années 90 se concrétiser dans le programme de Tampere. Mais, depuis le début des années 2000, nous avons assisté à un changement de pied total. Le sécuritaire l'a emporté sur les droits de l'homme. Avec le traité de Lisbonne, certains ont pu croire que, notamment avec l'intégration de la charte des droits fondamentaux, les choses allaient changer. Et le plan de la Commission pouvait laisser espérer des avancées.

Qu'en est-il aujourd'hui?

La plupart des initiatives sont bloquées par le Conseil. Le droit d'asile européen est effectivement un bel exemple et l'on pourrait aussi parler de la situation des réfugiés, des immigrés à nos frontières comme sur notre territoire, ou encore des Roms et de bien d'autres problèmes. Les droits fondamentaux, la justice, ne cessent de se dégrader dans l'Union européenne, notamment pour les plus vulnérables.

Alors, s'il vous plaît, changez de braquet. Il y a urgence, si vous voulez que les citoyens européens puissent de nouveau croire dans le rêve européen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in questo periodo nel quale l'Unione europea traballa sotto i colpi della crisi economica, la risposta più immediata che viene da dare a tutti i cittadini che manifestano la loro comprensibile incertezza è quella di rilanciare il processo di integrazione politica.

La risposta alle debolezze dell'Unione europea di fronte alle aggressioni del mercato è il rafforzamento della partecipazione dei cittadini. Tuttavia è evidente che non si può costruire un'unione politica se non si garantisce al cittadino europeo la possibilità di sentirsi titolare di uguali diritti e di pari doveri, se non si garantisce a ciascun cittadino un uguale sistema di tutele e di protezione e, allo stesso tempo, se non si offrono strumenti di protezione giudiziaria adeguati e fruibili per tutti i cittadini.

So bene quanto ha lavorato la Commissione, ho avuto modo di seguire in modo più o meno diretto l'impegno alacre del Commissario Reding e oggi ho ascoltato con piacere l'intervento articolato, pieno e appassionato del Commissario Borg e sono convinta che tutto quello che ho ascoltato è sul tavolo. Il problema è che non è stato ancora realizzato ed è lontano dal realizzarsi.

Sono presidente della commissione per le petizioni e vivo quotidianamente il rapporto con i cittadini e posso dire che vivo il vantaggio di un osservatorio privilegiato, perché attraverso le denunce dei cittadini noi monitoriamo quotidianamente lo stato di attuazione del diritto dell'Unione e credo che siamo ancora molto lontani dalla creazione di uno spazio comune europeo di libertà, di giustizia e di sicurezza.

Solo per fare alcuni esempi: sul piano dei diritti, abbiamo delle coppie binazionali che si scontrano con la limitazione all'esercizio dei diritti genitoriali in ragione di strani sistemi nazionalistici che ancora permangono; i diversamente abili non possono vivere sull'intero territorio dell'Unione europea perché esistono ancora regolamentazioni diverse per le barriere, per i trasporti, per i permessi; i laureati non sono tutti uguali; i lavoratori non hanno pari diritti e non possono trasferire i diritti acquisiti in un paese verso un altro paese; le forme di tutela sono diverse da Stato a Stato… (Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratrice).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Ministerin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Der Aktionsplan zur Verwirklichung des Stockholmer Programms ist in einer entscheidenden Phase. Herr Kommissar, Sie haben es erwähnt: Brüssel 1 ist abgeschlossen, der europäische Datenschutz gerade in einer sehr heißen Phase, andere Themen wie die Anerkennung von Urkunden und auch Opferschutz sind auf den Weg gebracht. Wird nun die Kommission am Ende dieser Legislaturperiode so etwas wie einen Erfolgsbericht für uns über die umgesetzten Maßnahmen vorlegen?

Was mich nun besonders interessiert ist die Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinie. Wir haben im Stockholmer Programm – wirklich als Kern des Stockholmer Programms – vorgesehen, dass Fremdenfeindlichkeit, Homophobie, Rassismus bekämpft werden sollen, und es sind auch etliche nichtlegislative Maßnahmen vorgesehen. Wie sieht es allerdings nun aus in Rat und Kommission, wenn es um die Antidiskriminierungsrichtlinie geht?

Ein weiteres Thema, das besonders wichtig ist und Kollege Berlinguer erwähnt hat, ist die Umsetzung der konkreten Maßnahmen. Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger wissen oft gar nicht, was da erreicht wurde. Es gibt nun Initiativen zu Strafverfahren, es gibt Opferrechte. All das ist sehr wichtig. Allerdings ist es natürlich auch entsprechend wichtig, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger das wissen. Insofern interessiert es mich sehr zu wissen, was die Kommission jetzt bezüglich einer verbesserten Information vorsieht.

Und die letzte Frage schließlich betrifft den Dialog mit der Zivilgesellschaft: Was ist hier vorgesehen, wie beispielsweise Vertreter der Zivilgesellschaft ausgesucht werden?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, ante la ausencia de revisión del Programa de Estocolmo y su plan de acción, me gustaría destacar sólo tres cuestiones, objetivos no cumplidos aún, y que afectan a la lucha contra el terrorismo y la delincuencia grave.

En primer lugar, me refiero al no desarrollo del artículo 75 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea en lo relativo a la congelación de activos y a la utilización de listas de terroristas internas en la Unión Europea, que no se ha revisado desde el año 2009.

En segundo lugar, la ausencia de iniciativas legislativas relativas al sistema europeo de seguimiento de la financiación del terrorismo.

En tercer lugar, y esto es un hecho bien lamentable y reciente, la interrupción en primera lectura del PNR europeo.

Soy pesimista con relación a la fiscalía europea, pero lo más grave, señor Presidente, afecta a la ausencia de acuerdo interinstitucional. ¿A qué me refiero? Me refiero a la falta de acuerdo sobre el recurso, en el procedimiento legislativo, a actos delegados o a actos de ejecución. No hay acuerdo interinstitucional, y esto cortocircuita y bloquea la tarea legislativa. Me refiero concretamente a dos expedientes en mi poder: uno referente a la revisión del Reglamento 539, y el otro relativo a la lucha contra la falsificación del euro.

Pero no hay más que mirar el proceso de evaluación Schengen para comprender cuánta importancia tiene lo que estoy diciendo. O hay urgentemente un acuerdo interinstitucional, o no podremos desarrollar con eficacia la tarea legislativa que nos encomienda ―con valor en términos de codecisión― el Tratado de Lisboa.

 
  
  

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Claude Moraes (S&D). - Mr President, the lesson we are learning from many of the speeches today in the Chamber in relation to the Stockholm Programme and in the debate yesterday, for example on the oral question in relation to voluntary permanent settlement of asylum seekers, is that with codecision and the extra powers that we have had since Lisbon, the Stockholm Programme is rapidly showing us that there is a real imbalance between the inertia of the Council and the willingness of Parliament – the people in this Chamber – and the Commission to do things. We see that repeatedly. This is now the common denominator of so many of the essential files we have on the table and so many of the problems we have with implementation.

That inertia was obvious yesterday, when only seven Member States were willing to deal with the emergencies we see with asylum problems. Some Member States are burdened and others are perhaps willing to take some asylum seekers, but we have no proposals on the table. If this is the common denominator then we have to unplug these difficulties. That is the problem underlying so many of our issues here, but that does not mean that we have not made progress. Through determination we have made progress on victims of crime and human trafficking in trying to complete the Common Asylum System. This has all been done through determination, and this mid-term review should recognise all those advances.

But also in the Stockholm Programme we should realise that, with the tools we have, we should attack the difficult problems. For example, we said we would address legal migration and, of course, one of the only files left – intra-corporate transferees and seasonal workers – involves dealing with some of the difficult files in the midst of austerity, and that will be very tough. It is important that we make progress and recognise in this mid-term review that we have that task, but also that we make progress on procedural rights, data protection and other areas. It is important in this mid-term review that we are honest.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la sensazione è che il programma di Stoccolma dopo oltre tre anni dalla sua approvazione rimanga uno strumento non del tutto compiuto.

Ciò è stato riferito negli interventi dei colleghi, così come nella prima relazione del Commissario Borg che pure ha indicato una serie di elementi a favore a cominciare da Schengen, che è certamente una conquista di civiltà che dobbiamo anche ad una successiva implementazione del programma di Stoccolma.

Bene sulla cooperazione giudiziaria di polizia necessaria per abbattere il crimine organizzato e gli altri reati transnazionali tra cui il riciclaggio e la corruzione; bene certamente la tutela degli imputati così come la tutela dei minori, si tratta di conquiste importanti che vanno registrate con sicuro favore, tuttavia molti degli interventi che noi immaginavamo potessero essere realizzati non lo sono ancora stati. La giustizia è un diritto che va realizzato concretamente.

Per quanto riguarda le carceri e il diritto fondamentale a scontare la pena che è un diritto, ma nel contempo un dovere che si scontra con il problema del sovraffollamento, avevamo pensato a una possibilità di andare incontro agli Stati membri dove è accertato il sovraffollamento come conseguenza della presenza di cittadini provenienti da paesi terzi o da cittadini comunitari di altri Stati, ma nulla è stato fatto.

Fondamentali, signor Commissario e Presidenza, sono le prospettive finanziarie 2014-2020. Soltanto con risorse concrete potremo pensare a un post-Stoccolma e quindi è una priorità politica restituire risorse nel QFP relativo alla giustizia dove vi è – e chiudo signor Presidente – un 16% in meno di risorse. È lì che bisogna intervenire con determinazione.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Das Stockholmer Programm, das eigentlich einen wichtigen Baustein der Architektur der inneren Sicherheit Europas darstellen könnte, findet leider nicht die gebührende Aufmerksamkeit – weder in der breiten Öffentlichkeit, noch bei den politischen Akteuren.

Bei der Umsetzung der Maßnahmen stehen die Grundrechte oft zu wenig im Vordergrund und werden viel zu oft dem Prinzip einer scheinbaren Sicherheit geopfert. Wir müssen dafür Sorge tragen, dass in allen Maßnahmen die Prinzipien der Unschuldsvermutung oder der Grundsatz der Nichtdiskriminierung gewahrt bleiben.

Wir warten auch immer noch auf die Evaluierung der einschlägigen Rechtsvorschriften, die das Europäische Parlament am 25. November 2009 beschlossen hat.

Ein Herzstück des Stockholmer Programms ist es weiters, alle Formen von Diskriminierung, Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Homophobie zu bekämpfen. Im Aktionsplan gibt es zwar eine Reihe nichtlegislativer Maßnahmen, auf die Zustimmung des Rates zur 2008 vorgelegten Richtlinie warten wir jedoch noch immer.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. Herr geschätzter Kollege Weidenholzer! Es gibt ja diesen bekannten Ausspruch, dass Freiheit mit Sicherheit stirbt. Und meine Frage nun an Sie wäre: Glauben Sie, dass die Europäische Union bei der Schaffung eines Raums der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts die richtige Balance gefunden hat zwischen Sicherheit auf der einen Seite und Freiheit auf der anderen Seite?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. Über diese Frage könnte man sehr eingehend und lange diskutieren. Ich glaube, dass diese Balance zurzeit nicht gefunden wird und dass sich das leider immer mehr in Richtung eines vermeintlichen Sicherheitsdenkens bewegt, das Freiheitsspielräume in vielen Fragen einschränkt.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Deşi s-au făcut progrese majore în implementarea prevederilor planului de acţiune al Programului de la Stockholm, există în continuare întârzieri. Mă refer chiar la una dintre priorităţile politice ale programului, şi anume continuarea extinderii spaţiului Schengen.

Documentul cere Consiliului ca, în condiţiile îndeplinirii cerinţelor privind aplicarea acquis-ului Schengen, să se adopte măsuri pentru a permite eliminarea controalelor la frontiere, iar, după cum se ştie, atât România, cât şi Bulgaria au îndeplinit criteriile de mai mult timp, fapt confirmat atât de Comisie, cât şi de Parlamentul European. Deci dacă dorim ca Programul de la Stockholm să fie un succes, cred că trebuie îndeplinită prioritatea politică referitoare la extinderea Schengen. Sper ca până la finalul acestui an acest lucru să se întâmple.

 
  
 

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tonio Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I should like to thank the honourable Members who have participated in this debate. It was an interesting debate and, since for ten years I was Minister of the Interior, I felt at home and comfortable in the debate because I understood the concerns of the Members.

Of course, governments have to govern. They have the responsibility to govern; they also reflect public opinion. But directives have to be scrutinised and the Commission does scrutinise what the Member States do: how they implement the acquis and how they implement the Schengen acquis.

So let me return to what I said in my introductory address: Schengen is an achievement, but this does not mean there are no problems. I refer to Mr Guerrero Salom, who said that there are difficulties in going from Eastern Europe to the UK. Of course, the UK is not in Schengen; it is entitled not to become part of Schengen because it is within its rights under the Treaties and its discretion not to do so, so therefore there are border controls at the border with the Untied Kingdom.

But I have heard of some complaints by citizens of the country I know best, from people not being allowed in unless they produce a passport, which is against the acquis even for the non-Schengen countries. One has to be very careful that the Schengen acquis is not abused – in other words that, stealthily behind the scenes, we are not dismantling what we have achieved by raising borders and by carrying out systematic checks and not the random checks required by the Schengen acquis. However, the Commission monitors this situation regularly and also issues reports on the implementation of the Schengen acquis.

I note that several Members referred to the European Arrest Warrant – in different ways, of course: some said that it is being applied unjustly against citizens, others that it is not being applied enough. Of course the very idea of the European Address Warrant is based on the presumption – the premise – that our rules relating to freedom and the rule of law are so similar – not identical but so similar – that we should introduce a simplified express way of extradition. This is the value added of the European Arrest Warrant. We have already had the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Extradition. This is now an improvement within the European Union, on the basis that, if we trust our each other and each other’s systems to this extent, then, on the mere issuing of a European Arrest Warrant, we should deliver a person to the other country within the European Union.

I remember that, on the very day when the United Kingdom had a big controversy on this European Arrest Warrant, the British police succeeded in getting back to the United Kingdom a school teacher who had eloped with one of his students to France and was extradited expressly by means of the European Arrest Warrant. So all countries apply the European Arrest Warrant. Like so many other things it can be abused both ways: either someone who is a fugitive of justice is not sent back – because he is a national of the Member State, which is not one of the reasons why you should refuse this simplified form of extradition, or on the basis of some other procedural rule – or someone uses the European Arrest Warrant in a flippant way. Of course these are the two extremes, but in most cases it is applied justly – it has made a difference and helped in the creation of this common area of freedom and justice.

I admire Ms Mazzoni from Italy on her commitment to make the European Union accountable to citizens by taking care of citizens’ needs, and as Chair of the Committee on Petitions she is of course in an excellent position to know what the main concerns of the European citizen are. But I think we have to judge the Stockholm Programme and our achievements in the area of freedom, security and justice with the European Union by looking not at what we should be in a utopian sense but at where we started from. Only four years ago I was a member of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers where practically everything had to pass by unanimous vote. So each Member State, whether it was Germany or Malta, had a veto on justice and home affairs issues.

Today, after the Lisbon Treaty, not only has this changed but there are two co-legislators of equal rank. I emphasise this point – of equal rank – so I admire the balanced approach of Mr Moraes saying that the Commission is on the energetic side of things in the introduction of legislation. It is natural. I spent 16 years as a government minister, and it is natural for governments to be slightly more conservative than parliamentarians because they have direct responsibility to govern, which is not an easy thing to do in the current times – nor is it an easy thing to be a parliamentarian, because there are responsibilities inherent in occupying the office of a parliamentarian. But we face this in most directives.

This is the compromise which stems from having what President Barroso likes to call ‘a federation but a federation of sovereign states’. It is a contradiction in terms up to a certain point – how can it be a federation and at the same time have sovereign states? – but this is the reality: that we have not become a federation but at the same time we are much more than just an organisation of sovereign states moving towards a more perfect union. So in answer to Ms Mazzoni – whose energy I admire for pushing the agenda and asking the question: ‘Do we really have a common area?’ – I would say that perhaps we have not reached the level we would like to attain, but I think great strides forward have been made and in a very concrete way. Not in an academic way, but in a very concrete way – which does not mean of course that every now and again there are not troubles which arise or obstacles of a nationalist nature which arise as well and which we as the Commission should tackle and, where necessary, also take immediate action.

I appreciated the comments of those who question how much solidarity there is on the immigration issue. Of course the countries at the periphery, particularly in the South, complain that not enough is being done with regard to the intra-European transfer of protected persons who enter the periphery, and that these countries on the periphery have an excessive burden with regard to the refugee and the asylum problem.

Solidarity is not something which can be imposed. As soon as it is imposed, it is not really solidarity, merely the application of a legal obligation. Even though some would prefer to have an imposed system of burden-sharing, it is perhaps a contradiction in terms up to a certain point. Even if there is a forced way of burden-sharing, it has to be agreed to by the Member States themselves. I appreciate my colleague Commissioner Malmström’s difficulty in pushing forward solidarity while at the same time I know very well that she does not have the full support of the Member States in this regard, as they do not consider – not all of them, at least – that this is necessarily a pan-European problem.

There are several other points I would like to reply to, but in particular I would refer to Mr Zwiefka’s comments. I agree entirely with him that judicial training is crucial in order to ensure that the law is known and that it is implemented. The Commission will continue to support actions to strengthen judicial training because we feel that, through this method of training, one can ensure that the laws agreed to in Brussels and Strasbourg do not become a dead letter.

I have already replied to the questions raised concerning Schengen. Regarding Mr Ehrenhauser’s question, I would like to tell him that the Commission proposed a new legal basis for Europol, basically with two objectives: firstly to improve the functioning of Europol – notably by equipping it to be more efficient in exchanging information between police authorities – and secondly in increasing the parliamentary oversight, in line with the Lisbon Treaty, of the actions of Europol. We all know that through the intervention of Parliament in several pieces of legislation, including in the area of freedom and justice, the original bill – the draft proposal – has been changed and compromises have been reached. So Parliament should not ignore the Council, nor should the Council ignore Parliament. The idea of the Lisbon Treaty is that, through these two co-legislators, one would find through synthesis what the proper legislation should be within the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I would like to thank you firstly for the opportunity to engage in this discussion, which has been a very useful and informative discussion on the Stockholm Programme. As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, the programme itself is extremely wide-ranging and very comprehensive in scope and covers a range of areas: justice, asylum, migration, internal security and external relations. As many Members have pointed out, the Stockholm Programme and all the aspects and elements of it affect the lives of EU citizens in one way or another, given that it helps to define work in all aspects of justice and home affairs.

I can certainly agree with my friend, Commissioner Borg, in that the benchmark has to be based on an assessment of where we have come from. Of course we all aspire to Utopia – to the optimum outcome – but in terms of assessing the programme and its multiannual, multi-faceted nature, it is fair to say that we have come a long way.

I would like to address some of the issues which have been specifically raised by Members: Mr Berlinguer, Mr López Aguilar and Mr Casini, have asked about the practical benefits, the impact and the results achieved by Stockholm. That is obviously a long list when you think about it, but the results are evidenced by the extent of the body of legislation which has been brought forward in all the Justice and Home Affairs areas – legislation which will guarantee (and I think this is our common goal) the security of EU citizens in every aspect of their lives.

Mr Guerrero Salom mentioned the need to focus on values. When we speak of values, European values are very much the focus and the core of the Stockholm Programme. Ms Wikström mentioned the importance of resettlement programmes and, as you are probably aware, a joint EU resettlement programme was adopted by both Parliament and the Council in March of last year, in order to ensure that there is a coordinated response to those who require protection. So progress is being made on this very important issue. Mr Kirkhope spoke about the challenge of unaccompanied minors and, of course, that is indeed a major cause for concern and demands attention. In May 2010 the Commission presented an action plan for the 2010 to 2014 period, and implementation of that action plan was reported on last September with a view to ensuring that this challenge continues to be addressed effectively.

Mr Papanikolaou spoke about the legislative procedures after the Lisbon Treaty. I believe the process has been greatly improved by the use of the codecision procedure; the Commissioner has also emphasised that point. The full involvement of Parliament enriches the process and keeps both the Commission and Council on our toes, which I think is the desired effect. So I consider it to be a great improvement, although I am sure there is still work to be done on relations and on cooperation between the three institutions. There is always room for improvement; that is nothing new and it is not unique to the field of justice and home affairs.

Other Members asked about the information management strategy. The Commission paper on the European information exchange model was published in December and is designed to take stock of how existing cross-border information exchange works today. The Commission’s findings from that process are being examined carefully at the moment by Council, and we will revert.

Mr Díaz de Mera García Consuegra mentioned the Directive on the confiscation and freezing of assets, and he lamented the lack of progress. I am pleased to say that the first trialogue with Parliament is now scheduled for 28 May, following the recent vote by the LIBE Committee, so there is progress, and I hope that you will see that we have worked very hard over the last number of months to try to ensure that we can progress that, and indeed other aspects of the Stockholm Programme, and we are doing so.

The Programme itself ensures that issues that are central to the further development and ongoing protection of the area of freedom and justice are constantly and consistently within our sphere of attention, and I think that really is the benefit of the Stockholm Programme: keeping it on the agenda and keeping us focussed on the improvements and the reforms that need to take place. It has certainly ensured continuity through and across various presidencies of the European Union. There is a clear work programme, which we cooperate on with Parliament and the Commission from one presidency to another. I think this consistency of approach is hugely beneficial.

The area of freedom, security and justice, which we have helped define and which we have all worked so hard to achieve and indeed to protect, has benefited greatly from the certainty of the issues that are contained within the programme.

I can assure you, in conclusion, that for the remaining duration of the Irish Presidency, we will continue to work very hard to make progress on areas of importance within the Stockholm Programme. I look forward to continued collaboration between our institutions to agree measures in a timely fashion in order to help to guarantee what we contribute to, a European Union which I believe our citizens deserve. As we begin to draw towards the end of the Irish Presidency, the benefits of having a programme such as the Stockholm Programme are clear, because, while we will work up to the eleventh hour in our Presidency, we will be handing over to the Lithuanian Presidency, which, of course, will take up the cudgel and will work to continue and to build on the momentum that we have managed to achieve through your cooperation here in Parliament over the last number of months.

I wish to thank you for that. Thank you, Mr President, for the opportunity to participate in this debate, and thank you, Commissioner, also.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Frau Ratspräsidentin, wir danken Ihnen, dass Sie uns heute schon den ganzen Tag begleiten und die Flagge der Ratspräsidentschaft im Parlament hochhalten.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ágnes Hankiss (PPE), írásban. – A belbiztonsági stratégia fontos eleme mind a terrorizmus, mind a szervezett bűnözés és ezen belül a kiberbűnözés elleni küzdelem. E célok érdekében az Európai Unió jelentős lépéseket tett, amelyek közül külön is kiemelendő az Europol és az ENISA tevékenységének és hatáskörének megerősítése és a Kiberbiztonsági Központ létrehozása.

Mindazonáltal az elmúlt években olyan új jelenségek és trendek mutatkoztak, amelyek újabb prioritásokat jelölnek ki. Ami a terrorizmust illeti, folytatódott a diverzifikáció, azaz a központosított, al-Káida típusú terrorszervezetek mellett fokozottabban számolnunk kell a magányos elkövetőkkel, illetve olyan fiatalok radikalizálódásával, akik rendezett polgári körülmények között, az európai és észak-amerikai kultúrkörben nevelkedve váltak fogékonnyá terrorista ideológiákra.

Bizonyosan a közeljövő egyik legfontosabb célkitűzése lesz a kiberbűnözés elleni harc. E téren nélkülözhetetlen lesz, hogy az eddiginél is fokozottabb erőfeszítéseket tegyünk egyrészt a tagállamok kiberbiztonsági képességeinek a harmonizálására, másrészt arra, hogy előmozdítsuk az eddiginél hatékonyabb kétoldalú együttműködést és információcserét a rendvédelmi és hírszerzési ügynökségek, valamint a polgári és a katonai szervek között. A kiberterrorizmus és a kiberkémkedés az egyik legfontosabb nemzetbiztonsági fenyegetéssé válik, amely a jövőben még fokozottabban megköveteli, hogy a magánszektort is bevonjuk a kibertér biztonságossá tételének folyamatába.

 
Juridische mededeling - Privacybeleid