Resoconto integrale delle discussioni

Lunedì 7 settembre 2015 - Strasburgo

1. Ripresa della sessione

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 17.05 Uhr eröffnet.)

  Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die am Donnerstag, dem 9. Juli 2015, unterbrochene Sitzungsperiode für wieder aufgenommen.

2. Dichiarazione della Presidenza

  Der Präsident. – Meine Damen und Herren! In diesen Tagen steht Europa vor einer historischen Bewährungsprobe. Hunderttausende Menschen suchen bei uns Schutz vor Krieg und Verfolgung. In ihrer Verzweiflung überqueren Familien mit ihren Kindern das Mittelmeer in Schlauchbooten. Die Menschen kampieren in Bahnhöfen, zwängen sich durch Stacheldraht, sie liefern sich erbarmungslosen Schleppern aus. Viele verlieren dabei ihr Leben – Männer, Frauen, Kinder, die in Lastwagen ersticken oder im Mittelmeer ertrinken.

In dem Augenblick, in dem sich immer mehr Menschen auf den Weg nach Europa machen und immer mehr Menschen ihr Leben verlieren, muss uns klar sein, dass wir weder mit Mauern noch mit Abschottung oder Abschreckung die Herausforderungen bewältigen. Ich möchte Sie an etwas erinnern: Vor wenigen Tagen hat der sogenannte Islamische Staat unwiederbringlich Kulturgüter in Palmyra zerstört. Wir haben aber schon fast vergessen, dass der Direktor dieses Museums in Palmyra vor wenigen Wochen durch diese Terrorbande öffentlich enthauptet wurde. Vor diesen Kriminellen fliehen die Menschen, die zu uns kommen, und sie lassen sich in ihrer Verzweiflung nicht von Meeren und Mauern abschrecken.

Wir werden auf diese globale Herausforderung weder mit einzelstaatlichen Maßnahmen noch mit nationalem Egoismus antworten. Wir brauchen als Antwort auf diese globale Herausforderung eine gemeinsame Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik. Kommissionspräsident Juncker wird am Mittwoch hier im Plenum in Straßburg eine Reihe von Maßnahmen – darunter auch einen Vorschlag für einen permanenten Notfallmechanismus – für die Verteilung von Flüchtlingen vorstellen.

Und dann, meine Damen und Herren, steht für uns alle – nicht nur hier, sondern in allen Organen der Union – die Frage im Raum, welche Union wir eigentlich wollen. Eine Union aller gegen alle oder eine Union der Solidarität. Die Aufgabe, vor der wir stehen, ist groß. Sie ist vielleicht die größte Herausforderung, vor der wir hier als aktuelle Politikergeneration stehen. Bei all den Debatten – über die Quoten, Dublin III oder Schengen – bitte ich uns alle, nicht zu vergessen, dass wir über Menschen und ganz bittere Schicksale reden. Die Menschen, die zu uns kommen, kommen, weil sie an uns und an unsere Werte glauben.

Aber die dramatischen Ereignisse der letzten Wochen haben auch viele Menschen in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU verunsichert. Ich will auch an die Adresse von Leuten, die viele Fragen an uns richten, sagen: Nicht jeder, der eine kritische Frage stellt, ist gegen Flüchtlinge. Wir müssen die Sorgen und die Nöte der Bürgerinnen und Bürger unserer Union ernst nehmen, denn die Probleme sind ja sichtbar groß. Ich will mich bei all den Menschen in unserer Union bedanken, bei den unzähligen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, die überall an Bahnhöfen, an Urlaubsstränden, an vielen anderen Orten erschöpfte Flüchtlinge mit Wasser und Nahrung versorgen, ihnen Kleider geben, ihren Kindern Spielzeug, und die sich melden, um freiwillig in Flüchtlingsunterkünften zu helfen. Diese Menschlichkeit muss unsere Richtschnur sein, damit sich das furchtbare Bild des kleinen Aylan Kurdi, das sich uns allen, so glaube ich, eingebrannt hat, in Europa nie mehr wiederholt.

(Beifall)

3. Approvazione del processo verbale della seduta precedente: vedasi processo verbale

4. Composizione del Parlamento: vedasi processo verbale

5. Composizione dei gruppi politici : vedasi processo verbale

6. Composizione delle commissioni e delle delegazioni

  Der Präsident. – Von der PPE-, S&D-, GUE/NGL-, der EFDD-und der ENF-Fraktion habe ich Anträge auf Benennungen und Änderungen in Ausschüssen und Delegationen erhalten.

Die Liste dieser Benennungen wird im Protokoll dieser Sitzung veröffentlicht.

Wenn bis zur Genehmigung dieses Protokolls kein Widerspruch erhoben wird, gelten diese Benennungen als bestätigt.

  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, vous avez rappelé avec force les valeurs de l'Union européenne et la crise humanitaire, notamment, et politique qui se déroule en ce moment en Hongrie.

Je voudrais donc soumettre une proposition à la bonne volonté du Parlement européen ou à la Conférence des présidents, à savoir que les voitures du Parlement européen se rendent en Hongrie pour aller chercher un certain nombre de réfugiés. Cela aurait une valeur de soutien aux réfugiés et ce serait, selon moi, un message très fort qui serait envoyé à M. Orbán et à son gouvernement: le Parlement européen soutient les réfugiés et met ses moyens à leur disposition.

7. Verifica dei poteri: vedasi processo verbale

8. Richiesta di revoca dell'immunità parlamentare: vedasi processo verbale

9. Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 136 del regolamento): vedasi processo verbale

10. Rettifiche (articolo 231 del regolamento): vedasi processo verbale

11. Firma di atti adottati in conformità della procedura legislativa ordinaria (articolo 78 del regolamento): vedasi processo verbale

12. Interpretazione del regolamento: vedasi processo verbale

13. Atti delegati (articolo 105, paragrafo 6, del regolamento): vedasi processo verbale

14. Misure di esecuzione (articolo 106 del regolamento): vedasi processo verbale

15. Presentazione di documenti: vedasi processo verbale

16. Interrogazioni con richiesta di risposta orale (presentazione): vedasi processo verbale

17. Seguito dato alle posizioni e risoluzioni del Parlamento: vedasi processo verbale

18. Trasmissione di testi di accordo da parte del Consiglio: vedasi processo verbale

19. Ordine dei lavori

  Der Präsident. – Der endgültige Entwurf der Tagesordnung dieser Tagung, wie er in der Konferenz der Präsidenten in ihrer Sitzung vom Donnerstag, dem 3. September 2015 gemäß Artikel 149 der Geschäftsordnung festgelegt wurde, ist verteilt worden. Zu diesem Entwurf wurden folgende Änderungen beantragt:

Montag, Dienstag: keine Änderungen.

Mittwoch:

Die EVP-Fraktion hat beantragt, die Abstimmung über den Vorschlag zur Änderung des Namens der „Delegation für die Beziehungen zum Palästinensischen Legislativrat“ in „Delegation für die Beziehungen zu Palästina“ zu vertagen, damit der Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten dazu konsultiert werden kann.

Bevor ich dazu Herrn Preda das Wort gebe, ein Hinweis zur Geschäftsordnung. Die Entscheidung darüber ist eine Entscheidung der Konferenz der Präsidenten. Deshalb müssten wir, wenn wir über diesen Antrag abstimmen, eine Rückverweisung an die Konferenz der Präsidenten beschließen mit der Bitte, dass diese den Ausschuss für auswärtige Angelegenheiten konsultieren soll. Das nur zur Klarstellung des Verfahrens.

Herr Preda, bitte sehr!

  Cristian Dan Preda, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, vous venez de le dire, nous croyons que ce débat est important et qu'il serait très utile, avant de prendre une décision en plénière, d'avoir un échange de vues et d’entendre les arguments au sein de la commission des affaires étrangères. Je trouve, d'ailleurs, que c’est une erreur de ne pas avoir examiné cette question en commission.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα μιλήσω εναντίον και θα πω ότι, όπως είπατε ο ίδιος, με βάση τον Κανονισμό, η Ολομέλεια αποφασίζει για την αλλαγή του ονόματος μίας Αντιπροσωπείας μετά από εισήγηση της Διάσκεψης των Προέδρων. Εδώ έχουμε εισήγηση από τη Διάσκεψη των Προέδρων και άρα θεωρώ ότι, με βάση τον Κανονισμό, πρέπει να προχωρήσουμε στη συζήτηση. Δεν θα ήθελα να υπεισέλθω επί της ουσίας, αλλά είναι γνωστό ότι από το 2013, σε όλο το εύρος των σχέσεων της, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση χρησιμοποιεί τον όρο «Παλαιστίνη» και όχι «Παλαιστινιακή Αρχή». Ευχαριστώ.

  Der Präsident. – Der Antrag ist klar. Es geht in dem Antrag von Herrn Preda um die Rückverweisung an die Konferenz der Präsidenten mit der Bitte, dass diese vor ihrer Entscheidungsfindung noch einmal den Auswärtigen Ausschuss konsultiert.

(Das Parlament lehnt den Antrag ab.)

Die EVP-Fraktion beantragt, im Anschluss an die Erklärungen der Hohen Vertreterin zur Lage in Belarus eine Entschließung zu verfassen und die Beratung mit einer Entschließung abzuschließen. Den Antrag begründet zunächst Herr Preda.

  Cristian Dan Preda, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, j'espère avoir plus de succès avec la Biélorussie. Nous considérons qu'il serait très utile, dans la situation actuelle, de présenter la position consensuelle du Parlement sur ce pays. Il ne suffit pas simplement de procéder à un échange de vues; nous considérons qu'il est important d'arrêter notre position, à l'heure actuelle, dans un texte convenu par nos groupes politiques.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Prezidenta kungs! Es domāju, ka nav īsti pareizi tagad steidzināt notikumus un pieņemt rezolūciju, it īpaši, kad Eiropas Savienība saskaras ar tik milzīgu krīzi saistībā ar bēgļiem, un es uzskatu, ka par šo rezolūciju var debatēt un to var pieņemt arī citā plenārsesijā.

  Der Präsident. – Der Antrag von Herrn Preda lautet: Belarus mit Entschließung.

(Das Parlament nimmt den Antrag an.)

Aus der veränderten Tagesordnung ergibt sich Folgendes:

Es wird eine Entschließung geben. Die Einreichungsfrist für die Entschließung ist morgen, 8. September, 10.00 Uhr, für Änderungsanträge und gemeinsame Entschließungsanträge Mittwoch, 9. September, 10.00 Uhr, für Änderungsanträge zu den gemeinsamen Entschließungsanträgen Mittwoch, 9. September, 11.00 Uhr.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 10. September, zur vorgesehenen Abstimmungsstunde statt.

Für Mittwoch beantragt die Fraktion der Grünen eine Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission und Hohen Vertreterin für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zur Lage in der Türkei. Die Aussprache soll mit einer Entschließung abgeschlossen werden und am Mittwochnachmittag stattfinden. Die Abstimmung über die Entschließung soll in der September-II-Tagung – also in der kommenden Woche – stattfinden. Zur Begründung des Antrags hat nun zunächst Frau Kollegin Harms das Wort.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrte Kollegen, seit wir den Fortschrittsbericht zur Türkei diskutiert und verabschiedet haben, auch seit den Wahlen in der Türkei ist viel passiert in diesem Land! Viele haben den Beitritt der Regierung Erdogan und der türkischen Armee zum Kampf gegen ISIS begrüßt, gleichzeitig gab es meiner Meinung nach aber auch sehr negative Entwicklungen in der Türkei: Der Friedensprozess mit den Kurden wurde für beendet erklärt. Die Verfolgung Oppositioneller, insbesondere oppositioneller Journalisten, geht inzwischen sehr weit. Gestern konnten wir alle sehen, dass Panzer durch kurdische Städte fahren. Inzwischen werden auch europäische Journalisten, Auslandskorrespondenten als Terroristen verfolgt. Heute Morgen ist ein Mob durch Istanbul gezogen zur Zentrale von Hürriyet, dem großen Medienkonzern in der Türkei.

Ich glaube, dass wir als Europäisches Parlament in dieser Situation von Frau Mogherini unbedingt erwarten sollten, dass sie zu diesen Entwicklungen Stellung nimmt. Denn einerseits muss man sich große Sorgen darüber machen, dass in der Türkei durch das, was die Regierung Erdogan aus Machtinteressen verfolgt, das ganze Land in der Zeit zurückfällt, quasi in die Vergangenheit zurückgeschossen wird. Andererseits muss man sich Sorgen machen um die Flüchtlinge in der Türkei, und man muss sich auch Sorgen machen um die Stabilität der Koalition gegen ISIS. Es gibt also viele Gründe, dieses Thema unter dem Tagesordnungspunkt, zu dem Frau Mogherini kommt, zu bearbeiten.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, νομίζω ότι πολύ λίγα πράγματα μπορεί να προσθέσει κανείς στα όσα έχει πει η συνάδελφος. Πράγματι, η Τουρκία βρίσκεται σε μια έκρυθμη κατάσταση. Έχουμε μια εξέλιξη συγκρούσεων και πολέμων σε όλα σχεδόν τα μέτωπα που έχουν να κάνουν με τα σύνορα της Τουρκίας και έχουμε κυρίως μια σύγκρουση με τους Κούρδους, η οποία αποτελεί επαναφορά στην αιματηρή υπόθεση προηγούμενων ετών και εγκυμονεί πολύ μεγάλους κινδύνους για όλους τους πολίτες της Τουρκίας, αλλά δυστυχώς και για όλους τους λαούς της περιφέρειας. Υπογραμμίζω και εγώ ότι, δυστυχώς, όλη αυτή η υπόθεση εξελίσσεται έτσι γιατί ο κ. Ερντογάν θέλει, μέσα από την ανασφάλεια που δημιουργείται στους Τούρκους πολίτες, να στραφούν αυτοί ξανά υπέρ του κόμματός του σε μια ενδεχόμενη νέα εκλογική αναμέτρηση . Θεωρώ ότι είναι πάρα πολύ κρίμα, πρώτον, να μην το βλέπει κανείς αυτό και, δεύτερον, το Κοινοβούλιο να μην πραγματοποιεί συζήτηση για αυτό το ζήτημα προκειμένου να καταθέσει την άποψή του και να ωθήσει ενδεχομένως τον κύριο Ερντογάν προς τη σωστή κατεύθυνση, αν αυτό είναι δυνατόν. Ευχαριστώ.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, nous sommes contre l'idée de mener maintenant un grand débat sur la Turquie parce que, comme notre collègue vient de l'expliquer, c'est une affaire politique et une préoccupation partisane de ce groupe politique.

Nous sommes entre deux élections en Turquie et les sujets liés à la migration et à la lutte contre le terrorisme seront traités dans les autres débats qui ont déjà été fixés. Je ne crois donc pas qu'il faille entrer maintenant dans une bataille d'affaires politiques entre les groupes d'extrême gauche et les Turcs.

(Das Parlament lehnt den Antrag ab.)

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE). – Mr President, as you know, I have requested the presence of the President of the European Council at our debate on Wednesday on migration – not on the State of the Union, on migration – because I think it is absolutely necessary that, in the middle of such a crisis, the President of the Council is here to discuss it with us. I know that the Commission is going to come forward with new proposals, but the problem is not the Commission. The problem is not the European Parliament, which has a unified position on this – it voted in April on a resolution. The problem is in the Council – the Member States – which have a lack of unity and a lack of solidarity in this. For that reason, I ask again that you make an appeal for President Tusk to be present on Wednesday morning at the debate on migration.

  Der Präsident. – Herr Verhofstadt! Ich habe im Nachgang zur Konferenz der Präsidenten die Anfrage ja bereits an den Präsidenten des Europäischen Rates übermittelt. Ich habe jedoch bis dato keine positive Antwort bekommen. Ich werde aber im Lichte der heutigen Sitzung noch einmal den Präsidenten anrufen.

Donnerstag: Keine Änderungen.

(Der Arbeitsplan ist somit angenommen.)

20. Commercio dei prodotti derivati dalla foca (discussione)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Cristian-Silviu Buşoi im Namen des Ausschusses für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1007/2009 über den Handel mit Robbenerzeugnissen (COM(2015)0045 - C8-0037/2015 - 2015/0028(COD)) (A8-0186/2015).

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, rapporteur. – Mr President, please allow me first to thank my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs, for their work on this file, and the Commission and the Council for their cooperation. Without all the good work and support received, we would not have reached an agreement in June under the Latvian Presidency, bringing the EU basic regulation into line with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling.

In 2009, within the basic regulation, the EU opted for a ban in trade in seal products, with two main exceptions: products from hunts conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities (the IC exception) and products from hunts conducted for the sole purpose of the sustainable management of marine resources on a small scale and non-profit basis (the MRM exception).

The aim of this Regulation is to ensure that products derived from seals hunted for commercial purposes are no longer found on the EU market.

The Seal Regulation and its implementing act were challenged by Canada and Norway in the WTO. The final rulings of the WTO panel and the WTO Appellate Body were adopted on 18 June 2014 by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body on 18 June 2014, disapproving of one of the two exceptions, namely the MRM exception. Canada and the European Union had agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings should be 16 months from the date of adoption. That period expires on 18 October 2015.

The European Commission did not adopt its proposal for amending the current Regulation on trade in seal products until 6 February 2015, bringing the current legislation into line with the WTO rulings by renouncing the MRM exception and keeping the reinforced Inuit exception. Although I very much appreciate that not all MEPs and Member States agree with the deletion of the MRM exception, I am very pleased to announce that the final agreement reached is in line with the WTO rulings.

As regards the Inuit exception, the consolidated text encompasses a new set of criteria under which seal products resulting from hunts conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities could be placed on the market – a clear reference to the needs of such communities to provide food and income to support their life and a sustainable livelihood.

We amended the Commission’s proposal, taking into consideration in particular the right to self-determination of the Inuit and other indigenous communities. The proposal was amended so as to reiterate that seal hunting is an integral part of the culture and identity of the Inuit communities, making a major contribution to their subsistence, providing food and income to support their families and small communities, and preserving and continuing the traditional existence of the community and the cultural heritage of bartering.

In the report I have proposed a new article, namely 5a, referring to the need for citizens to be properly informed about seal products placed on the EU market which originate in Inuit and other indigenous communities, and that those seal products are lawful in origin.

Last, but not least, as regards Article 7 on reporting, the agreed text asks the Commission to report by the end of 2019 on the implementation of the new rules, paying particular attention to the impact of those rules on the Inuit community.

I look forward to hearing what the Commission, the Council and, of course, my colleagues have to say.

PUHETTA JOHTI ANNELI JÄÄTTEENMÄKI
varapuhemies

  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first and foremost, let me thank and congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Buşoi, and his colleagues for their commitment and thorough and also speedy work on the Commission proposal to amend the basic regulation on trade in seal products.

The amendment had become necessary after the WTO ruling in June last year. While the ruling upheld the EU ban on marketing of seal products, the WTO concluded that the exceptions provided by the EU for Inuit and other indigenous communities and for maritime resource management had some discriminatory effects. We believe that the constructive cooperation between the institutions has led to a very good result. It will enable the EU to comply with its international obligations under the WTO by the very challenging deadline which we were given for implementation and which will expire next month (on 18 October, to be precise). This is a very important step for the credibility of the EU, as one of the main users of the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, in implementing its WTO obligations.

We are very pleased to have come to the end of this process of amending our seal regime and making it compliant with WTO rules. It is a politically sensitive issue for many involved, and we are satisfied that a balanced compromise has been reached.

Throughout the process, the Commission has engaged with all the relevant stakeholders and also those Member States particularly concerned with the proposal. We believe that this dialogue has been very constructive and that its results are reflected in the outcome of this process.

The final result upholds the ban with a meaningful indigenous-communities exception and addresses all the shortcomings identified by the WTO, such as the need for removal of the marine resource management exception. It provides for a balanced approach between fulfilling the EU’s international trade obligations and addressing the legitimate concerns of Inuit communities and Member States affected by the changes. Furthermore, some specific requests by the European Parliament were taken on board in the compromise text, such as the provisions requiring the Commission to regularly evaluate the regulation, as well as to inform the public about the ban and its exception.

The Commission has made it clear that we fully support the outcome as far as the substance is concerned. On some procedural issues, changes made to the Commission’s proposal in the course of the negotiations require us to make two statements relating to horizontal institutional issues, which we have forwarded to the European Parliament services for recording in the minutes. Firstly, on the use of the no-opinion clause for the adoption of implementing acts, and, secondly, on the use of the comitology procedure for issuing technical guidance notes.

Commission’s Statements on:

1) The use of the no-opinion clause for the adoption of implementing acts

‘The Commission underlines that it is contrary to the letter and to the spirit of Regulation 182/2011 (OJ L 55 of 28.2.2011, p. 13) to invoke Article 5 § 4, subparagraph 2, point b) in a systematic manner. Recourse to this provision must respond to a specific need to depart from the rule of principle which is that the Commission may adopt a draft implementing act when no opinion is delivered. Given that it is an exception to the general rule established by Article 5 § 4 recourse to subparagraph 2, point b), cannot be simply seen as a ‘discretionary power’ of the Legislator, but must be interpreted in a restrictive manner and thus must be justified.’

2) The use of comitology procedure for issuance of technical guidance notes

‘The Commission notes that the co-legislators have included in the final compromise text a provision according to which the non-binding guidance notes under Article 3(6) will be adopted by examination procedure. The Commission is of the view that the adoption of non-binding guidelines by the Commission should not be subject to the control mechanism under Regulation 182/2011 since the Commission has its own autonomous right under the Treaty to issue such guidance. Considering the urgent need to meet the WTO requirements and deadlines the Commission does not oppose the solution favoured by the co-legislators in this particular file. This is without prejudice to the negotiations of the inter-institutional agreement on better law-making, as well as the position the Commission will take on similar matters in the future.’

  Bendt Bendtsen, ordfører for udtalelse fra Udvalget om International Handel. – Fru formand! Forordningen fra 2009 gjorde det ulovligt at sælge sælskindsprodukter i EU. Lovgivningen har vist sig at være en katastrofe for inuitterne og det oprindelige folk i Arktis. En af de to undtagelser var, at inuitterne skulle undtages, og at det ikke måtte få konsekvenser for inuitterne. Kommissionen fik ikke lavet en konsekvensanalyse! Alligevel vil man nu stramme teksten. Det er sjusk!

Alle tal har vist, at lovgivningen fra 2009 fik en kæmpe skadevirkning for inuitterne, og at der er smadret et erhverv, da de ikke kunne afsætte deres skind. Lagrene på Grønland har bugnet af op til 135 000 skind, som ligger på overskudslagre, og det vil altså sige, man har fjernet oprindelig folk fra deres erhverv som fangere og gjort dem til sociale klienter.

Vi må konstatere, at der er langt fra Bruxelles til Nordgrønland. Jeg vil i dag sige tak til Parlamentets forhandlere og hr. Buşoi for, at lovgivningen er blevet meget bedre. Vi kan desværre ikke takke Kommissionen i denne sag. Jeg er meget tilfreds med, at Kommissionen nu får en informationsforpligtelse, som den ikke tog vare på ved den forrige lovgivning.

  Janusz Wojciechowski, autor projektu opinii Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Komisja Rolnictwa pozytywnie opiniuje sprawozdanie. Opowiadamy się za tym, żeby były ograniczenia w handlu produktami z fok z uwagi na okrucieństwo polowań.

Przypomina się to, co powiedział swego czasu Mahatma Gandhi, że poziom rozwoju cywilizacji i jej moralny rozwój oceniać można po tym, jak traktowane są zwierzęta. Okrucieństwo wobec zwierząt, okrucieństwo tych polowań to nie są tylko cierpienia zwierząt, ale to jest także obrażanie godności człowieka, bo okrucieństwo obraża naszą godność w dwudziestym pierwszym wieku. Dlatego konieczne są te ograniczenia, aczkolwiek musimy rozumieć też szczególną sytuację tych tradycyjnych społeczności Inuitów i dla nich muszą być utrzymane wyjątkowe rozwiązania. Do tego zmierza ta regulacja, nad którą dzisiaj debatujemy, i dlatego opowiadam się za jej przyjęciem.

  Andreas Schwab, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Auch ich möchte natürlich dem Kollegen Cristian Buşoi für seine Arbeit an diesem Umsetzungsentwurf für die Umsetzung der WTO-Entscheidung danken. Es kann keinen Zweifel geben, dass die Europäische Union, dass der Europäische Binnenmarkt seine Gesetzgebung den Anforderungen der WTO unterwirft, insofern bin ich sehr dankbar dafür, dass das auch im Ausschuss für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz so schnell gelungen ist.

Wir stehen aber dennoch vor der Frage, wie wir in der künftigen Zeit den Umweltschutz, den Tierschutz auf der einen Seite und andere ökonomische, aber auch politische Zwänge in Einklang bringen. Die Ausnahme, die wir gefunden haben, trägt zunächst einmal diesen Balance-Gründen ausreichend Rechnung. Wir müssen dafür Sorge tragen, dass die erlaubten legalen Möglichkeiten, die im Rahmen dieses WTO-konformen Umsetzungsprozesses geblieben sind, am Ende auch zulässig bleiben, damit die Gesetzgebung den Wert hat, den wir ihr eigentlich zubilligen wollen.

Insofern, Herr Kommissar, wird man sehen müssen, wie diese Gesetzgebung am Ende konkret wirkt, aber der Umsetzungsprozess seitens des Europäischen Parlaments ist erfolgreich gemacht. Herzlichen Dank!

  Christel Schaldemose, for S&D-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Kære kolleger! Vi stemmer i denne uge om det endelige forslag til ændring af det europæiske forbud mod import og eksport af sælprodukter. Det gør vi som følge af den WTO-afgørelse, der kom.

Den socialdemokratiske gruppe støtter det forhandlingsresultat, der er opnået. Det gør vi, fordi vi synes, det er godt. Det indeholder nemlig en rigtig god balance mellem tre vigtige hensyn: Vi efterlever WTO-afgørelsen og dermed EU's internationale forpligtigelser, vi fastholder det overordnede forbud mod import og eksport af sælprodukter, og ikke mindst støtter vi samtidig inuitternes, altså de oprindelige folks, mulighed for fortsat at sælge deres bæredygtige skindprodukter i EU.

Jeg er rigtig glad for, at vi i det resultat, vi har forhandlet frem til, pålægger Kommissionen at informere både offentligheden og myndighederne om, at inuitternes sælskindsprodukter er lovlige på det europæiske marked. Det er vigtigt for deres eksistensgrundlag. Vi kommer også her i Parlamentet til løbende at følge konsekvenserne af lovgivningen ved hjælp af de rapporter, som Kommissionen skal levere til os, og det, tror jeg, er vigtigt.

Til sidst vil jeg gerne sige tak til ordføreren, hr. Buşoi, for et rigtig godt og konstruktivt samarbejde, som har ført til, at vi har fået dette rigtig gode resultat!

  Daniel Dalton, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, for the ECR, WTO compliance was the most important point and, as a result, we can therefore support the deletion of the MRM exemption. It was also vitally important for us that we clarified the wording around the Inuit exemption so that they cannot only eat the seals that they hunt, but also make a living from those seal products. This is vitally important for the survival of Inuit communities, particularly in Greenland, where there is no other source of income. We have also upheld the original seal ban and the EU’s commitment to strong animal welfare legislation from the original ban a few years ago. From the ECR point of view that is also very important.

Finally, in line with the ECR commitment for better regulation, I think it is vitally important that we have now put requirements on the Commission to study the effect of these changes, and particularly the effect of the changes in relation to the previous legislation so that we can go forward with better legislation in the future.

So from the ECR Group, we supported the Commission proposal, we are supportive of the agreement and we think this is a good step for the future.

  Kaja Kallas, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, this legislative report was aimed at aligning what is currently legally possible in the EU with the WTO ruling, but something that seems very standard and harmless can get more difficult when it is about cultural traditions in some small parts of Europe. The proposed Maritime Resource Management exception, which was in line with the WTO ruling, was not about reopening the ban on the trade in seal products, but the ban will remain and I, of course, support it.

The reality is that, in Nordic and Baltic countries, there are still licenses issued for hunting seals. There are some cultural traditions: in Estonia, for instance, there are 50 licenses granted for this type of hunting and this number is not likely to increase. The fact that they cannot make any use of what they hunt does not contribute to making people aware of it and value it, as they just end up disregarding it. So I stress that this is not about animal welfare, but about the sustainable use of resources. I hope that the Commission will look at current practices and see what is the best way to ensure that, while respecting the ban, we still allow traditions to carry on in the smartest way, since legislation that allows hunting but either leads to a waste of resources or creates a grey economy is not good legislation.

  Anja Hazekamp, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Het is een historisch moment. Eindelijk tellen de belangen van dieren volwaardig mee. Voor het eerst wegen niet automatisch kortzichtige handelsbelangen zwaarder dan dierenwelzijn. De Partij voor de Dieren is dan ook blij met de uitspraak van de Wereldhandelsorganisatie.

En laat daar geen misverstand over bestaan: als er één product is dat nu verboden zou moeten worden dan is dat wel zeehondenbont. Want nog ieder jaar worden honderdduizenden zeehonden op bloedige wijze doodgeknuppeld. Het gaat vaak om heel jonge dieren, nog geen drie maanden oud. Baby's die vaak bij vol bewustzijn worden gevild. En waarom? Alleen maar om geld te verdienen aan hun vacht. Zeehondenbont is een onnodig modeproduct waarvoor pasgeboren dieren op afschuwelijke wijze worden afgeslacht. En daarvoor is geen enkel excuus.

Juist daarom besloot Europa in 2009 om de import en handel te beperken. En van de twee uitzonderingen blijft er helaas nog één overeind: de jacht door de Inuit. Maar als we de traditionele cultuur willen behouden, dan moeten we de Inuit vooral niet gaan stimuleren om hun producten om te zetten in geld en daarvoor zelfs nog meer op baby's te gaan jagen in plaats van op volwassen dieren.

En voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

  Igor Šoltes, v imenu skupine Verts/ALE. – Prvo seveda iskrene čestitke poročevalcem in hvala našim kolegicam in kolegom, ki so pokazali veliko stopnjo učinkovitosti pri sprejemanju kompromisov o zadevi, ki je seveda zelo zahtevna, hkrati pa seveda zelo pomembna.

Uredba o prepovedi prodaje izdelkov iz tjulnjev je seveda tudi zelo pomembna za našo skupino, saj je njen primarni in osnovni namen od vsega začetka tudi zaščita živali, za katero se aktivno zavzemamo.

Seveda je bila ta uredba potrebna tudi zaradi zahtev Svetovne trgovinske organizacije. Tisto, kar se je pojavilo kot problem med samim usklajevanjem, je bilo to, da so nekatere skupine pokazale izjemen interes, da bi se v tej uredbi znašlo čim več izjem, ki bi to uredbo naredile bolj ohlapno in s tem seveda ne bi dosegli cilja, za katerega smo si prizadevali ves čas pogajanj.

Sem vesel, da so ti poskusi bili na nek način neuspešni in že na samem odboru IMCO smo zavrnili te poskuse, kar je bilo podprto tudi na pogajanjih s Svetom.

Sam menim, da je bila v obstoječi uredbi najbolj problematična tako imenovana izjema MRM, zato smo si prizadevali, da se izbriše, kar nam je tudi uspelo.

Predvsem pa bo pomembno, da ta uredba v praksi tudi zaživi. Tu seveda bo igrala pomembno vlogo Komisija, ki bo morala izvesti tudi evalvacijo teh pravil in pa predvsem tega, ali kljub tej uredbi še prihaja do kršitev ali ne in če prihaja, seveda tudi ustrezno ukrepati.

(Govornik se je strinjal, da bo sprejel vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka (člen 162(8)).

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D), sinisen kortin kysymys. – Arvoisa puhemies, viimeisimmissä puheenvuoroissa on puhuttu eläinten suojelusta. Kuitenkin haluaisin, että Euroopan parlamentissa otettaisiin huomioon myös pienet traditiot, niin kuin täällä on inuiittipoikkeusta arvostettu.

Meillä on kuitenkin myös Itämeressä muutamia aivan pieniä saaria, joissa on myös tuhannen vuoden perinteet hylkeen nahan käytölle. Jos sanotaan, että tämä on eläinten suojelua, niin tämähän ei estä eläinten metsästämistä, eikä myöskään estä verkkoihin joutuneiden pelastamista. Tämä estää vain hylkeen nahan kaupallisen käytön. Hulluimmillaan tämä asema menee niin, että kun hylje on ammuttu kalliolle, ei ole enää intensiiviä ottaa sitä pois ja käyttää tuota nahkaa ja samalla menetetään traditioammatti.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE), odgovor na vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka. – Mislim, da s to uredbo je dosežen največji možni kompromis, da se s to uredbo seveda tudi spoštuje tradicija. Predvsem tukaj mislim na tradicionalni lov tako Inuitov, Eskimov in skupin, seveda ki se preživljajo skozi tradicionalni način z lovljenjem kitov. In tisto, kar je bilo danes že slišano, tudi produkti so lahko za potrebe preživetja Inuitov in Eskimov v prostem prometu.

Jasno pa je, da bi preveč ohlapna definicija lahko določila take izjeme in zlorabe, kar bi pa na koncu seveda lahko zelo škodovalo tudi tjuljnom.

  Margot Parker, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, whilst I appreciate that changes to the legislation on seal products are based on World Trade Organisation recommendations and serve the intention of better welfare and the protection of seals, I am deeply concerned about the impact that this will have on the Inuit communities whom these changes will also largely affect. Notably, my concerns lie with the lack of impact assessments carried out prior to tomorrow’s vote.

In 2009, when the exemption for Inuit communities was first established, a key priority of Parliament was to ensure that negative impacts would not occur for the Inuit communities, who for hundreds of years have relied on seal hunting as a means of providing food, warmth and economic prosperity. However, like many things that come from this Parliament, this was not the end result. Recent figures from Greenland have shown that the ban has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on those communities.

To ensure that continued or additional negative impacts from future changes do not take place, we must ensure that the livelihoods of the Inuit are held in the same high regard as the welfare of the seals. With this in mind, it is therefore imperative that the welfare of the group is not sacrificed one for the other.

  Franz Obermayr, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Nachhaltigkeit und ein verantwortungsvoller Umgang mit natürlichen Ressourcen sind unsere Leitwerte, aber was das bisherige Verbot des Handels mit Robbenerzeugnissen anging, sind wir diesen Leitwerten nicht gefolgt. Als Beispiel möchte ich hier die Situation in Grönland anführen: Zwölf Millionen Robben bevölkern die Gewässer der Insel, und die dortigen Ureinwohner jagen jährlich zirka 150 000 Tiere.

Biologen schätzen, dass die jährliche Jagd auch bei 500 000 Tieren nachhaltig wäre. Doch es kommt nicht auf die Steigerung der Fangzahlen an, sondern auf die sinnvolle Verwendung der Produkte aus dieser Jagd. Für indigene Völker dieser Region bleiben nur Robben als Vitamin-C- und Protein-Lieferanten. Robben werden also seit alters her von der dortigen Bevölkerung gejagt, für ihren Nährwert gibt es keinen Ersatz! Und ohne die Absatzmärkte der Europäischen Union wurden tausende Felle aus dieser Jagd verbrannt oder anderweitig entsorgt, und das hat, meine Damen und Herren, mit einem verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit natürlichen Ressourcen nichts zu tun.

Dennoch müssen wir schon darauf achten, dass eine rein kommerzielle Jagd auf diese Tiere nicht wieder stattfindet. Und wir sollten uns auch die Ostsee genauer ansehen, dass auch hier Ausnahmen in Grenzen gehalten werden. Daher halte ich es mit dem Greenpeacesprecher Jon Burgwald, der sagte, wir müssen unsere Anstrengungen deutlich erhöhen, um den Konsumenten in der EU die Unterschiede zwischen nachhaltiger Jagd durch indigene Völker und kommerzieller Jagd klar zu machen.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Paní předsedkyně, já chci nejprve pogratulovat panu zpravodaji. Jeho kompromis podporuji. Sám osobně jsem přesvědčen, že zákaz obchodování s tuleními výrobky je morální a správný, že zvířata při tradičním zabíjení mimořádně trpěla.

Na druhou stranu už zde bylo jasně řečeno, že z tohoto zákazu je zde jedna výjimka. Já chci obecně konstatovat, že pokud nějaký zákonný zákaz má nějakou výjimku, tak to v praxi často způsobuje problémy, často takovýto zákaz je obcházen nebo různě interpretován. Trošku se obávám, když se podívám na výjimku, která je poskytnuta Inuitům, že obsahuje tolik podmínek a že je jaksi tak složitá, že bude na Evropské komisi – a tím vyzývám pana komisaře –, aby velmi pozorně sledovala, zda ta výjimka je dodržována.

Je třeba říci, že Inuitům není dán prostor pro komerční obchod s tímto zbožím. Je jasně napsáno, že to má být lov, který je spíše pro nekomerční účely. Že ten lov má být prováděn humánně atd. Bude tedy na Komisi, aby toto sledovala, tak aby výjimka z právního zákazu byla dodržena a aby opravdu byl vyvážen zájem zvířat na jedné straně a zájem tradičního inuitského společenství na druhé straně.

Takže prosím Komisi, aby celá věc neskončila přijetím této právní úpravy, ale aby bylo sledováno, zda je bedlivě dodržováno to, co bylo jako výjimka stanoveno.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 162 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)

  Franz Obermayr (ENF), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich konnte meinem Vorredner entnehmen, dass er sich sehr sorgt, da Ausnahmen ja immer dazu führen könnten, dass hier etwas einreißt, was wir nicht wollen. Er hat allerdings zwei Punkte für mich ausgelassen. Nämlich einerseits: Wie stellt er sich vor, dass wir die Grundlagen oder die Möglichkeiten der traditionellen Nahrungsbeschaffung für die indigenen Völker beibehalten? Wir haben hier, glaube ich, außer Streit die Erkenntnis, dass das Robbenfleisch dazu dient. Das Zweite ist, ob er es für klug und nachhaltig halten würde, so wie es bisher geschehen ist, dass die Decken, die Felle dieser Tiere verbrannt, entsorgt und weggeworfen werden.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – My nejsme ve sporu, já pouze jako právník upozorňuji na to, že podle mého názoru je ta výjimka legislativně složitě formulována, a že je teď na Evropské komisi, až ta výjimka bude účinná, aby kontrolovala, zda je dodržována. Já říkám, že jako politik respektuji, že inuitské společenství má mít právo lovit tuleně a mít to právo v rámci svého tradičního fungování a své tradiční obživy.

Ale konstatuji také, že Komise bude muset dále sledovat, zda všechny aspekty tohoto povolení, této výjimky jsou dodržovány. Zda lov je humánní atd. Nejsme ideově ve sporu.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Im Jahre 2009 haben wir das allgemeine Verbot des Verkaufs von Erzeugnissen zur Kommerzialisierung durchgesetzt, und das war eine gute Sache. Wir haben allerdings zu Recht eine Ausnahme gemacht für die Inuit, weil wir sehr wohl wissen, dass das zu ihrer Lebensgrundlage gehört.

Ohne diese Jagd und ohne die Erzeugnisse, die sie aus dieser Jagd haben, können sie schlicht und einfach nicht überleben, und deswegen können wir nicht einfach sagen, diese Ausnahme können wir nicht machen, oder sie ist zu kompliziert, oder es ist zu schwierig zu kontrollieren. Nein, wir müssen respektieren, dass diese Menschen auch eine Lebensgrundlage brauchen, und wir haben gesagt, ja, das müssen wir tun. Die zweite Ausnahme war eine schwierigere Ausnahme: Die Schonung von Meeresressourcen, was kann man darunter alles verstehen? Was kann man dahinter alles verstecken?

Ich denke, dass es eine gute Sache ist, dass wir diese Ausnahme jetzt gänzlich herausgenommen haben. Da haben wir eine gute Sache gemacht, und ich denke, wir können diesem Kompromiss morgen getrost zustimmen, weil er wirklich die richtigen Akzente setzt, und eben auch mit aufgenommen wurde, dass in der Zukunft noch einmal nachgeprüft wird, wie sich das tatsächlich auswirkt, insbesondere auf die Inuit, weil wir deren Lebensgrundlage nicht abschaffen wollen. Dankeschön!

  Fredrick Federley (ALDE). – Fru talman! Jag vill börja med att säga att någonting som är bra i WTO:s beslut är att man för första gången nämner djurvälfärd i sitt agerande. Det kan ge oss råg i ryggen när vi framöver diskuterar hur handel globalt ska se ut. Det är därför något som är väldigt bra.

Något annat som är bra med vår process är att vi har gjort undantag så att inuiterna kan fortsätta sin mångtusenåriga kulturella gärning och någonting som är ett underlag för att man ska kunna fortsätta sin kultur och sin ekonomi.

Det som är dåligt är att vi inte kan göra skillnad på jakt och jakt. I Sverige, till exempel, har vi strikt reglerad jakt på säl. Nu sägs emellertid från parlamentets sida att har ni jagat säl fullkomligt lagligt för att skydda fiskbestånd eller för att skydda små fiskeverksamheter så ska sälen brännas eller dumpas i sjön.

Har vi fått laglig och strikt reglering av möjligheten att skjuta säl ska vi självklart också få hantera den resurs som sälen utgör.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Fru talman! Nu ska vi alltså förbjuda handel med sälprodukter, även etiskt och hållbart jagad säl från till exempel Sverige. Låt mig vara tydlig, för det här är stendumt. Vi kommer nämligen att fortsätta att jaga säl, allt mer säl, vilket är något kommissionen själv erkänner i samma andetag som man föreslår att förbjuda handel med den. Bestånden ökar nämligen. Vanlig, ansvarsfull viltvård kräver att vi jagar säl, men nu ska vi alltså döda sälarna och sedan kassera dem, elda upp, gräva ner. Det som nu blir lag är direkt oetiskt.

Det nya förbudet motiveras med protester från Världshandelsorganisationen, men det fanns flera sätt att ta upp dessa problem, något som vi i handelsutskottet pekade på.

Låt mig bara peka på tre lösningar som är bättre än den här, som är den sämsta av alla lösningar. Man kunde ha avskaffat förbudet helt och hållet. Man kunde ha förbjudit handel med oetiskt jagad säl. Eller så kunde man ha valt att tydliggöra att förbudet inte ska gälla säl som har jagats i annat än kommersiellt syfte. Det här förslaget är nämligen helt orimligt.

Vi införde just ett förbud mot att fånga fisk och kasta den död tillbaka i havet, men med det här kravet blir det ju i praktiken lag att göra detsamma med sälar. Därför borde vi göra helt om – riv upp, gör nytt, för så här kan vi inte ha det.

  Jens Nilsson (S&D). – Fru talman! Hållbar förvaltning av marina resurser är otroligt viktigt, inte minst i Östersjön, som är ett känsligt innanhav. Det MRM-undantag som har funnits försvinner i och med det här beslutet, vilket är oerhört olyckligt.

Antalet gråsälar i Östersjön ökar hela tiden. Vi måste fortsätta att skjuta sälar för att ha ekologisk balans i Östersjön.

Det problem som jag har tagit upp i utskottet hela tiden när jag motsätter mig att man tar bort det här undantaget är att det är svårt att få jägare när vi ska jaga säl. Länsstyrelserna i Sverige, som är ansvariga för att fatta beslut och se till att vi jagar den säl som måste jagas, har redan i dag svårt att få tag på seriösa jägare. Därför att seriösa jägare vill ta vara på det som de fäller, inte minst i detta fall sälskinn, som ju faktiskt går att handla med. Det som kommer att bli problemet är att vi inte får tag i jägare för den jakt som vi måste genomföra. Problemet blir då att vi ju inte kan kalla in armén för att skjuta sälar.

Vad kommer att inträffa? Mitt värsta scenario är att vi får ett antal eventföretag runt Östersjön som erbjuder veckoslut där du får skjuta vilt på levande djur utan att behöva ta ansvar för att ta reda på dem. Detta är ett dåligt beslut.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Madam President, considering the final rulings in the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation on 18 June 2014 defining the Inuit and MRM exceptions as an arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination, we have no choice but to adopt an amendment to the current regulation on trade in seal products in order to bring the EU regulation into compliance with the World Trade Organisation rules.

As stated by the World Trade Organisation, the EU did not address animal welfare in Inuit hunts given that the overall objective of the regulation was based on animal welfare concerns, and the ambiguity of some of its conditions could lead to the use of the exception for hunts in ways which should in reality be characterised as primarily undertaken for commercial purposes. I therefore strongly agree on the links made in the proposal between the use of the exception and respect for animal welfare. This provides for a mechanism that could help prevent its misuse.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, βασική προτεραιότητα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης πρέπει να αποτελεί η προστασία των ειδών που κινδυνεύουν να εξαφανιστούν λόγω της λαθροθηρίας, όπως συμβαίνει με τις φάλαινες αλλά και με τις φώκιες. Το εμπόριο προϊόντων φώκιας έχει οδηγήσει στην εξολόθρευση του είδους και για τον λόγο αυτό πρέπει να απαγορευθεί. Αυτός πρέπει να είναι ο κανόνας. Η μοναδική εξαίρεση που θα μπορούσαμε να αποδεχθούμε είναι η θήρα στην οποία επιδίδεται παραδοσιακά στην Γροιλανδία η Κοινότητα των Ινουίτ. Όμως και εδώ πρέπει να θεσπίσουμε αυστηρές προϋποθέσεις. Πρώτον, πρέπει η θήρα να ασκείται με παραδοσιακό τρόπο από την Κοινότητα, δεύτερον, πρέπει η θήρα της φώκιας να συμβάλει στην επιβίωση της Κοινότητας των Ινουίτ, τρίτον, δεν πρέπει η θήρα να διεξάγεται για εμπορικούς σκοπούς, και τέταρτον, πρέπει η θήρα να πραγματοποιείται με τρόπο που να μειώνει τον πόνο και την ταλαιπωρία των θηρευόμενων ζώων.

Υπό αυτές τις προϋποθέσεις, μπορεί να υπάρξει αποτελεσματική προστασία της φώκιας σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο και, ταυτόχρονα, να διαμορφωθούν οι όροι και οι προϋποθέσεις για την επιβίωση και τον αυτοπροσδιορισμό της Κοινότητας των Ινουίτ, καθώς η θήρα της φώκιας αποτελεί πηγή ζωής και μέρος της πολιτιστικής παράδοσης για τους κατοίκους αυτούς της Δυτικής Γροιλανδίας. Ευχαριστώ.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, htio bih odmah na početku jasno reći da treba napraviti jasnu razliku između onoga što znači tradicijski izlov za Inuite i tradicijski život domorodačkih zajednica od onoga što znače prekomjerni izlovi ili čak spaljivanje tuljana, ili na neki način promet robama od tuljana koje sigurno nisu neophodne.

Međutim, neovisno o tome što je to današnja tema, i želim se solidarizirati sa svim onim što se dešava oko tih životinja, želim naglasiti jedan drugi problem o kojemu ovdje ne govorimo, a dolazim kao što znate iz Hrvatske, i želim govoriti o problemima koji postoje na zapadnom Balkanu gdje nestaju, doslovno nestaju raritetne životinje kao npr. velike divlje mačke, ubijaju se medvjedi, ubijaju se vukovi i ubijaju se lisice, sve zbog trgovine i mislim da o toj temi također treba senzibilizirati javnost te očekujem da će Komisija nešto po toj temi i poduzeti.

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – É necessário enfatizar que os cidadãos portugueses, na sua maioria, não estão de acordo com a caça de mamíferos selvagens. A captura e a morte de pinípedes está muito longe de ser consensual. No entanto, outra das características dos europeus são a tolerância e o respeito pela diferença, havendo outras culturas de subsistência que secularmente caçaram tradicionalmente e usaram produtos de foca de forma sustentável. Caberá ao consumidor informado decidir e escolher que produtos lhe parecem ser mais adequados. Uma coisa é a captura de alguns animais num contexto geográfico e social em que o homem faz parte do ecossistema desses mesmos animais e outra, completamente diferente, é a captura massificada, insustentável e culturalmente injustificada de cetáceos pelas forças industriais ou pela simples prática de rituais sangrentos. Os cidadãos europeus sabem a diferença e a Comissão Europeia e este Parlamento souberam também espelhar essa distinção.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”, nos termos do artigo 162.°, n.° 8, do Regimento)

  Fredrick Federley (ALDE), fråga ("blått kort"). – Jag tycker att engagemanget som finns härinne är väldigt, väldigt stort för just inuiterna. Vi måste dock också komma ihåg att i Norden – i Norge, i Sverige, i Finland och på Åland – så har vi en arktisk tradition. Sedan isen drog sig tillbaka och människor och djur kunde flytta till vår del av världen så har vi jagat säl.

Vad ska vi säga till de fiskare som får hela sina fiskbestånd uppätna, på grund av den ekologiska obalans som uppstår när vi får för mycket säl? Vad ska vi säga till den som har laglig rätt att med strikta regler få skjuta säl, men som sedan måste elda upp den eller lägga den på land eller sänka sälen i havet istället för att faktiskt få göra något vettigt med den? Ja, vad säger vi till dem?

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Na minha perspetiva, de facto, as questões de caça em espécies selvagens devem ser permitidas a populações indígenas que secularmente utilizaram esses recursos e que não têm possibilidade, de facto, de aceder a outros recursos.

Essas condições terão de ser vistas de facto através da história, através da geografia, e deve atuar-se de acordo com essas perceções.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Het Europese verbod op commerciële zeehondenproducten kent een bewogen geschiedenis. Mijn eigen partij, de NVA, stond met voormalig Europees parlementslid Frieda Brepoels mee aan de wieg van het verbod in 2009. Het verbod gaf een lang verwacht antwoord op de vraag van miljoenen burgers om producten afkomstig van wrede jacht niet toe te laten op onze markt. De wet miste zijn effect niet. Alleen al in Canada betekende dat de redding van meer dan 2 miljoen zeehonden.

Het verbod werd meermaals aangevochten, maar het houdt stand. En dat ook de WTO het licht op groen zet is cruciaal. Met enkele gerichte wijzigingen die de WTO-compatibiliteit verzekeren wordt het verbod nu stevig verankerd. Het Parlement en de Raad hebben een verdedigbaar akkoord bereikt dat tijdig tegemoet komt aan de WTO-eisen, dierenwelzijn centraal stelt en de oorspronkelijke wetgeving niet ondermijnt. Onze delegatie zal het akkoord morgen dan ook steunen.

  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Fru talman! Tack till kommissionen för att den är representerad här. Jag tycker att jag kan ställa mig bakom djurvälfärden och bakom WTO:s principer, men vad jag har svårigheter med är att berätta för människor som lever på Åland, som lever på småöarna, som lever i Estland eller Sverige eller vid kusten, där jag bor, i Österbotten.

Det finns en enda skola i Finland som lär sig hur man ska använda denna produktion. Det är någonting vi har lärt oss för tusen år sedan, och nu är det något som bara inuiterna har.

Det är mycket svårt att åka tillbaka hem och säga att ni var för små, vi hörde er inte. Jag frågar nu därför också kommissionen nu när ni har lovat att komma ut med det här undantaget när det gäller forskning, kunde det också vara muséer? Vem bestämmer att inuiterna är lika? Skulle det kunna omfatta dem som kan visa att de har haft traditionen i tusen år?

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)

  Karmenu Vella, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you to all those who have participated in this debate. Let me once again thank you for being engaged in this process so constructively, despite the sensitivities surrounding the subject, which have been well reflected in most of the points which you raised.

The updated regulation aims at ensuring that the fundamental economic and social interests of those communities traditionally engaged in the hunting of seals will not be affected adversely. The hunt, as has been explained, is an integral part of their culture and identity and represents a source of income and, as has already been highlighted by most of the speakers, contributes to their subsistence as well. Indeed, the marine resource management exception is not part of the outcome, as it clearly is incompatible with the WTO. However, rest assured that we have thoroughly examined each and every proposal that we have received but found no possibility for keeping the exception without running a great risk of WTO sanctions because of continued non-compliance. The revised legislation will enable the EU to comply with the WTO ruling and provide a non-discriminatory legal framework in line with public moral concerns. So thank you for giving the proposed regulation your support.

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi, rapporteur. – Madam President, I can understand that the agreement reached does not completely satisfy some of the Nordic and Baltic countries, but I do appreciate that they also understand that this agreement is more valuable and should be adopted, especially as we succeeded in having a new set of criteria for the Inuit exception and because of the agreed text on Article 7 on reporting.

I agree with Mr Bendtsen’s remarks and I truly believe, after the meetings I had with the representatives of the Greenland and Danish Parliament, with the Inuit community, different NGOs and with the Commission itself, that the hunt conducted by Inuits and other indigenous communities does not harm or threaten to harm the habitat and health of the seal populations, and there is no chance that it is made primarily for commercial purposes. The Inuits hunt because this is their way of supporting their family and their small communities. Their livelihood needs are very simple and modest. They have been doing it for hundreds of years as part of their tradition and cultural heritage and they have respect for animal welfare.

We have a very fast-track calendar, and without good cooperation we could not have reached an agreement and met the deadlines in order to give the Commission time to prepare all the necessary subsequent acts by the October deadline. Thank you very much once again. I look forward to the vote tomorrow.

  Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

Äänestys toimitetaan tiistaina 8.9.2015.

Kirjalliset lausumat (työjärjestyksen 162 artikla)

  Jørn Dohrmann (ECR), skriftlig. – Tak til hr. Bușoi for hans rapport og til de kolleger, der har stillet de ændringsforslag, der afspejler vigtigheden i at bevare de arktiske folkeslags kultur og velbefindende.

EU-forordningen fra 2008, der forbød handel med sælprodukter, havde en dramatisk effekt på Grønland. Den såkaldte "inuit-undtagelse" kunne ikke alene beskytte markedet for grønlandske sælprodukter. Økonomien i dette område har lidt store tab, og endnu vigtigere har EU's ry lidt et alvorligt knæk blandt områdets beboere. Grønlændernes værdsættelse af deres tætte samarbejde med EU, som vedrører mange områder, overskygges af forordningen.

Det er tæt på umuligt at forstå den grønlandske kultur og identitet uden den traditionelle og bæredygtige sælfangst. Det skader vores chancer for at lykkes med EU's Arktis-politik at indføre forbud mod handel med sælprodukter. Det sker på et tidspunkt, hvor regionen får større og større betydning på den internationale politiske dagsorden.

WTO-afgørelsen fra 2014 tilsiger, at de to forbehold, der er medtaget i EU-forordningen, ikke lever op til WTO's regelsæt. På trods af indsatsen fra Kommissionen og på trods af ændringsforslagene bliver situationen ikke forbedret for Grønland. Derfor stemmer jeg imod forslaget. Vores forbud mod animalske produkter bør altid funderes på miljø, bæredygtighed og dyrevelfærd. Der findes ingen sådanne argumenter imod grønlandsk sælfangst.

21. Situazione dei diritti fondamentali nell'UE (2013-2014) (discussione)

  Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Laura Ferraran kansalaisvapauksien sekä oikeus- ja sisäasioiden valiokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö perusoikeuksien tilanteesta Euroopan unionissa (2013–2014) (2014/2254(INI) – A8-0230/2015).

  Laura Ferrara, relatrice. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'immagine del piccolo Aylan Kurdi, trovato senza vita sulle spiagge della Turchia, è l'immagine simbolo di un diritto negato: il diritto alla vita.

Mi sono chiesta se portare qui in plenaria l'immagine del piccolo Aylan per guardare le morti che anche quest'Europa sta provocando, ma poi ho ritenuto non opportuno, rispettare la sua memoria e ho preferito non esibirla pubblicamente. Vedete colleghi, se la visione di immagini come quelle di Aylan sortisse effetti che vanno oltre lo sdegno, la rabbia, il dolore, forse oggi vedremmo in quel corpo una vittima sacrificale, un martire, valso quantomeno a tutelare e salvare tanti altri innocenti.

Ma la storia ci insegna che così non è mai stato e così, ahinoi, non sarà neanche stavolta perché trascorsa l'ondata emotiva, l'Europa tornerà ad occuparsi di questi diritti con l'indolenza e la miopia che finora l'ha contraddistinta. L'immigrazione è solo un esempio. Ogni giorno siamo testimoni di storie di diritti negati, e non bisogna andare oltre i confini europei per rintracciarle:

– bambini che nascono ammalati di cancro a causa della presenza di rifiuti tossici e di discariche abusive,

– 122 milioni di poveri, molti dei quali senza reddito di cittadinanza e dunque senza mezzi per sopravvivere,

– misure di austerità che impongono tagli alla sanità e al welfare, portando alla sospensione dell'erogazione dei farmaci nelle farmacie pubbliche o, addirittura, alla chiusura degli ospedali.

Parliamo di storie prevedibili, di storie evitabili, se solo quella rabbia e quell'indignazione che si provano di fronte a tali esempi si traducessero in reazione, in forza propulsiva per cambiare questa Europa, così da prevenire nuove e ulteriori violazioni di diritti fondamentali.

Un'altra Europa è possibile nella misura in cui si vuole un'alternativa. E non bisogna abbandonarsi all'immaginario per ricercare esempi ideali.

Esiste infatti un'altra faccia, vera, di un’Europa fatta di solidarietà, di accoglienza fraterna, di impegno a tutela del superiore interesse del minore, di inclusione sociale delle minoranze, di lotta quotidiana a garanzia di un'uguaglianza formale e sostanziale, di tutela delle lavoratrici madri, di rispetto per l'altrui pensiero, di tolleranza per tutti i credo. Un'Europa che denuncia le ingiustizie, e rifiuta di nascondersi nell'ipocrisia di una tutela dei diritti umani riconosciuta solo sulla Carta o nei trattati.

È a quest'Europa che bisogna tornare a guardare, sono questi gli esempi che devono trainare l'operato di chi, come noi oggi, discute circa il grado di tutela accordato ai diritti fondamentali in Europa, se vada migliorato. Siamo noi stessi i controllori e i garanti di quei diritti e di quei valori che sono alla base di questa Comunità e che legittimano l'esistenza dell’Unione europea stessa. Tutti i giorni assistiamo a palesi violazioni dei diritti fondamentali in tutta Europa, eppure non si fa nulla per fermarle o prevenirle. Allora, siamo ipocriti, omertosi e infine complici.

Le propose avanzate nella relazione vanno dunque nella direzione di garantire un maggior controllo e una maggiore interazione con la cittadinanza: sapere ciò che accade in ogni singolo Stato membro permetterà alle istituzioni europee di porre in essere gli interventi necessari a tutela dei diritti fondamentali. Non si tratta di un’inquisizione, né si tratta di andare oltre il principio di sussidiarietà: si tratta di maturare una consapevolezza comune e di ricevere delle informazioni che ad oggi mancano.

Credo che questo sia stato uno degli aspetti più dibattuti nelle riunioni con i relatori ombra: mi auguro che la proposta di una maggiore trasparenza non spaventi nessuno e si decida, insieme, di migliorare le sorti dei cittadini europei.

Ringrazio, sentitamente, i relatori dei pareri delle altre commissioni e tutti gli altri relatori ombra, con i quali insieme abbiamo portato avanti un lavoro impegnativo, ma anche molto appassionante. Siate coraggiosi: costruiamo un'Europa dei diritti, adesso.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I welcome this annual debate on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union and I appreciate the huge amount of work done by Ms Ferrara.

The European Parliament’s call to all EU institutions and all Member States to protect and promote fundamental rights is loud and clear. The European Commission fully supports this call. Allow me to start by addressing some of the substantive questions raised in your report, before turning to more institutional aspects pertaining to the mechanisms at our disposal for the protection of fundamental rights.

Equality is a central issue in your report, and indeed this principle is at the heart of the European project. Yet discrimination all too often continues to occur in every single Member State. Take the recent case concerning a town district inhabited primarily by Roma citizens, in which the electricity meters were placed on poles six metres high, whereas in all other parts of town they were placed at a height where they could easily be monitored. I am glad that the European Court of Justice clarified that such practices are not acceptable under EU law.

Much remains to be done to secure equal treatment everywhere, regardless of religion or belief, race or ethnic origin, gender, age, disability or sexual orientation – and EU law has a crucial role to play in this respect. I therefore welcome the call in your report for the rapid adoption of the Equal Treatment Directive, which remains a priority for this Commission. It is highly regrettable that it has not yet been agreed.

Another issue that worries me is the rise of intolerance and hatred in our societies: you can see it on a day-to-day basis now, certainly linked with the refugee crisis. We are going through a period of crisis right now which is not just social and economic. It is political and moral. In times such as these, we see again the old tendencies of trying to identify scapegoats – of always looking for somebody else to blame – and minorities are always at the receiving end of the blame. Therefore, combating prejudice, racism and xenophobia has to be a focus of action. This is also the reason why the Commission will devote its first annual fundamental rights colloquium at the start of October to issues related to hate crime and discrimination, and in particular the fight against anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, which are distinct but related phenomena.

Another important set of challenges raised in your report concerns the protection of personal data, the right to privacy, and the maintenance of security. In this respect, let me first of all stress that getting the data protection reform agreed by the end of the year remains a top priority for the Commission. Both the Data Protection Regulation and the proposed directive for criminal-law enforcement authorities are crucial pieces of legislation to ensure that citizens across the EU continue to benefit from solid, up-to-date rules safeguarding their right to the protection of personal data. I am confident that we will succeed in adopting a meaningful and strong reform package by the end of this year, and I count on your continued support in this respect.

We will also continue to insist on the full observance of data protection standards in our relations with third countries, including the United States of America. I am pleased to note that we are on the point of finalising negotiations for an umbrella agreement with the United States, setting out ambitious and comprehensive standards for the protection of personal data when such data are exchanged between law enforcement authorities in the United States and in the European Union.

Let me also stress that there should be no doubt that personal-data processing – for any purpose, including the enforcement of criminal law – must comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and in particular be necessary and proportionate. This being said, we also need to take into account the fact that there can be duly justified situations requiring – for legitimate reasons of criminal-law enforcement and in order to ensure public security – that the personal data of persons not immediately suspected of criminal activity also be processed.

Let me now turn to the more institutional questions in your report, in particular the question of whether we need new mechanisms for the protection of fundamental rights, including a new strategy for fundamental rights. At this stage, today, I am not convinced that we do. Mainstreaming the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be a reflex for all EU institutions throughout the policy cycle. We have the existing 2010 Strategy on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, before considering new mechanisms, we should continue to implement it. This means a systematic screening of all relevant legislative and policy measures to ensure their compatibility with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The adoption of the Better Regulation package is a further step in this direction: it provides for fundamental rights to be taken into account systematically in the assessment of all significant policy initiatives. Of course, this also is a shared responsibility of all the EU institutions. Therefore, as outlined in the Commission’s proposal for an interinstitutional agreement on better law-making, a similar assessment should also occur when significant amendments are made to Commission proposals during the legislative process.

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, is also committed to ensuring that the Member States respect the Charter – including, if need be, by means of infringement proceedings. In 2014, the Commission launched 11 infringement procedures against Member States specifically to ensure that Charter rights are respected. The main areas of concern are asylum and immigration, in conjunction with the lack of free legal assistance, the right to an effective remedy, detention conditions and the situation of children.

Your report also calls for a strengthening of the framework for the protection of the rule of law in the European Union. I fully agree that ensuring full respect for the rule of law is crucial to the protection of fundamental rights throughout the Union. Without the protection afforded by independent courts, and without effective judicial redress mechanisms, fundamental rights will remain on paper only. That is why the Commission, two years ago, adopted a Rule of Law Framework setting out a structured process according to which the Commission will react when there are specific indications that there is a systemic threat to the rule of law.

I can assure you that we remain vigilant as regards any threats to the rule of law, wherever they may occur, and that we will not hesitate to activate the Framework when necessary. I can also assure you that the Commission’s approach will remain objective and impartial, and based on the law and the facts on the ground and not on political speeches.

Let me also stress that the Commission remains fully committed to EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. Accession to the Convention will serve to strengthen our fundamental values. It will improve the effectiveness of EU law and the coherence of fundamental rights protection across Europe. I strongly believe that the European Union should accede to the Convention, and I am confident that we will find solutions to the legal issues raised by the European Court of Justice in its opinion of December last year.

Let me conclude as you did, Ms Ferrara, in your opening statement, with a few words about migration. I fully agree that our reaction to this crisis must also be about protecting fundamental rights: the fundamental right to asylum for those in need of refuge; their right to be protected from risking their lives in the hands of ruthless traffickers; and also their right to be treated with dignity wherever they are and under whatever conditions they have to live.

This is why we have put respect for, and the promotion of, the EU values of human dignity, the rule of law, human rights, solidarity and equality at the centre of the EU Agenda on Migration. Our reaction to the current crisis must be about saving lives. It must also be about processing asylum applications faster and effectively, in full accordance with fundamental rights. We must never forget that asylum is a right to be protected.

At the same time, our priority has to be the correct and full application of EU asylum and migration law, in accordance with the twin principles of responsibility and solidarity. This must include an effective return policy, fully respecting the fundamental rights of the migrants concerned. Only if we ensure correct application of the system will we be able to offer protection and humane reception to all those who deserve it, and we will reduce incentives for those who have no right to stay to undertake the perilous journey.

Here, you see our societies often greatly divided on the issue: humanity and the humane treatment of migrants in conflict with a feeling of being overrun or flooded. We need to get out of that contradiction. There is no need to fear being flooded, and certainly not if we can apply asylum policy as it was intended. And there is certainly no need to take leave of our fundamental values. That means that people who flee from war and persecution have a place in our society.

Let me conclude by stressing that it is a joint responsibility of the European Parliament, the Commission and other institutions to ensure respect for, and the promotion of, our common values. Democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law must be, and continue to be, a reality for every single citizen and anybody else who is in Europe. All institutions and bodies, including the Commission and the European Parliament, need to work closely together to make it happen. This is essential for a common European future.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, Ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales. – Señora Presidente, muchas gracias, señor Timmermans, muchas gracias, señora Ferrara, creo que el tema que estamos tratando es muy importante porque, probablemente, los derechos humanos son el suelo ético universal que todo el mundo tiene para establecer la regla de la dignidad humana.

Desde la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales hemos puesto de relieve tres ideas que me gustaría destacar. En primer lugar, la importancia de que la Unión Europea sea capaz de vigilarse a sí misma. Muchas veces queremos ser un referente, queremos ser ejemplares, miramos a todo el mundo para ver cómo se comporta en relación con los derechos humanos. Hay cada vez más necesidad —la señora Ferrara lo destacaba— de que nos miremos a nosotros mismos, ya que actualmente en Europa, en muchos países, en muchos Estados miembros, no se están respetando los derechos humanos.

En segundo lugar, este tema es particularmente importante en el ámbito de la protección de los derechos económicos y sociales. La crisis ha puesto de manifiesto que ha habido una devaluación progresiva en la protección de los derechos económicos y sociales, y ello merece ser destacado.

Y, en tercer lugar, comparto con el señor Timmermans la necesidad de que la Unión Europea se adhiera al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

PRZEWODNICTWO: RYSZARD CZARNECKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Daniela Aiuto, relatrice per parere della commissione per i diritti della donna e l'uguaglianza di genere. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio la collega Laura Ferrara per lo splendido lavoro, encomiabile veramente, che ha svolto in commissione LIBE su questa relazione. Nell'ambito del rispetto dei diritti fondamentali umani, un ruolo preponderante è sicuramente però, quello della tutela dei diritti delle donne.

In commissione FEMM ho ricoperto il ruolo di relatrice del progetto di parere alla relazione che voteremo appunto domani e nella nostra relazione ci siamo soffermati in particolare sulle tante violazioni e forme di discriminazione che purtroppo le donne ancora oggi subiscono in Europa e nel mondo. Mi riferisco a tutte le violenze fisiche e sessuali e psicologiche di cui le donne sono vittime, ai maltrattamenti sulle minori, alle molestie, agli atti persecutori che spesso si verificano anche attraverso l'uso distorto e scorretto delle nuove tecnologie e di Internet.

Urge un impegno maggiore da parte degli Stati dell'Unione Europea, non possiamo continuare ad assistere inermi ai continui femminicidi, ai delitti d'onore, ai casi di omofobia, e a tutte le altre forme di discriminazione, sia nel vissuto privato quotidiano che nei contesti lavorativi, politici e dei processi decisionali. Auspichiamo quindi che nuove e più incisive misure vengano adottate per rafforzare la prevenzione, garantire la protezione e punire chi si macchia di reati. Solo così potremo garantire una reale libertà di scelta per le donne e una parità di trattamento rispetto agli uomini, grazie.

  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Peticiones. – Señor Presidente, señor Timmermans, señora Ferrara, desde la Comisión de Peticiones tengo que decir que la tercera parte de las peticiones que recibimos denuncian supuestas vulneraciones de los derechos fundamentales, lo que se ha visto acrecentado con la situación de crisis que vivimos. Ha servido como excusa para atacar servicios públicos, recortar libertades —como la de expresión— o limitar la libre circulación entre los Estados miembros, así como la solidaridad con ciudadanos de terceros países de nuestros Estados miembros, negándoles, por ejemplo, el acceso a la sanidad.

Hemos visto «retornos en caliente» de los inmigrantes y cómo se ha venido retrasando el reconocimiento de los derechos de las minorías en los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea.

Señorías, la Unión Europea es reconocida en el mundo, y debe continuar siéndolo, por ser el mayor espacio de garantía de ciudadanía, venga esta de donde venga. Apelo a la Comisión a que continúe siendo no solo la garante de la transposición de la normativa europea sino también de su correcta aplicación en cada uno de los Estados miembros y, muy especialmente, a que vele por ello en estos momentos de dificultad, en los que la actualidad habla por sí sola.

  Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ , εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE. – Κύριε πρόεδρε, όλοι οι Ευρωπαίοι πολίτες και όλοι οι κάτοικοι της Ευρώπης δικαιούνται αναμφίβολα να απολαμβάνουν τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα. Πιστεύω ότι δεν θα έπρεπε τα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα να αποτελούν πεδίο αντιπαράθεσης μεταξύ των πολιτικών ομάδων διότι μπορεί ενδεχομένως το γεγονός αυτό να οδηγήσει σε λανθασμένο συμπέρασμα, δηλαδή ότι υπάρχουν ευαισθησίες πολλών ταχυτήτων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Υπάρχουν εντούτοις στοιχεία αντιπαράθεσης, τα οποία απορρέουν από διαφορετικές οπτικές και από διαφορετικές θέσεις και τα οποία εμφιλοχωρούν ενδεχομένως στις εκθέσεις, με αποτέλεσμα να φαίνονται ότι εξυπηρετούν συγκεκριμένες σκοπιμότητες. Η έκθεση της κ. Ferrara προσφέρεται για γόνιμο και εποικοδομητικό διάλογο αλλά επιδέχεται αναμφίβολα και αξιολόγηση από διαφορετικές οπτικές γωνίες. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Λαϊκό Κόμμα έχει μια εναλλακτική πρόταση ψηφίσματος αλλά εκτιμούμε ότι, παρά τις όποιες αποκλίσεις μας, επιδιώκουμε τον ίδιο στόχο. Εμείς υποστηρίζουμε ότι δεν χρειάζονται νέοι μηχανισμοί. Οι ήδη υπάρχοντες είναι επαρκείς και μπορούν να διασφαλίσουν την εποπτεία εκείνων των κρατών μελών όπου παρατηρούνται παραβιάσεις θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων. Επίσης, υποστηρίζουμε αυτό που κατ’ επανάληψη έχει υποστηρίξει και ο αντιπρόεδρος, ο κύριος Timmermans, ότι σε περιπτώσεις παραβιάσεων πρέπει να ενεργοποιείται άμεσα μηχανισμός εποικοδομητικού διαλόγου μεταξύ της Επιτροπής και των κρατών μελών και να αντιμετωπίζονται αυτά τα ζητήματα. Υποστηρίζουμε επίσης με την έκθεσή μας ότι είναι ανάγκη να ενισχυθεί η δημόσια ασφάλεια αλλά υπό συνθήκες προστασίας των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων διότι διαφορετικά, υπάρχει o κίνδυνος να υποπέσει κανείς σε αξιόποινες πράξεις την στιγμή που υπάρχει πραγματική ανάγκη προστασίας και θωράκισης έναντι της τρομοκρατίας και άλλων φαινομένων που μπορούν να πλήξουν την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, στα θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα δεν χωρά καμιά διάκριση και καμιά εξαίρεση. Στην έκθεσή μας καταγράφουμε πλήρως όλες τις θεμελιώδεις αξίες και αναγνωρίζουμε τον σεβασμό που απαιτείται από όλους μας.

  Péter Niedermüller, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Ms Ferrara for her excellent job on this report, but I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all colleagues, assistants and advisers for their hard work, especially those who constructively contributed to this report.

This report was adopted in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) where the majority of the committee decided in favour of the report. I hope that the outcome of that vote will also be respected in this Chamber.

This report also has other important implications for the fundamental rights of minorities: Roma children, women and LGBTI people and for those seeking asylum. The European Union was founded on the principles of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These values stem from the common constitutional traditions of all Member States. Upholding these values is of crucial importance for the proper functioning of the European Union, because they guarantee that Member States fulfil their international law obligations and that they can trust each other and the institutions of the European Union. Upholding these values cannot be a matter of current political needs or inactions. The already—existing tools and mechanisms are insufficient for dealing with breaches of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. This has been proved in the last couple of years and must be rectified. That is why in this report we call for a new mechanism that is automatically triggered in cases of breaches of fundamental values and rights, to remedy the breaches, to avoid the materialisation of systematic threats in Member States. Our common European fundamental values are being threatened first and foremost from within, right before our eyes. Democratic parties of Europe have to unite to protect these values. Failing to do so may have severe consequences, including the possibility of the European Union falling apart. Almost 60 years have passed since its foundation. We cannot let the efforts of the last 60 years vanish into thin air. I ask you to vote in favour of this report.

  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Dit is een uitgebreid verslag dat vele terreinen bestrijkt. Wegens tijdsgebrek wil ik hier nu vooral focussen op de rechten van personen met een beperking. In Europa blijft deze groep kampen met achterstelling en uitsluiting.

Vorige week was ik namens het EP aanwezig in Genève bij de gedachtewisseling tussen het VN monitoring comité en de Europese Commissie over de implementatie van het VN-Verdrag inzake de rechten van personen met een handicap. Hun concluderende opmerkingen werden net gepubliceerd. Het comité was meer dan duidelijk: de rechten van personen met een handicap zijn fundamentele mensenrechten. Daarom moeten wij op Europees vlak een voortrekkersrol spelen, niet alleen op het vlak van sociaal beleid, maar ook op het vlak van werk, infrastructuur, mobiliteit, buitenlands beleid, EU-fondsen enzovoort. De handicap werkt immers door op alle beleidsdomeinen. Alle beleidsmakers moeten rekening houden met de handicapdimensie in hun beleid en ook voor eigen deur vegen.

Dat wil zeggen dat mensen met een beperking ook gelijkwaardige toegang moeten kunnen krijgen tot EU-fondsen en EU-projecten. Zo zou er een apart budget moeten komen dat de meerkosten dekt van bijvoorbeeld gebarentaal en real time ondertiteling voor dove personen op conferenties en workshops en persoonlijke assistentie voor blinden en minder mobiele personen.

Ook het Europees Parlement moet op dezelfde manier veel transparanter en toegankelijker zijn voor deze groep mensen. Ook zij zijn burgers van Europa.

  Louis Michel, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je tiens à féliciter, moi aussi et de manière très sincère – ce n'est pas une formule oratoire –, la rapporteure pour son travail et sa persévérance, qui lui ont permis de nous présenter un rapport ambitieux et de qualité. Il permet une fois de plus d'évaluer le respect ou le non—respect des droits fondamentaux au sein des États membres.

Aujourd'hui, il faut bien admettre que les droits fondamentaux sont appliqués trop souvent selon des interprétations différentes, parfois confortables pour les autorités en place.

Je suis évidemment d'accord avec tout ce qui a été dit en faveur du rapport, mais je voudrais quand même m'adresser plus particulièrement aux chers collègues du groupe PPE. Je suis aujourd'hui abasourdi. La résolution qui est proposée en remplacement du rapport est une véritable gifle à ce que nous défendons dans cette Assemblée. Comment peut-on soutenir une résolution qui occulte complètement la situation de nos sans-abri? Où sont les valeurs démocratiques quand on refuse de condamner les programmes de détention et de torture de la CIA sur le territoire européen? Pourquoi supprimez-vous tous les paragraphes relatifs à la liberté d'expression et des médias? Vos valeurs humanistes ne vous poussent-elles pas à vouloir poursuivre pénalement les auteurs barbares de mutilations génitales sur des petites filles?

Tout le reste de votre rapport est évidemment dans la même ligne. Vous passez tout au rouleau compresseur, notamment les parties sur l'égalité des genres et la violence à l'égard des femmes, les droits des LGBTI, les droits des enfants, la protection des migrants, la protection des personnes handicapées. Je ne comprends pas bien cette façon de voir les choses.

Alors, chers collègues, avant de poursuivre aveuglément une ligne de groupe qui traduit un malaise – parce que certains de vos membres éminents sont manifestement en contravention, dans leur pays, avec l'esprit et la lettre des traités –, il serait bon d'en mesurer le prix moral.

Je sais qu'un nombre important de parlementaires du groupe PPE pense comme nous, alors je me permets vraiment de lancer un appel à ces démocrates pour qu'ils soutiennent l'excellent rapport de Mme Ferrara.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu"(article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement)

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Pan uznaje to sprawozdanie za doskonałe. W sprawozdaniu apeluje się o totalne, całkowite otwarcie granic Unii Europejskiej dla imigrantów. Czy Pan podziela ten punkt widzenia i czy Pana partia reprezentowana na szczeblu federalnym w Belgii również poparłaby tak daleko idący postulat? Czy Pan popiera tak radykalny postulat otwarcia granic Unii Europejskiej dla imigrantów?

  Louis Michel (ALDE), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, ceci est très caractéristique de la technique de désinformation que l'on utilise. Je ne crois pas que dans ce rapport ce soit aussi simpliste que cela, même si, à titre personnel, je n'ai pas de gros problèmes moraux par rapport à cette question.

Pour moi, l'homme est universel. Il est partout le même avec ses souffrances, ses joies, son génie et son talent. Je suis donc un peu surpris que des parlementaires qui, dans le fond, devraient défendre les valeurs européennes viennent ici jeter en pâture – de manière très populiste d'ailleurs – des affirmations qui, du reste, sont totalement fausses.

Comme vous le savez, il faut faire la distinction entre, d'une part, les réfugiés humanitaires, qui sont des demandeurs d'asile quittant leur pays parce qu'ils veulent fuir la violence, la peur, la tyrannie, le despotisme et, d'autre part, les migrants économiques – cela a d'ailleurs été très bien dit par le commissaire Timmermans –  qui, s'ils ne répondent pas aux règles et aux lois européennes ou nationales ne peuvent pas y rester.

Arrêtez donc d'être simpliste, je crois que ce n'est pas honnête d'être simpliste comme vous l'êtes!

  President. – Will you accept a blue—card question from Mr Zdechovský?

  Louis Michel (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, cela suffit, je n'ai pas pour habitude d'échanger des propos une fois que j'ai répondu à une question, ce ne peut être que du même tonneau.

Je n'accepte donc pas ce genre de débat.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je veux aussi remercier Laura Ferrara pour le travail accompli et tous ceux qui ont contribué à ce rapport.

Beaucoup sont d'accord ici et ailleurs pour dire que l'Union européenne vit une crise des valeurs. La question des réfugiés, et plus largement celle des migrants, en est un malheureux symbole. Que sont les valeurs dites universelles si leur application est à géométrie variable selon les États et les catégories de population? Non, les outils n'existent pas. Les sanctions n'existent pas en cas de violations dans ce domaine. S'il faut des témoignages, regardez les rapports de l'ONU, regardez les rapports du Conseil de l'Europe: ils sont tous accablants sur les reculs de l'Union européenne et de ses États membres en la matière.

Pendant longtemps, les États européens ont pu paraître des modèles grâce aux luttes qui ont fait progresser le respect universel de ces droits. Mais, depuis un certain nombre d'années, le sens de la marche s'inverse. Les reculs sont de plus en plus nombreux. Les libertés publiques sont attaquées au nom de la sécurité, le fichage généralisé de pans entiers de la population est mis en place, les haines sont attisées et des boucs émissaires, migrants et arabo-musulmans notamment, sont jetés à la vindicte. On surfe sur les peurs pour faire adopter des législations de plus en plus régressives pendant que les inégalités sociales et la pauvreté prennent des proportions dramatiques.

Alors, assurément, le respect de l'autre, quels que soient ses différences et ses choix socioculturels – terme que je préfère à celui d'ethniques, pour le moins ambigu – religieux, philosophiques, sexuels et politiques, et le vivre ensemble sont des principes fondamentaux sans lesquels rien n'est possible.

J'espère qu'ici nous saurons nous rassembler largement autour du rapport de Mme Ferrara.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all let me thank Laura Ferrara and the shadow rapporteurs for this very good text. Let me repeat what they said, that another Europe is possible, especially when it comes to rights for refugees. This continent has to be one that welcomes refugees – especially when they come from war—ridden areas like Syria – and that does not throw them out or hinder them from having their rights respected.

I also appreciate the approach adopted, which focuses on the institutional structure that we need to change but also on certain specific areas of human rights and of fundamental rights – on media pluralism, anti—discrimination, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, people with disabilities and race. As rapporteur of this Parliament for the Equal Treatment Directive, I very much appreciate what Vice—President Timmermans said and I am optimistic that the Commission and Parliament will make the Council go ahead and have this Equal Treatment Directive finally become law, to make sure that the fundamental rights of all minorities are respected on this continent, and that the fight against racism, xenophobia, homophobia, lesbophobia and transphobia and all the other forms of discrimination will succeed.

With that, I also have to say that the institutional structures need to change. The Copenhagen dilemma is that when countries accede to the European Union they have to fulfil everything, but when they are in well, big nothing! I would say to the EPP that Article 7(2) simply does not work. We need new mechanisms, and this report asks for new mechanisms that are automatically triggered, and for country—by—country reporting. This is not about controlling everyone: it is about safeguarding our common values to make sure that in no country of this European Union are fundamental rights violated. That is what this report is about. It is about a common understanding and a common awareness. I really do wonder how Madam Vozemberg can speak of her report being a good alternative when that alternative means deleting pages and pages of jointly agreed text. We were there in the debates together, but now she is saying that her alternative is better. Well I am sorry, but her alternative is not better, because if you do not talk about discrimination and you do not want to see it, that does not mean that it goes away. We need to address this, and that is what this report is about. This bonfire of deletions will not, I hope, find a majority tomorrow because we need to stand together to make sure that fundamental rights are safeguarded on this continent for everybody – with no exceptions.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8)).

  Beatrix von Storch (ECR), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Eine ganz kurze Frage: Sie haben gesagt, Flüchtlinge sind willkommen. Gilt das sowohl für Kriegsflüchtlinge als auch für Armutsflüchtlinge uneingeschränkt? Und wenn ja, gibt es irgendeine Obergrenze, wo Sie sagen würden, das ist, was wir noch integrieren können, und das ist zu viel?

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau von Storch! Ich habe gesagt, dass es jetzt vor allem einmal um Kriegsflüchtlinge geht. Da war ich wirklich froh. Frau Merkel ist nicht von meiner Partei, und ich habe oft viel Kritik an ihr. Aber in dem Fall, als sie gesagt hat, dass in Deutschland Flüchtlinge aus Syrien nicht mehr nach Ungarn oder sonst wohin zurückgeschickt werden – das war richtig und gut. Und ich bin froh, dass auch mein Heimatland das endlich gemacht hat.

Um Kriegsflüchtlinge geht es hier, und für die brauchen wir Platz, für die brauchen wir tatsächlich auch Unterstützung. Aber Armutsflüchtlinge – wie viele sind denn aus Europa weggegangen, vor schrecklicher Armut aus Irland, auch aus meinem Land, auch aus Deutschland anderswohin geflüchtet, als die Zeiten schlecht waren? Dazu müssen wir auch beitragen, dass vor Ort Welthandelsstrukturen und ähnliches geändert werden, dass Menschen nicht mehr fliehen müssen. Aber wenn jemand flieht vor Klimakatastrophen, die wir mit verursachen, vor Armut, die wir mit verursachen, weil wir nicht genügend zahlen für Rohstoffe, dann muss man auch hier genau hinschauen und sehen, ob diese Leute daheim überhaupt überleben können oder nicht, oder ob sie nicht auch bei uns ein Recht haben zu leben.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Zoltán Balczó (NI), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Ön, amikor a menekültek befogadásáról beszélt, akkor elsősorban a háborús övezetből az életüket mentőket említette – akiknek az Európai Unió a szabályai szerint biztosítja a menedéket. Milyen magyarázatot tud arra, hogy amikor ezek az emberek elérik a schengeni határt, a magyar határt, akkor nem mennek át a legális határátkelőn, hanem az addig használt okmányaikat eldobva, a zöldhatáron érkeznek meg. Mi a magyarázat erre?

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Sir, many refugees – and the definition of a refugee is someone coming from a warring area – do not even have passports or documents with them because they had to leave everything behind because everything was destroyed, so we really have to take care of them. I found it totally unacceptable when just recently the Hungarian Secretary of State said on Austrian Radio that Muslims are not welcome in Hungary because we are not used to them. Would we apply the same rhetoric and say that women are not accepted on boards of companies because men are not used to them? This is simply outrageous. Things like that should not happen in our common Europe.

  Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, this place talks a lot about fundamental rights. The idea might be novel to some of the countries represented here, given their recent histories, but we have fundamental rights in England established over centuries. We recently celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, a key milestone in that process. Our rights were further established under such things as Habeas Corpus, the English common law and the Bill of Rights of 1689, to name just three.

But the fundamental rights of the English are being destroyed and swept away by EU law. The EU is creating its own system of criminal law, a process which it euphemistically and laughably calls creating an area of freedom, security and justice. Well, it may be news to people here, but we have had one in the UK for centuries.

Under a European arrest warrant, for example, any British citizen can now be arrested and imprisoned on the basis of vague accusations, with no prima facie evidence against them, and a British court is powerless to prevent this happening. Under the common recognition of fines and confiscation orders, an EU state may confiscate the assets of a British citizen without a British court having any power to prevent it. Soon it will be possible to compel British police forces to investigate British citizens on behalf of foreign police forces under the proposed European Investigation Order.

All of these are fundamental breaches of the Bill of Rights. If the British want to protect their own fundamental rights, then they need to leave the European Union. If you want to learn something about those rights, come and study the English system.

  Vicky Maeijer, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Vandaag bespreken we het verslag van het Europees Parlement over de grondrechten in de Europese Unie, een hoogdravende term die de Europese elite steeds vaker misbruikt om te maskeren dat deze mensenrechten alleen eenzijdig gelden voor een door hun geselecteerde groep mensen.

Deze grondrechten hebben vele gedaanten. Onder het mom van mensenrechten, solidariteit, morele plicht, rechtvaardigheid, diversiteit en waardigheid worden verworvenheden als democratie, vrijheid, veiligheid en welvaart geofferd. De vraag is dan ook: wiens grondrechten beschermt de Europese Unie eigenlijk?

Niet die van de Europese inwoners wier veiligheid in het geding komt door het ongecontroleerd toelaten van honderden, duizenden illegale immigranten, waaronder terroristen, onder het mom van solidariteit en morele plicht. En niet die van de Europese inwoners wier vrijheid in het geding komt door geïmporteerde terreur en de islamisering van ons continent, onder het mom van vrijheid van godsdienst. Niet die van schrijvers, politici, cartoonisten en critici wier vrijheid van meningsuiting steeds verder wordt beperkt door hen te betichten van hate speech, islamofobie en racisme.

Deze abstracte moraal wordt vooral duidelijk zichtbaar in het debat over de massa-immigratie. De Europese elite is vooral bezig met het wegzetten van critici. De elite neemt nu voor kritische lidstaten de maat en praat de oorspronkelijke inwoners een schuldgevoel aan. Het gevaar voor de democratie komt dan ook niet van eurosceptici, maar van de Europese elite die aan de knop zit. Het gevaar voor de rechtsstaat komt niet van de burgers die inspraak eisen middels referenda, maar van de politieke elite die referenda en inspraak ziet als ballast. Het gevaar voor fundamentele rechten komt niet van de lidstaten, maar van cultuurrelativisten die onze vrijgevochten waarden, normen, vrijheden één voor één beperken en ontnemen.

Wij hebben de Europese Unie niet nodig om de grondrechten te beschermen. Sterker nog, het grootste gevaar voor alle waarden waar de Europese Unie voor zegt te staan, is de Europese Unie zelf.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Két alapvető és általánosan elismert emberi jogot hiányolok ebből a jelentésből. Az egyik az a kollektív és egyéni emberi jog, hogy a szülőföldünkön jogunk van egy nemzeti közösséghez tartozni, annak a nyelvét használni, szokásait, hagyományait, vallási gyökereit őrizni. Vagyis, hogy pl. Magyarországon jogunk van magyarként élni. A másik a nemzeti önrendelkezés, aminek a lényege az, hogy magunk dönthessük el, hogy hogyan és miként szeretnénk a saját hazánkban élni. A magyar emberek túlnyomó többsége azt üzeni Önöknek, hogy mi Magyarországon magyarként szeretnénk élni, úgy gondoljuk, hogy Magyarország a magyaroké. És a nemzeti önrendelkezés keretében, ha pl. német barátaink másként gondolják, és úgy gondolják, hogy egy multikulturális országban szeretnének élni, szívük joga, ez is egy emberi jog.

Mi viszont a nemzeti önrendelkezés jogával a szerint szeretnénk élni, amit mondtam, tehát úgy gondoljuk, hogy Magyarország a magyaroké. Mi az Önök álláspontja erről, mint emberi jogi összefüggésrendszerről?

  Monica Macovei (PPE). – Domnule președinte, propun să vorbim despre altceva decât am vorbit până acum, și anume despre ce facem noi, oamenii, ca să ne apărăm drepturile individuale, drepturile noastre, pornind de la ideea că doar atunci când ne luptăm pentru ele, când facem proteste, când ieșim în stradă, când strigăm, când țipăm că ne sunt încălcate drepturile, doar atunci le vom avea. E o luptă zilnică, cea de a ne menține și a ne păstra drepturile.

Haideți să luăm două situații - mă gândeam la libertatea de exprimare și la libertatea de demonstrație. Libertatea de exprimare este cea a jurnalistului care, sigur, trebuie să respecte și regula sfântă a jurnalismului - faptele sunt adevărate, opiniile sunt libere -, dar și dreptul nostru, al oamenilor, al opiniei publice, de a fi informați. Avem jurnaliști hărțuiți, dați afară, izgoniți, care stau acasă, care nu au unde să lucreze, pentru că nu au vrut să-și încalce principiile, pentru că nu au vrut să-și asculte șefii, și au rămas cu principiile și nu au din ce trăi. Scriu pe bloguri personale - foarte bine, pentru că măcar unii dintre noi suntem informați. Dar noi, oamenii, ce facem ca să le apărăm lor dreptul de a continua să-și exercite profesia și de a ne da nouă dreptul de a fi informați corect?

Un alt exemplu este dreptul la liberă asociere - ce facem noi, oamenii, când avem guverne pline de corupți, de mincinoși, de impostori, de plagiatori, de incompetenți - ce facem, ieșim în stradă să ne apărăm nouă viața împotriva lor?

Asta este problema pe care o văd - această lipsă de reacție în foarte multe state europene, lipsă de reacție împotriva încălcării drepturilor. Am dat două exemple foarte importante pentru viața noastră - jurnaliștii și dreptul nostru de a ști ce fac guvernele cu noi și dreptul nostru de a controla guvernele și de le da jos. E foarte ușor să dăm jos un Guvern doar ieșind în stradă, o sută de mii prima oară.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Die Grundrechte sind das Herzstück des europäischen Projekts, und der jährliche Bericht ist ein sehr wichtiger Bestandteil des parlamentarischen Lebens. Es ist eine interessante zeitliche Koinzidenz, dass wir in dieser Plenartagung auch über den State of the Union reden. Und so wie beim Stand der Union nicht alles zum Besten ist, ist es auch bei den Grundrechten. Häufig werden sie als kosmetisches Beiwerk betrachtet, und es gibt einen Verdrängungswettbewerb durch viele andere Themen, der immer wieder dazu führt, dass die Grundrechte eben irgendwo dann eine sekundäre Materie bleiben.

Ich bin sehr dankbar für den Bericht von Frau Ferrara, weil ich glaube, dass er wirklich einen ganz wichtigen Bestandteil darstellt, dass er wirklich in die richtige Richtung weist. Erstens einmal, weil er sehr systematisch ist, zweitens, weil er aktuelle Bezüge herausstreicht, wie etwa die Massenüberwachung und ihre Auswirkungen auf die individuelle Freiheit, weil er die Flüchtlingssituation thematisiert – das muss man in Zeiten wie diesen – und weil er auch die Auswirkungen der ökonomischen Krise auf die Menschenrechte zum Thema macht. Das ist sehr wichtig. Es ist auch wichtig, dass er auch einen implementorischen Aspekt hat, dass er nämlich auch fragt, wie man das durchsetzen kann.

Die Schwäche besteht ja auch darin, dass wir keine guten Instrumente haben, um die Menschenrechte auch wirklich durchzusetzen. Ich finde es sehr wichtig, dass die Einrichtung der Grundrechte-Agentur positiv erwähnt wird, dass man sie stärken will, dass man einen Mechanismus der Beobachtung braucht, der unabhängig von tagespolitischen Einschätzungen feststellt, wo Menschenrechte und Grundrechte verletzt werden. Wir brauchen auch einen Mechanismus zur Durchsetzung dieser Grundrechte. Das ist, glaube ich, der wichtigste Punkt.

Ich würde alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen ersuchen, diesem hervorragenden Bericht zuzustimmen.

   Beatrix von Storch (ECR). Herr Präsident! Wir reden heute über den Bericht zur Lage der Grundrechte in der Europäischen Union. Es geht natürlich auch um die Flüchtlinge, wobei wir nicht unterscheiden zwischen Verfolgten und Armutsmigranten und auch nicht die Frage diskutieren, warum der Nahe Osten und Nordafrika in einem so furchtbaren Chaos sind. Aber das ist jetzt nicht das Thema. Hunderttausende sind allein in Deutschland, brauchen Hilfe und wir müssen helfen.

Hören wir auf zu reden, tun wir mal etwas Konkretes! Es braucht Wohnraum, Aufenthaltsräume, Versammlungsräume und eine große Kantine. Wenn wir aufhörten, mit diesem Parlament einmal im Monat für drei Tage von Brüssel nach Straßburg zu ziehen, dann hätten wir all das hier im Parlamentsgebäude in Straßburg für knapp 1 000 Menschen. 750 Abgeordnetenbüros, jedes einzelne hat ein Bett, jedes einzelne hat ein Bad. Es gibt eine große Kantine, es gibt viele Säle, die man benutzen könnte für Schulungen. Im Plenum könnte man Benefizkonzerte machen, all das steht an 27 Tagen im Jahr frei. Hören wir auf mit dem Wanderzirkus — sparen wir Hunderte Millionen Euro und machen das Parlament zu einem großen Asylbewerberheim - es wäre sinnvoller benutzt als jetzt. An ihren Taten sollt ihr sie erkennen!

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  James Carver (EFDD), blue-card question. – You raise a point which so often comes up with the frequent hot air in this Chamber when people argue about the way we have to travel between Brussels and Strasbourg. You raise a very valid point about this huge expense – this huge waste. But could I perhaps take your suggestion a step further?

Of course, we have the mothballed chamber over in Luxembourg as well. We have this huge amount of waste – and is it not symptomatic of this place that we have a lot of hot air: a lot of people coming forward and saying we have to do the right things? Well, perhaps we should start practising what we preach and actually look very closely into the money that is being squandered by this institution, as it has been signing off its own accounts for 19 years.

  Beatrix von Storch (ECR), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich glaube, es gibt viele gute Ideen, die noch über das hinausgehen, das Parlament und auch weitere Gebäude zu nutzen. Aber ich glaube, es wäre an der Zeit und es wäre ein richtiges Signal, wenn wir hier nicht nur über die Probleme reden, sondern etwas tun, das wir ganz konkret tun können, wo wir darauf hinwirken können, dass wir dieses Gebäude sinnvoll nutzen. Das könnten wir unmittelbar umsetzen. Es würde keine Zeit verloren. Die Räume oben sind fertig, sie sind leer, die Menschen könnten unmittelbar einziehen.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – Herr talman! Jag vill också tacka föredraganden, Laura Ferrara, för hennes hängivna arbete med detta betänkande och samtidigt också tacka ALDE:s skuggföredragande, Louis Michel, för hans betänkande förra året, som tydligt har angett en färdplan för hur vi säkerställer respekten för grundläggande fri- och rättigheter i EU.

De individuella mänskliga och rättigheterna omfattar nämligen alla medborgare, även de medborgare vars rättigheter undergrävs av deras egna regeringar, såsom sker på vissa håll i vår union. När dessa friheter och rättigheter hotas i våra länder, då måste EU:s institutioner kunna ingripa.

När ett land vill gå med i vår union så lovar man högt och tydligt att man ska leva upp till en oberoende rättsstat och att man ska slå vakt om de mänskliga rättigheterna, men är man inne, då är det nästan fritt fram att göra vad som helst. Medlemsländerna har nämligen tyvärr tagit för vana i rådet att hellre hålla varandra om ryggen än att rakryggat stå upp och försvara de grundläggande rättigheterna.

Det är helt avgörande för vår trovärdighet i EU att nu få till stånd en bindande, oberoende och objektiv granskning av varje medlemsstat och hur man lever upp till de grundläggande rättigheterna – en löpande granskning som gäller alla.

Kom ihåg att det är de grundläggande rättigheterna som utgör grunden för vår union och för hela vårt samarbete. Kanske börjar medlemsländerna begripa allvaret först när de får ekonomiska konsekvenser, och det åberopar jag, för ett annat EU är faktiskt möjligt.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the situation of fundamental rights in the EU is wholly unacceptable. Compassionate protection and the promotion of rights to life, dignity and freedoms, such as asylum, are being undermined, if not ignored, in the current context of the ongoing humanitarian refugee crisis. Rather than approaching this crisis with humanity, a fortress Europe is heavily financed, and indecent and dehumanising language, border fences, tear gas, religious discrimination and the shirking of responsibility are comfortably adopted.

Only the solemn protection of fundamental rights can resolve this crisis. That can be accomplished by providing safe and legal access, scrapping the Dublin Regulations, and empowering and encouraging Member States to take a progressive and humane approach to the most pressing humanitarian crisis the world faces. Clearly we will not uphold fundamental human rights or resolve the refugee crisis by dropping more bombs on Syria. Enforcing fundamental human rights is crucially important, and therefore I thank the rapporteur and the shadows for their sterling work.

  Julia Reda (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, first of all congratulations to rapporteur Ferrara and her colleagues for compiling this excellent report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU. It highlights the discrepancies between freedoms promised in law and the freedoms denied when people put them to the test. Anyone whose fundamental rights have been denied deserves our support, whether they are taking to the streets of Barcelona in defiance of national gag laws, whether they are rallying across the continent in support of the citizens’ initiative or, indeed, demanding access to documents from ongoing TTIP negotiations without 95% of their contents being redacted.

The report also takes a decisive stance against fundamental rights violations in the self-proclaimed war on terror, and it does not buy into the myth purported, for example, by the EPP shadow that blanket surveillance could guarantee our safety. Safeguarding the rights to be informed about government actions, to have one’s privacy respected, to speak out against injustice and to participate in the political process are all fundamental rights vital to democracy. It is this Parliament’s duty to safeguard these rights, and I count upon my colleagues to adopt the Ferrara report and to ensure that comprehensive monitoring of the Member States’ fundamental rights obligations is ensured.

  Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Herr talman! I artikel 116 i förslaget till en ny Europakonvention om de mänskliga rättigheterna beklagar Europaparlamentet djupt de upprepade och tragiska förlusterna av människor i Medelhavet. Parlamentet påpekar att EU och medlemsstaterna bör göra mer för att förhindra nya tragedier till havs.

Jag kan bara hålla med om detta, men när vissa parlamentariker vill integrera mänskliga rättigheter i allt som har med EU:s migrationspolitik att göra, utgår de alltid från att alla de människor som flyr måste komma till Europa för att få sina rättigheter respekterade. Lösningen blir alltså att EU och medlemsstaterna ska uppmuntras att öppna nya, säkra och lagliga inresevägar, så att alla migranter kan komma in i Europeiska unionen. Detta, mina vänner, är en ohållbar lösning.

Visst har politikerna utgått från en känsla av omsorg och välvilja när de en gång skrev Europakonventionen, men den känslan har lett oss helt fel.

(Talaren samtyckte till att besvara en fråga (blått kort) i enlighet med artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen).

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – I wonder if Madam Winberg would agree with me that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states should be doing more to set up camps in Turkey rather than displace large numbers of people, and that they should be helping their fellow Muslims. I think it is a disgrace that they are not doing more and that Britain is doing more than any of them. I wonder if she agrees with me about that.

  Kristina Winberg (EFDD), svar ("blått kort"). – Ja, jag håller absolut med om detta. De har samma språk, de har samma kultur, de har samma sätt att leva på. Varför öppnar inte de upp? Nej, de köper sig fria. De måste ta ett större ansvar. Vi inom EU kan inte ta denna stora mängd med migranter. Vi krackelerar, vi kommer inte att kunna fungera om vi ska fortsätta att ha öppna gränser. Jag tycker minsann att de kan ta ett mycket större ansvar.

  Lorenzo Fontana (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ma io devo dire che anche nella discussione, trovo un po' di ipocrisia da parte di questo Parlamento e delle istituzioni europee, perché si vuole parlare di diritti fondamentali, ma non riesco a capire quali diritti fondamentali potremo garantire ad altre minoranze nel momento in cui facciamo fatica a garantire i diritti fondamentali, per esempio: sulla sicurezza dei cittadini che magari vogliono vivere tranquillamente nel proprio territorio, o magari non riusciamo a garantire il diritto al lavoro a tanti giovani, in Italia siamo a oltre il 25% di giovani disoccupati, non riusciamo a garantire il fatto che una famiglia possa avere dei figli, perché, evidentemente, c'è questa difficoltà, non si riesce ad avere più figli e ci stiamo estinguendo, lo sapete benissimo.

Ma soprattutto l'ipocrisia, la trovo nel momento in cui tante volte l'Unione Europea ha avallato delle cose nel resto del mondo, che non hanno garantito i diritti fondamentali nel resto del mondo, per esempio, la guerra in Libia. Alla fine, chi l'ha causata? Quindi pensiamo ai diritti fondamentali qui, quando abbiamo creato dei disastri? Ma non solo in Libia. Pensiamo anche in Siria, adesso c'è il problema dei rifugiati. Ma c'è qualcuno che ha delle responsabilità. Abbiamo dato il premio Nobel per la pace a un Presente degli Stati Uniti e in Siria un po' di responsabilità ce l'ha anche lui. Oppure vogliamo parlare di quando facciamo gli affari con l'Arabia Saudita, che di certo non è uno Stato che garantisce i diritti fondamentali o con la Cina.

Insomma, io credo che forse bisognerebbe farsi un esame di coscienza e vedere cosa veramente vogliamo fare invece che riempire fogli di carta.

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Mr President, the most fundamental right of humans is to be treated like humans, not like cattle. Look at Iceland. It is an island with 70 000 families. 10 000 of those families – not the government – have accepted to take refugee families. How many would German families accept? 8 million or perhaps only 800 000? How many would Poland accept? 2 000, 10 000, 200 000? Nobody has asked them. His Holiness Francis I has demanded that every parish accept one family. We have 53 000 parishes in Poland.

But here we must deal with families, not with governments. Governments treat people like cattle, like the Jews in 1944 when 300 000 Hungarian Jews were sent to Auschwitz. The refugees are not being killed of course, but cattle are not usually killed either. Still, refugees are being treated like cattle and this is unacceptable. We have 11 German concentration camps in Poland now. Germany is paying us with EU money to keep refugees behind barbed wire. They are escaping to Germany and the Polish police catch them and taking them back.

Finally, if we pay the refugees social benefits, we encourage more to come. They move and then there will be another thousand drowning in the Mediterranean. Those who pay social benefits have blood on their hands. Remember, Socialism kills.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážená Lauro, sama víš, že oceňuji Tvoji pracovitost a vyjadřuji Ti tímto velikánskou poklonu za tu práci, kterou jsi udělala na této zprávě.

Nicméně základní právo naší frakce je s Tebou nesouhlasit a přinést alternativní text vlastního usnesení, který já osobně považuji za více vyvážený.

Chtěl bych odpovědět támhle kolegovi, který nebyl ochoten k žádné diskuzi. Milý kolego, možná, že mě slyšíš, ale základní právo naší frakce je nesouhlasit s tím textem. A proto přinášíme alternativu.

A dále bych chtěl odpovědět kolegyni Lunackové. Je trošku laciné se navážet do našeho textu. Náš text není lepší nebo horší než text Laury. Náš text je jiný. A to je ten princip. Principem demokracie je diskuze. Já bych chtěl k diskuzi o lidských právech přinést dva důležité body.

První bod je právo dítěte na oba dva rodiče. To považuji za zcela stěžejní. V Norsku jsou trvale porušována práva dětí na to mít dva své rodiče, své biologické rodiče. A nemůžeme před tímto stavem zavírat oči. Jsou odebírány děti hluchoněmým, lidem, kteří nemluví nebo neslyší. A to je potřeba, aby i ze strany Evropské unie bylo tady na této půdě kritizováno.

A druhé, o čem chci hovořit. Hovořili jsme o právech žen, hovořme i o právech mužů. Já sám jsem byl obětí stalkingu. A když jsem přišel, byl jsem vysmívaný. A nikdo nemluví právě o tom, co třeba i muži prožívají. A mluvme o tom, že i muži mají svoje práva. Je to velmi důležité. My muži se stydíme býti muži. A to je to třetí, o čem jsem chtěl mluvit. To jsou práva obětí trestných činů. Myslím si, že je na to velmi malý důraz a že jsou poměrně dost vysmívaná.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 162 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)

  Laura Agea (EFDD), Domanda "cartellino blu". – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è una domanda di metodo, visto che il collega ha detto "non critichiamo" e "la nostra mozione alternativa non è né meglio né peggio, è diversa", io consiglierei e chiederei al collega: perché, allora, non la presenta nelle sedi opportune e non in alternativa al lavoro che ha fatto la collega Ferrara. Perché ritengo che ci siano le sedi opportune, questa è una relazione d'iniziativa. Faccia con il suo gruppo altrettanto e poi in Parlamento la plenaria deciderà sulla sua relazione o su quella del suo partito. Ritengo che sia una mancanza di rispetto al lavoro della collega Ferrara.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Milá kolegyně, já děkuji za Vaši otázku, že můžu dovysvětlit to, co jsem nestihl říci, protože pan předseda byl ke mě příliš přísný.

Ano, máte pravdu. Je právo, základní právo se rozhodnout mezi těma dvěma verzemi. Není žádná ani lepší, ani horší. Každá reflektuje tu věc z jiné strany. A právě proto jsme předložili alternativní text, aby se mohla vést tahle diskuze a mohli jsme tam zmínit věci, které v tom textu nejsou zmíněny. Já jsem tady dal velký kompliment Lauře za její práci a za její pracovitost. Prosím akceptujte i naší práci, naší pracovitost.

  Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario Timmermans, ringrazio la collega Ferrara per la sua relazione. Oggi più che mai, io credo, risulta evidente la necessità di predisporre un meccanismo efficace di tutela dei diritti fondamentali nell'UE in grado di prevenire le possibili violazioni che purtroppo talvolta si riscontrano anche negli Stati membri, in contrasto con i principi contenuti nella Carta dei diritti. Condivido quindi l'idea di istituire un processo permanente di approfondito monitoraggio della situazione della democrazia, dello Stato di diritto e dei diritti fondamentali in tutti gli Stati membri per sopperire alle lacune degli attuali strumenti di tutela.

Peraltro, in questa fase storica in cui l'Europa si trova ad affrontare una crisi umanitaria senza precedenti, con centinaia di migliaia di migranti che premono sulle nostre frontiere, non possiamo dimenticare, io credo, che i principi fondamentali dell'Unione consacrati nella Carta dei diritti e annoverati tra le finalità dell'azione esterna dell'UE ci impongono di garantire un trattamento e un'accoglienza dignitosa a tutti i migranti, a prescindere dal loro status formale di profughi e rifugiati e richiedenti asilo e ci impongono anche una particolare attenzione nei confronti delle persone più vulnerabili e mi riferisco ai bambini. Abbiamo ricordato il piccolo Aylan all'inizio del nostro dibattito, ma mi riferisco anche ai tanti minori non accompagnati, vittime ancora più indifese dei trafficanti delle organizzazioni criminali. La relazione della collega si sofferma e sollecita interventi urgenti su questa materia e quindi spero possa essere al più presto approvata.

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Misją Unii Europejskiej jest dbanie o podstawowe prawa osoby ludzkiej, te, które są jądrem europejskiej tradycji prawnej: prawo osoby ludzkiej do życia, prawo rodziny, wolność słowa. Cieszę się także z tego, że te nowe pola wrażliwości zostały docenione. Przede wszystkim chodzi o prawa osób niepełnosprawnych, a także o wolność mediów, walkę z korupcją. Natomiast bardzo się smucę z tego powodu, że po raz kolejny sprawozdanie pada ofiarą ideologicznej poprawności. Nie można przecież piętnować islamofobii w sytuacji, w której problemem Europy jest nie islamofobia, tylko radykalny islam zagrażający naszemu kontynentowi. To jest bardzo nieodpowiedzialne. Bardzo nieodpowiedzialne były też te słowa, które krytykują politykę europejską wobec imigrantów jako niesolidarną i zamkniętą. To nie są fragmenty, które dobrze służą Europie i prawom osoby ludzkiej.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, Comisario Timmermans, señora Ferrara, muchísimas gracias por su trabajo.

El informe sobre la situación de los derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea tiene 178 apartados: unos 30 gramos de peso. Esos 30 gramos nos definen y nos defienden porque nos obligan a actuar frente a los intolerantes, nos obligan a auxiliar a las víctimas de agresiones de odio, de persecuciones, a las víctimas de abuso de todo tipo, y también a los refugiados de guerra.

Nos obliga por primera vez —positivamente, si lo aprobamos— con mecanismos que proveen indicadores comunes y objetivos reales, mecanismos reales de control sobre violaciones reales que suceden dentro de nuestras fronteras reales, con Estados reales. Estos 30 gramos son mucho o poco, porque albergan los valores de la Unión Europea, nuestra verdad, nuestro futuro como sociedad si somos valientes, o, si lo mutilan parte de los grupos de esta Cámara, nos darán la irrelevancia y la nada de una oportunidad perdida.

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, gracias señora Ferrara por el informe.

Si hablamos de derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea, hay que hablar del derecho de las mujeres a no ser asesinadas, violadas, amenazadas o golpeadas por el hecho de ser mujeres.

Este verano, en el Estado español, han sido asesinadas 17 mujeres y 8 menores. En el año 2014 fueron asesinadas 59 mujeres.

Este informe hace referencia al estudio de la Agencia de los Derechos Fundamentales y destaca que el 33 % de las europeas ha sufrido violencia física o sexual y que 9 millones de europeas han sido víctimas de una violación. Más violencia si hablamos de mujeres con diversidad funcional, de mujeres migrantes o de mujeres transexuales.

La violencia de género es terrorismo, terrorismo machista, pero parece que en Europa hay terrorismo «de primera» y terrorismo «de segunda», víctimas «de primera» y víctimas «de segunda», y, sin duda, la violencia de género está en esta segunda división.

No hay ultimátum de la troika a los gobiernos que no aplican políticas contra la violencia de género; no hay amenazas de expulsión de la Unión Europea a quien no destina recursos contra esta violencia de género. Y ¿para cuándo una Cumbre de Jefes de Estado para abordar este terrorismo?

(La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 162, apartado 8, del Reglamento)).

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Nagyon fontosnak tartom a nők elleni erőszak kérdését, amit felvetett, és ezért kérdezem önt, hogy mit szólt ahhoz a jelenethez, amivel tele volt a sajtó, amikor egy migráns muszlim ember frusztrált lett. Fogta a feleségét, aki öt hónapos terhes volt, és a kisgyermekét, lerántotta őket a vasúti sínek közé, és mindezt – természetesen a magyar rendőrség szakszerűen közbelépett, próbálta megvédeni az asszonyt és a gyermeket a bántalmazástól – úgy állították be, mint a magyar rendőrség általi erőszakot. És ezt a feleségbántalmazót is úgy állították be, mint hogyha valamiféle glorifikációra lett volna jogosult amiatt, amit tett. Mi az ön álláspontja erről?

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Señor Presidente, yo creo que, evidentemente, no podemos aprovechar que se habla de violencia de género para hacer discursos que, por otra parte, puedan parecer xenófobos. La violencia de género es condenable, venga de donde venga, y es condenable, ya sea por parte de una persona de religión musulmana, cristiana o que no profese ninguna religión. Yo creo que la violencia de género es siempre condenable, siempre.

  Ernest Maragall (Verts/ALE). – Señor Presidente, señora Ferrara, la exhaustividad de su informe creo que es un potente indicador de la mala salud europea en el ámbito de los derechos humanos ―en Europa y más allá―, pero lo vamos a defender con nuestro voto porque dice la verdad sin disimulos.

Es un informe bianual y quizá por eso tiene tanto contenido. Pero, al mismo tiempo, este informe empieza a estar ya en algunos aspectos desbordado, como lo demuestra el debate que estamos manteniendo en este momento.

La situación de la inmigración, hoy, es el retrato genuino y dramático de nuestro retroceso democrático, de nuestro problema como sociedad europea y como titulares de un sistema de valores que no podemos ni sabemos evitar que se vea negado y humillado de forma continua y creciente. Leer el informe y al mismo tiempo releer la Carta Europea de los Derechos Fundamentales es un ejercicio de contraste difícilmente digerible.

Se hace alusión en el informe a la crisis económica y a las graves consecuencias que ha comportado. La crisis no es un accidente meteorológico y la gravedad de la afectación de derechos humanos no es una enfermedad contagiosa: son nuestras decisiones las que la motivan. Han de ser nuestras decisiones las que la corrijan e inviertan el proceso. Este informe es un buen punto de partida en esta dirección.

  Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io voglio complimentarmi sinceramente con la collega Laura Ferrara per il grande lavoro che ha fatto, che è un lavoro che ha fatto con passione, con impegno, con grandi nozioni tecniche e che hanno portato a una relazione veramente completa.

Una relazione anche ambiziosa, perché quando ci si rende conto – perché è innegabile che ci sono dei problemi all'interno dell'Unione europea, è innegabile che ci sono delle violazioni dei diritti umani all'interno dell'Unione europea – e allora quando si va a cercare di creare dei meccanismi di monitoraggio, dei meccanismi di controllo, dei meccanismi che possono concretamente migliorare lo stato dei diritti fondamentali all'interno dell'Unione europea. Io mi aspetto sia dal Commissario Timmermans sia da parte dei colleghi, soprattutto colleghi del Partito Popolare, mi aspetto sostegno alla volontà di una giovane collega, di migliorare lo stato dei diritti fondamentali in Europa.

Allora cerco di appellarmi a quelli che magari non hanno neanche letto la relazione e che stanno semplicemente ascoltando la voce di partito, una voce che viene dall'alto e che dice di votare contrariamente, di affidarsi a un'altra relazione, leggetela, e guardate, se volete un'Europa migliore, di sostenere la relazione della collega Laura Ferrara.

  Udo Voigt (NI). – Herr Präsident! Es ist schon verwunderlich, wenn in einem solchen Bericht zur Lage der Menschenrechte in Europa einfach unterschlagen wird, dass es Diskriminierung durch politische Verfolgung in den EU-Staaten gibt. Allen voran in Griechenland, in Österreich und in der Bundesrepublik. Es gibt Meinungsverbote, Berufsverbote, Versammlungsverbote, Hotelverbote, Hausverbote. In Deutschland werden jährlich 12 000 Ermittlungsverfahren gegen patriotische Bürger eröffnet, über 1 000 sitzen im Gefängnis, allen voran mein Freund Horst Mahler, der nur für seine Meinung zwölfeinhalb Jahre bekommen hat, dem man erst im August ein Bein amputierte, weil man ihm im deutschen Gefängnis nicht genügend Möglichkeit zur Bewegung gegeben hat.

Herr Timmermans, Sie sprechen davon, dass Sie unparteiisch sind. Wenn Sie das weglassen, sind Sie nicht unparteiisch, denn Grundrechte sind unteilbar.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Üdvözlöm az alapvető jogok helyzetéről szóló jelentés kisebbségekre vonatkozó megállapításait, külön szeretném kiemelni azokat a pontokat, amelyekben – a holnapi szavazás kimenetelétől függetlenül – úgy tűnik, konszenzus alakult ki a parlamenti frakciók között. Azt már mindenki elismeri, hogy nagyobb következetességre van szükség a kisebbségvédelemben, el kell kerülni a kettős mérce alkalmazását, ezért szükség van egy mechanizmusra, amely nyomon követi a kisebbségek jogainak érvényesülését. Hasonlóképpen egyetértünk azzal is, hogy az európai intézményeknek átfogó uniós rendszer kialakítása a feladata, és felszólítjuk a tagállamokat, hogy a nemzetközi normák és bevált európai gyakorlatok alapján biztosítsák a nemzeti, etnikai és nyelvi kisebbségek tekintetében a ténylegesen egyenlő bánásmódot.

Az Európa Tanács és az EBESZ keretében kidolgozott nemzetközi egyezmények eredményes végrehajtásának szükségessége körül sincs vita a frakciók között, továbbá a nyelvhasználaton alapuló diszkrimináció elleni fellépés, a nyelvi sokszínűség útjában álló közigazgatási akadályok felszámolása is közös célunk már. Azt gondolom, hogy ezek nagyon komoly előrelépésnek számítanak, a nemzeti kisebbségek képviselői évek, sőt, évtizedek óta szorgalmazzák, hogy az Európai Unió ebben a szellemiségben közelítse meg helyzetüket. Mindannyiunknak arra kell tehát törekednünk, hogy az Európai Parlament állásfoglalása után a Bizottság is tegye magáévá ezt a megközelítést, és kezdje el egy európai kisebbségvédelmi mechanizmus kialakítását és működtetését.

   Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (S&D). Herr Präsident! An jeden Beitrittskandidaten legt die Europäische Union hohe Maßstäbe an, kein Land kann EU-Mitglied werden, wenn es sich nicht klar zu Demokratie, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und zur Wahrung der Grundrechte bekennt, und vor allem, wenn diese Werte nicht auch durchgesetzt werden. Die EU ist eine Wertegemeinschaft, und von daher muss es eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein, dass die Grundrechte auch nach dem Beitritt eines Landes umfassend gewährleistet sind, doch dies ist leider oft genug nicht der Fall.

Warum soll die EU die Einhaltung europäischer Werte nur vor dem Beitritt eines Landes wirksam überwachen können, aber danach nicht mehr? Sicher, es existiert Artikel 7 im EU-Vertrag, er ist allerdings aufgrund der hohen Hürden bis zu seiner Anwendung ein stumpfes Schwert. Kommission und Rat haben erste Schritte unternommen, um hier Abhilfe zu schaffen. Das ist durchaus begrüßenswert, aber ausreichend ist das nicht! Notwendig ist vielmehr ein echter Grundrechtemechanismus, und zwar mit kontinuierlicher Überwachung der Lage der Grundrechte in jedem Land, und mit länderspezifischen Berichten, die regelmäßig veröffentlicht werden.

Die EU-Institutionen müssen bei gravierenden Grundrechtsverletzungen in einem Mitgliedstaat rechtzeitig einschreiten können. Im Kern geht es hier um die Frage der eigenen Glaubwürdigkeit. Objektive Kriterien und ein transparenter Prozess wären meines Erachtens ein Garant dafür, dass kein Land zu Unrecht an den Pranger gestellt würde. Ich unterstütze den Bericht von Frau Ferrara und ich hoffe, dass Rat und Kommission - wenn der Bericht angenommen wird - auch die Forderung nach Einrichtung eines Grundrechtemechanismus aufgreifen. Vielen Dank!

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedniče, izvješća o temeljnim pravima u Europskoj uniji u pravilu su ideološki obojana i promiču lijevo-liberalne ideje i politike. Ni ovog puta nažalost nije ništa drugačije. Sadržaj izvješća nije me ni najmanje iznenadio, ali ne mogu da se ovako naglas ne zapitam koliko bi se u Europi bolje živjelo da se o pravima pojedinaca vodi toliko računa koliko se vodi o pravima raznih manjinskih skupina.

Danas mi u ovom domu više uopće ne govorimo o pravu pojedinca, najmanje manjine na svijetu. Ne posvećujemo previše vremena i energije njegovom pravu na život od vlastitog rada, umjesto da mu država uzima većinu prihoda, ili pravu na odgoj vlastite djece, umjesto da ih se indoktrinira kroz javni obrazovni sustav.

A kad je taj pojedinac nerođeno dijete, svi ovi veliki zagovornici prava manjina tom bespomoćnom ljudskom biću ne bi dozvolili ni ono osnovno pravo – pravo na život. Zato nikad neću podržati ovakva izvješća koja promiču pozitivnu diskriminaciju manjina, dok se u isto vrijeme diljem Europe ostalim našim građanima krše temeljna ljudska prava.

  Josu Juaristi Abaunz (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, es un buen informe y felicito yo también a la ponente. Desde la perspectiva de mi país, el País Vasco, Euskal Herria, echaría en falta, si cabe, propuestas más concretas para superar no solo el dilema de Copenhague sino también, de forma más precisa, el doble estándar que se esgrime a veces en la resolución de conflictos.

Los derechos civiles y políticos, individuales y colectivos, no son respetados en toda la Unión y, desde el País Vasco, debo recordar de nuevo la persistencia en el Estado español de juicios políticos, aun en tiempo de proceso de paz. Este otoño, sin ir más lejos, se celebrarán dos más, contra Batasuna y Askapena.

Debo recordar también la conculcación de derechos a presos y presas políticos y a sus familiares y allegados, que siguen sufriendo, por ejemplo, la dispersión. Y quiero recordar, por último, la cerrazón del Gobierno español a aceptar algo tan democrático como el derecho a decidir en Euskal Herria o en Cataluña.

  Laura Agea (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ritengo che la relazione della collega Laura Ferrara non solo sia un lavoro eccellente e non solo la collega abbia richiamato i membri di questo Parlamento a un atto di coraggio, ma credo che sia necessario un atto dovuto, perché i diritti fondamentali vanno pretesi e noi siamo nella condizione di poterlo fare. Noi abbiamo la responsabilità di chiedere i diritti per chi non ha voce per chiedergli, perché è questo il compito che spetta a noi 751 deputati di questo Parlamento.

Credo che un atto di coraggio sia a volte rischiare la propria vita cercando qualcosa altro, un atto dovuto sia dare un'occasione di vita a chi quell'occasione non ce l'ha. Io ritengo che questo Parlamento molto spesso vede la sua voce ignorata da istituzioni che non sono democraticamente elette dai cittadini e uscire divisi in una relazione così importante darebbe ancora meno forza alla nostra azione. Per cui il mio è un appello a ciascuno di questi colleghi perché sostengano, con forza e convinzione, la relazione della collega Ferrara.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Sobre os direitos fundamentais quero sublinhar três ideias. Primeiro, que estão na base dos valores europeus, segundo que são o combate que nunca termina e terceiro que são uma causa que deve unir e não dividir.

Primeiro, os direitos humanos são a base mais profunda dos ideais e valores em que se baseia a União Europeia. É pela defesa destes direitos que todos os dias todos nós devemos trabalhar no sentido de promover o seu respeito em todo o nosso continente.

Segundo, como o Relatório Ferrara bem identifica, em 2012 e 2013 foram ainda muitas, talvez demasiadas, as violações de direitos fundamentais. Este trabalho nunca está terminado. Para que o consigamos fazer, temos de ser capazes de escrutinar de forma isenta. Este relatório só é útil se nos proporcionar uma fotografia da realidade que nos permita identificar os nossos focos de ação.

E terceiro, os direitos fundamentais, nesta casa, devem unir e não dividir. O Relatório Ferrara vai longe demais. Alonga-se em considerações de censura discutíveis e ultrapassa o âmbito de competências da União. E propõe um mecanismo que não deve certamente ser discutido aqui. Alterar a natureza da União Europeia e a distinção entre o que é europeu e o que é nacional é matéria para os Tratados. Devia ter sido obtido um compromisso mais alargado nesta matéria.

Senhor Presidente, que não restem dúvidas: temos que continuar a trabalhar para promover e garantir o respeito pelos direitos fundamentais da União Europeia.

Mas para que o consigamos fazer, este Parlamento não pode utilizar os direitos fundamentais como arma de combate político. Muito pelo contrário, temos de olhar para os direitos fundamentais como o núcleo da construção europeia, como elemento unificador de todos os povos europeus. Só assim conseguiremos fazer a diferença.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul", nos termos do artigo 162.°, n.° 8, do Regimento)

  Gilles Lebreton (ENF), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, cher collègue, je suis d'accord avec vous pour dire qu'il ne faut pas instrumentaliser les droits fondamentaux pour en faire une arme politique qui va permettre, une fois de plus, à l'Union européenne de s'ingérer davantage dans les affaires intérieures des États, dont la plupart en Europe sont capables de défendre eux-mêmes leurs droits fondamentaux.

Cela dit, je vous pose une question supplémentaire: ne pensez-vous pas que ce rapport risque également de brouiller la frontière qui existe entre l'Union européenne et le Conseil de l'Europe, organisation spécialisée dans la défense des libertés?

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Senhor Presidente, Caro Colega, não partilho da sua opinião de que a defesa dos direitos fundamentais não seja uma competência europeia.

Creio que é uma competência europeia e creio que, em nome desses valores, nós temos toda a legitimidade para opinar sobre eles. O que não concordo é que um relatório factual sobre direitos do Homem ultrapasse os limites de uma fotografia clara da realidade e, como tive ocasião de dizer, não considero que a defesa de um novo mecanismo – que aliás foi muito bem contestado pelo Vice-Presidente Timmermans – tenha aqui lugar. É uma matéria para os Tratados, não é uma matéria para um relatório sobre os direitos do Homem.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, saúdo a colega Laura Ferrara por este importante relatório. Outra Europa é possível, disse ela, e eu acrescento: é indispensável e é urgente.

A situação em que estão os direitos fundamentais na Europa é ilustrada pela crise decorrente do afluxo de refugiados. Esta é uma crise europeia porque, por ação, omissão e incoerência nas nossas políticas internas e externas, e também pela prevalência da perversa ideologia neoliberal que é antieuropeia, acabamos por ajudar a fabricar refugiados e migrantes fora e dentro, incluindo os mais de trezentos mil portugueses que nos últimos quatro anos tiveram de emigrar, para não falar dos que foram empurrados para a pobreza pelas políticas neoliberais, incluindo idosos e um quarto das crianças, só no meu país, Portugal.

Que esta é uma crise de falta de valores europeus vê-se também pela forma como estamos tardiamente a reagir aos efeitos da guerra, da opressão e da miséria na vizinhança. Se temos uma maioria de governos e cidadãos com memória histórica e solidariedade a acolher generosamente os fugitivos, também temos governantes que nos envergonham, como os primeiros-ministros da Hungria e da Eslováquia, que por palavras e atos violam os direitos fundamentais e trazem de volta velhos demónios contra a paz, a liberdade e a democracia na Europa. A União e os Estados-Membros têm a obrigação de agir e pôr os direitos fundamentais dos migrantes, dos refugiados, dos seus próprios cidadãos, no centro das suas políticas, assegurando coerência entre as políticas internas e externas.

Só assim travaremos a ameaça terrorista, só assim não deixaremos que ela seja instrumentalizada para pôr mais em causa a segurança, as liberdades e os direitos fundamentais dos próprios cidadãos europeus e daqueles que buscam na Europa proteção para as suas vidas e para as suas famílias.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Voorzitter, buitengewoon enthousiast ben ik niet over dit initiatiefverslag, een verslag met 65 overwegingen en 178 paragrafen. Er zijn in dit huis verslagen wel om minder terugverwezen naar de desbetreffende commissie.

Toch pak ik er één punt uit: de vluchtelingen. Helaas hebben de lidstaten vóór de zomer geen gemeenschappelijk besluit kunnen nemen over een herverdeling van een beperkt aantal vluchtelingen over Europa. Wij hebben de schokkende beelden van de afgelopen dagen en weken gezien en we weten nu: de vluchtelingencrisis verergert heel snel! Er is nú een gezamenlijke Europese actie nodig, en met name de regeringsleiders van Midden- en Oost-Europese landen moeten zich niet langer verstoppen.

Een verplichte herverdeling van de vluchtelingen heeft overigens alleen maar zin, wanneer deze een breder pakket van maatregelen omvat, met veilige havens, goed uitgeruste kampen in het Midden-Oosten en Noord-Afrika, met harde afspraken over veilige landen en de terugkeer daarnaartoe en tenslotte met een volledige inzet op het aanpakken van mensensmokkelaars.

  Pál Csáky (PPE). – Én azért kértem szót, hogy a támogatásomról biztosítsam az Európai Néppárt alternatív javaslatát. A néppárti állásfoglalási indítvány az alapvető emberi jogok védelmére helyezi a hangsúlyt. Leszögezi, hogy az alapvető jogok védelmének témájával nem szabad visszaélni. Nagyra értékelem, hogy az EPP fontosnak tartja az őshonos kisebbségek jogainak védelmét is. Kiemelném a néppárti javaslat 24–27. pontjait, amelyek kimondják, hogy az EU-nak tiszteletben kell tartania az őshonos nemzeti kisebbségek jogait, azokét, akik évtizedek óta a szülőföldjükön élve gazdagítják kultúrájukkal és nyelvükkel Európát. Fontos, hogy a javaslat szorgalmazza, hogy az EU intézményei is hatékonyabban védjék a kisebbségek nyelvi, kulturális és oktatási jogait.

Felhívja a tagállamokat az Európa Tanács és az EBESZ kisebbségvédelmi dokumentumainak hatékony implementációjára, továbbá felszólítja a tagállamokat, hogy fogadjanak el nemzeti jogszabályi keretet a megkülönböztetés valamennyi formájának kezelésére. Üdvözlöm, hogy a javaslat a Bizottságot is átfogó uniós rendszer kidolgozására kéri, amely biztosítaná az őshonos kisebbségekkel szembeni egyenlő bánásmódot és így az európai stabilitást. Támogatom azt a gondolatot is, hogy az EU mielőbb csatlakozzon az Emberi Jogok Európai Chartájához. Szerintem ez az út, amelyen tovább kell mennünk, ez erősíti az európai kohéziót és az európai polgárok identitását.

(A felszólaló hozzájárul egy, az eljárási szabályzat 162. cikkének (8) bekezdése értelmében feltett kék kártyás kérdés megválaszolásához).

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Sok mindennek nagyon örültem, viszont, kedves honfitársam, képviselőtársam itt a szóbeli felszólalásában használta az „őshonos nemzeti közösség” kifejezést nagyon helyesen, viszont az írásos variációban kisebbségnek nevezik. Itt a magyar fordításban ugye a 24. pontnál kezdődik és ott a cím is az, hogy „kisebbségek támogatása”. Tudjuk ezt nagyon jól, hogy Európa folyamatosan keveri ezeket a fogalmakat, nem értik, hogy mi az, hogy őshonos nemzeti közösség. Próbáljuk ezt erőltetni, és kérem az EPP-s képviselőtársaimat, hogy igenis erőltessék, hogy ez kerüljön bele. Annál is inkább, mert a Michel-jelentésben, az előző alapjogi jelentésben már benne volt. Tehát itt most egy visszalépés van, ezt kellene korrigálni. Hajlandó-e képviselőtársam ezt támogatni?

  Pál Csáky (PPE), Kékkártyás válasz. – Valóban Elnök Úr! Az írásos dokumentum azt a kifejezést használja, amit a nemzetközi dokumentumok is használnak – tehát a „kisebbség” kifejezést. Mi, a nemzeti közösségekhez tartozó polgárok a „nemzeti közösség” kifejezést használjuk. Nagyon remélem kedves képviselő asszony, hogy ez nemsokára a dokumentumunkban is megjelenik majd. Próbáljunk ezért közösen is tenni.

  Soraya Post (S&D). – Herr talman! Som EU-parlamentariker i Europeiska unionen, där högerextrema krafter växer som giftiga svampar, ser jag detta betänkande som ett av de viktigaste betänkandena som vi har framför oss det här året. Det handlar om hur länderna ska klara av att leva upp till det som är grundläggande för vårt demokratiska samhälle: respekten för rättsstatsprincip, respekten för de mänskliga rättigheterna och respekten för unionens fördrag.

Demokrati som inte är grundad i de mänskliga rättigheterna är ingen demokrati att prata om. Det har vi sett tidigare i vår historia för cirka 70 år sedan. Om vi inte klarar av att uppfylla dessa åtaganden, så kommer vi inte att lyckas med någon annan ambition heller.

Tyvärr är detta betänkande påfallande tjockt. Jag skulle önska att det vore på en eller två sidor, men det är mer än 40 sidor som behandlar en rad olika områden, där EU och medlemsstaterna måste agera nu. Det visar på att vi är illa ute – 40 sidor 2015!

En nyckelfråga är naturligtvis den granskningsmekanism för mänskliga rättigheter som parlamentet har efterfrågat upprepade gånger, och som är avgörande för att EU ska kunna leva upp till sina grundläggande värden.

Vi ser att medlemsländer kränker de mänskliga rättigheterna vad det gäller flyktingar. Vi ser att det sker systematisk diskriminering av romer i alla medlemsstater. EU behöver en alarmmekanism för diskriminering och kränkningar av mänskliga rättigheter var de än förekommer, och det behövs kännbara sanktioner mot de länder som inte klarar av att respektera de mänskliga rättigheterna och EU:s grundläggande värden. Jag stöder Ferraras betänkande. Bra jobbat!

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στην περίοδο οικονομικής κρίσης που διανύουμε, τα μνημόνια και οι πολιτικές λιτότητας αυξάνουν τη φτώχεια και την ανεργία και οδηγούν σε παραβίαση των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων των πολιτών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και κυρίως των κοινωνικών τους δικαιωμάτων. Τα μνημονιακά μέτρα και ιδίως στην Ελλάδα στέρησαν από τον φτωχοποιημένο ελληνικό λαό το δικαίωμα πρόσβασης σε βασικά δημόσια αγαθά όπως είναι η υγεία, η παιδεία και η κοινωνική ασφάλιση. Για το λόγο αυτό, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και ιδίως η Επιτροπή οφείλει να επιβάλει το σεβασμό του Χάρτη των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων και στην Ελλάδα. Αυτό όμως δεν συμβαίνει. Ο κ. Moscovici μάλιστα, απαντώντας σε ερώτηση μου προς την Επιτροπή σχετικά με την παραβίαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Χάρτη στην Ελλάδα από την Τρόικα, μου απάντησε ότι ο Ευρωπαϊκός Κοινωνικός Χάρτης δεν έχει δεσμευτικό χαρακτήρα, βάσει του δικαίου της Ένωσης και δεν επιβάλλει, ως εκ τούτου, νομικές υποχρεώσεις στην Ένωση και στα κράτη μέλη της στο πλαίσιο της έννομης τάξης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Δηλαδή, εν προκειμένω, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή νίπτει τας χείρας της για την παραβίαση του Χάρτη Κοινωνικών Δικαιωμάτων στην Ελλάδα, αν και είναι και η ίδια μέλος της Τρόικας που έχει επιβάλει τα συγκεκριμένα μέτρα στην Ελλάδα; Θα ήθελα μια απάντηση σε αυτό το θέμα διότι είναι πολύ σοβαρό. Είναι δυνατόν η ίδια η Επιτροπή σε απάντησή της προς ευρωβουλευτή να λέει ότι ο Ευρωπαϊκός Κοινωνικός Χάρτης δεν έχει δεσμευτικό χαρακτήρα;

  Milan Zver (PPE). – Poročila, ki ocenjujejo razmere na področju varstva temeljnih človekovih pravic v Evropski uniji in članicah, lahko dobro vplivajo na izboljšanje pravosodnih sistemov v državah, zato takšna poročila, pa tudi razprave, seveda podpiram.

Prihajam iz Slovenije, ki je na žalost postala evropska prvakinja v kršenju človekovih pravic. Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je namreč avgusta objavilo statistiko, v kateri ugotavlja kar 148 kršitev povprečno na milijon prebivalcev. Za primerjavo, v Nemčiji sta na milijon prebivalcev ugotovljeni le dve kršitvi.

Od stoterih primerov je v Sloveniji najbolj odmeven primer kršenja temeljnih človekovih pravic Janezu Janši, ki ga je slovenski nereformiran pravosodni sistem na podlagi povsem absurdne obtožnice preganjal kar sedem let.

Namen je bil, da s političnega polja odstrani vodjo opozicije, ki je bil dvakrat uspešen predsednik vlade in celo predsednik Evropskega sveta. Lani, le tri tedne pred državnozborskimi volitvami, so ga celo zaprli brez vsakršnega dokaza.

Pol leta kasneje pa je seveda ustavno sodišče Janšo spoznalo za nedolžnega in razveljavilo vse pretekle sodbe. Si lahko predstavljate, da se tak primer zgodi v osrčju Evrope?

Da se ne bi ponavljali, pozivam Evropsko komisijo, naj čim prej pripravi obljubljeni šestorček ukrepov na področju pravosodja, ki bo omogočil zunanji, sistemski nadzor nad funkcioniranjem sodstva v državah članicah.

Morda se ta zahteva komu v urejenih okoljih zdi odveč. Za postkomunistične oziroma za tranzicijske države pa je to edina pot do pravne države in spoštovanja človekovih pravic in svoboščin.

  Kati Piri (S&D). – De bescherming van de grondrechten is een kerntaak van de Europese Unie. Onze geloofwaardigheid hangt hier dan ook nauw mee samen. Hoe kunnen we een op waarden gebaseerd buitenlands beleid voeren, als we onze eigen zaken soms niet op orde hebben? Als de situatie van 10 miljoen Roma er de laatste jaren niet op vooruit is gegaan? Als rechten en acceptatie van LGBT nog lang niet overal gegarandeerd zijn?

Dan de vluchtelingencrisis en met name de reacties erop van een aantal Europese regeringsleiders. Voor het eerst heb ik mij oprecht afgevraagd: delen wij binnen de Europese Unie wel dezelfde waarden met elkaar? Laten wij het toe dat EU-regeringsleiders als Viktor Orbán en Fico openlijk en soms met trots discrimineren op basis van geloof en Syrische vluchtelingen wegzetten als gevaar voor Europa, omdat ze moslims zijn? Hier moeten we krachtig tegen optreden en ik hoop dan ook dat de Europese Commissie in deze strijd voorop zal oplopen.

  Therese Comodini Cachia (PPE). – Sur President, il-ħarsien tad-drittijiet fundamentali huwa wieħed mill-valuri bażiċi fuq liema l-Unjoni Ewropea hija fondata. Fi ftit kliem dan il-valur jirrappreżenta rispett lejn il-persuna u d-dinjità tagħha hi min hi u tinsab fejn tinsab. Sa hawn żgur li ma jonqosx diskors politiku minn mexxejja tal-Membri Stati li jaġixxu b'liema mod jaġixxu dejjem jgħidu li qed jaġixxu b'rispett lejn id-drittijiet fundamentali taċ-ċittadini tagħhom. Però, bejn ir-retorika politika u l-mod ta' governanza hemm baħar jikkumbatti. Huwa f'dak il-baħar li ħafna politiċi jintilfu l-fibra morali u l-kuraġġ li jieħdu deċiżjonijiet skont prinċipji bażiċi li mingħajrhom flok ikunu qed jipproteġu d-drittijiet taċ-ċittadini jkunu qed inawruhom.

Huwa minnu li fraġilità ekonomika, pressjoni soċjali, u sitwazzjonijiet ta' emerġenza jagħmlu r-responsabbiltà għall-ħarsien tad-drittijiet fundamentali aktar unerużi, iżda ħafna drabi l-vjolazzjonijiet ta' dawn l-istess drittijiet ġejja minn nuqqas ta' fibra morali u nuqqas ta' responsabbiltà politika f'min ikun qiegħed imexxi l-gvern.

Ċittadini Ewropej jippretendu li l-Istituzzjonijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea jaġixxu biex jipproteġuhom hekk kif il-mexxejja tal-Istati Membri jaddottaw governanza ħażina u governanza li tmur kontra l-prinċipji ta' kontabilità, trasparenza, ġustizzja, solidarjetà u s-supremazija tad-dritt.

L-Unjoni diġà għandha mekkaniżmu li jorbotha tkun protettur tad-drittijiet fundamentali. L-istituzzjonijiet ma għandhomx bżonn mekkaniżmu ieħor biex jaqdu din ir-responsabbiltà, iżda hemm bżonn aktar kuraġġ, u anqas mistħija biex jintuża dan il-mekkaniżmu.

  Daniele Viotti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, gli interventi che ci sono stati oggi sulla gran bella relazione della collega Ferrara, che ringrazio, sono stati molto concentrati sul tema dei migranti, com'era prevedibile. Io vorrei concentrarmi invece sull'aspetto – che può sembrare marginale in queste ore, in questi giorni, che però ha un grande ruolo nella relazione – che è l'aspetto dei diritti, la tutela delle persone lesbiche, bisessuali, transgender e intersex.

Quello che fa questa relazione è porre il nostro Parlamento, il Parlamento europeo, come un faro nella lotta alle troppe discriminazioni che ci sono, alle prevaricazioni, all'assenza dei diritti e delle tutele delle persone LGBT. Si fa interprete il nostro Parlamento, con questa relazione, del cambiamento che sta avvenendo in Europa.

Sottolinea anche – vorrei dire, se posso trasformare le parole della relazione – sottolinea il nostro ruolo che deve essere un ruolo di politici che stanno vicini ai cittadini, e deve essere un ruolo più umano di quanto non si sia stato in questi ultimi mesi, in questi ultimi anni, cercando di occuparci della vita dei cittadini. Combattere l'omotransfobia, Presidente, come sottolinea la relazione, significa combattere le tante paure che attraversano la nostra Europa, e che in questa Aula, purtroppo, sono molto rappresentate e spesso trovano anche una sponda politica.

Pytania z sali

  Patricija Šulin (PPE). – Rada bi opozorila, da so temeljne človekove pravice kršene tudi na nekaterih sodiščih držav članic.

Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je prejšnji mesec objavilo alarmantne podatke, ki kažejo, da se je Slovenija, od koder prihajam, znašla v evropskem vrhu po številu kršitev človekovih pravic na število prebivalcev.

Leta 2010 je bila Slovenija zaradi kršenja človekovih pravic obsojena trikrat, v lanskem letu pa že 29 krat. Obsojena je bila v kar 94 % vseh primerov, kar nas uvršča na isto mesto kot Rusijo.

V Sloveniji je bila v lanskem letu opravljena raziskava nekdanjega ustavnega sodnika, ki je ugotovil, da je v letih 2004–2014 človekove pravice in temeljne svoboščine kršilo 442 slovenskih sodišč ter najmanj 1200 sodnikov.

Vsi ti šokantni podatki nas opozarjajo, da Slovenijo na področju varovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin čaka še veliko dela. S težavami pa se moramo sprijeti takoj.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la discussione di oggi sul tema dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea è centrale, in quanto l'Europa proprio in queste ore è chiamata a rendere dimostrazione esplicita che gli enunciati dei suoi principi fondativi sono ancora solidi e degni di fede. Registriamo infatti, e inesorabilmente, ancora numerose violazioni dei diritti fondamentali come evidenziato dalle sentenze della Corte europea per i diritti dell'uomo. Penso alla violenza contro le donne che tristemente è la più diffusa nell'Unione europea ma anche alla condizione dei minori. Secondo l'OMS, sono almeno 850 i giovani di età inferiore ai 15 anni che muoiono a seguito di maltrattamenti.

Mi complimento con la collega Ferrara per l'ottimo lavoro svolto, ma non possiamo in questo dibattito non tener conto di ciò che si sta consumando in queste ore alle porte dell'Unione europea. Penso che questo documento rischia di essere solo testimonianza di buoni propositi se non riusciamo, ciascuno singolarmente, innanzitutto a prendere la responsabilità di superare l'emergenza di queste ore, evitando che vengano sospesi quei diritti fondamentali che costituiscono la spina dorsale dell'Unione quali muri di filo spinato e la marchiatura di esseri umani.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, señora Ferrara, Comisario, quiero apoyar el requerimiento que hace este informe a la Comisión para que aplique ya los instrumentos a su alcance para proteger los derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea. Los principios de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea son prepolíticos, y la subsidiariedad no.

La credibilidad en esta materia se gana cuando la ciudadanía percibe que se obra en consecuencia, y la restricción de derechos y libertades básicas, como los de manifestación y reunión; la acumulación de condenas por no investigar torturas; la negativa a seguir las recomendaciones de las Naciones Unidas para ofrecer justicia y reparación a miles de víctimas de una dictadura; el no reconocimiento de penas cumplidas en otros países, por puras razones de oportunidad electoral, con el acompañamiento de jueces sumisos, que incumplen claramente la legislación europea, son parte de las muchas denuncias que hemos traído aquí sobre el deterioro sistemático de las libertades en España.

Merecen, como defiende este informe, una evaluación objetiva y transparente, y deberían dar lugar a una activación automática de mecanismos de corrección.

  Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Vážená paní zpravodajko, děkuji za velmi povedenou zprávu. Několik významných témat však postrádala.

Zpráva se například nezmiňuje o vzestupu novodobého otroctví v Evropské unii. Protože víme, že ve Velké Británii se nachází na tři tisíce dětí z Vietnamu, které jsou nuceny pracovat pro výrobce drog. To považuji za zcela nepřijatelné a Evropský parlament by měl požadovat, aby byla tato nehumánní praxe ukončena.

Vaše zpráva se zmiňuje o negativních důsledcích nekoncepční politiky škrtů na evropskou zaměstnanost a sociální politiku. Chtěla jsem však podotknout, že je třeba brát v úvahu i různá specifika jednotlivých profesí. To, že například horníci v některých zemích Evropské unie, například i v České republice, nemají nárok na předčasný odchod do důchodu, považuji za trestuhodné. Zejména pokud si uvědomíme, jak fyzicky i psychicky náročnou práci dělají a že existuje velmi reálné riziko, že se nesnížené hranice nedožijí.

Jsem však velmi ráda, vážená paní zpravodajko, za to, jaký prostor jste věnovala evropským občanským iniciativám, mučení CIA na evropském území, programu NSA a dalším tématům.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il ringraziamento alla collega Laura Ferrara è enorme per l'impegno e la grande passione con cui ha affrontato questa relazione a nome di tutta la delegazione del Movimento 5 Stelle. Toccherò temi che sono stati toccati poco in questa discussione: la famosa criminalità dei colletti bianchi, toccata peraltro invece con profondità; corruzione; riciclaggio di denaro; evasione ed elusione fiscale. Reati forse di minore impatto emotivo, ma che proprio per questo in modo vile e subdolo uccidono quei diritti fondamentali e quello Stato sociale di cui stiamo parlando oggi, corrodendolo dall'interno e drenandone le risorse, abbandonando gli emarginati, i rifugiati e i più deboli al proprio destino.

Sono spiacente Commissario, ma purtroppo gli sforzi e gli strumenti in campo non sono stati sufficienti neanche lontanamente. Ogni forma di tolleranza – involontaria o volontaria – cecità e indifferenza, è intollerabile, anzi è complice! Con questa relazione, con questo voto, vorrei, colleghi, che il nostro Parlamento mandasse per una volta un messaggio chiaro: i veri valori europei sono quelli che non si possono depositare in un conto corrente, perché non hanno prezzo e nemmeno colore politico. Ricordatelo alla vostra coscienza quando premerete quel tasto domani e fate la cosa giusta!

(Koniec pytań z sali)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, in this debate on fundamental rights I would like to raise two issues in reaction to the honourable Members’ contributions.

The first is that of the rule of law which, of course, is the basis upon which we develop our fundamental rights. Socrates, when he was convicted on dubious grounds, was approached by friends who said ‘We will help you flee’, and he said ‘I will not’, because if you accept the premise of the rule of law in a consensual society you do not get to pick and choose which laws are applied to you and which are not. That would be my first point. If you accept the premise of the rule of law you cannot, here in Parliament, debate by saying ‘Well I want this to be applied to me but not to them’, and ‘We have more rights than others’, etcetera. The rule of law applies to every single individual citizen in Europe, regardless of their citizenship, when they live in your country – some people are applauding: I think they misunderstood me, but we will see in a moment – so why would you then accept the premise that you could have the rule of law organised also on a level higher than the national one? The answer is part of our European history. We saw in the 20th century, and especially in the 1930s, that you can use democracy as a pretext to undermine the rule of law by saying ‘We have the majority so we decide what the rule of law is.’ Of course, that is impossible. If you can change the principles of the rule of law with majority votes, you endanger, especially, individual rights or minority rights, if you are not very careful. That is why one of the greatest politicians of the 20th century thought of the idea that you could have an organisation of fundamental rights and the rule of law going beyond the nation state – an organisation at European level, capable of imposing its rulings on nation states if they did not observe the rights enshrined in the rule of law – and that European nations would subscribe to that principle willingly and democratically by signing conventions.

Now some of you will be surprised that the politician who thought up this idea was Winston Churchill, and Winston Churchill had a high regard for the British system. He had such high regard for the British system, and so much self-confidence, that he did not mind a court in Strasbourg having oversight over what the British system produced. He had enough self-confidence to say ‘We are good enough to accept that oversight.’ And this is the basis upon which we work. In effect he said ‘Tie me to the mast so I do not succumb to the sirens when they call me.’ And that is the basis upon which our rule-of-law system in the European Union, and in the Council of Europe, was constructed – by Member States saying ‘We will be tied to the mast, so that we do not make mistakes, and if we make mistakes our peers will check and correct us.’

(Heckling)

Honourable Member, perhaps you should read a bit more, instead of shouting, and you will know that Odysseus made a very wise choice. My point is this: any nation with enough self-confidence will accept its peers’ checking on its observance of human rights and the rule of law. We have nothing to fear if we are sufficiently self-confident. Do we?

My second point concerns diversity. Europe is by nature a diverse community, a diverse continent. Our societies are by nature diverse, and throughout our history we have been strong when we celebrate our diversity: we are strong when we are welcoming to minorities; we are strong when we are welcoming to those who seek protection because they flee persecution and war. And we are weak when we try and confine ourselves to our own culture; when we see anybody who comes from elsewhere as a threat to our culture; when we believe that we can be overrun – 500 million of us – by a few hundred thousand. That is a testimony of weakness, of a lack of self-confidence, of a lack of trust in the strength of our European culture and our history.

I strongly believe that if we claim diversity when we are elsewhere, and if we claim respect for our rights when we are elsewhere, we should also be able to give the same rights to those who come to us. What would Europe have looked like if, in 1956, other Europeans had said ‘I do not mind where those Hungarians go, so long as they do not come to us’? What would have happened then, or in 1968 if people from Czechoslovakia fleeing communist oppression had not been allowed, as refugees, into other European nations?

(Applause)

I celebrate the fact that so many hundreds of millions of Europeans today are saying to those genuinely fleeing from persecution, ‘You are welcome in my country, you will find protection on these shores, we will not send you back.’

Here again I want to come back to the rule of law. It works both ways. The rule of law deserves respect. Those who have the right to asylum should get it. Those are our values. Those are our international treaties. Those are our national obligations. But those who claim asylum without having the right to asylum should be refused asylum and should be returned to where they come from. That is also the rule of law.

I strongly believe this is the basis upon which we should discuss fundamental rights. Fundamental rights apply to everyone on this continent – in this European Union – and disregarding respect for the fundamental rights of one individual hurts us all. Europe is nothing if it does not protect its minorities. Europe is nothing if it does not have an eye for that which is weak. Europe is nothing if we close our doors to people who flee persecution and war elsewhere. We will hurt not only the interests of those people: we will hurt our own values, we will do harm to ourselves and we will harm our souls, if that is our attitude.

That is the background against which we should be discussing the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union.

  Laura Ferrara, relatrice. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario Timmermans, grazie a tutti colleghi che sono intervenuti in questo dibattito. Pur nella diversità di alcune posizioni, credo che sia emerso chiaramente come, per tutti i deputati, al di là del colore politico, i diritti fondamentali rivestano una grande importanza.

Mi piacerebbe soffermarmi solo su alcuni interventi, in risposta ad alcuni interventi, di alcuni deputati dei Conservatori e dei Popolari, in merito al fatto che si sia dedicato poco spazio ai diritti individuali e invece molto più spazio ai diritti delle minoranze. Ebbene, probabilmente, soffermandosi un po' più sulla relazione si può verificare come si sia dato ampio spazio alla libertà di espressione e di informazione, ai diritti della donna, ai diritti della parità di genere, ai diritti dei minori, ai diritti delle persone LGBTI, ai diritti delle persone con disabilità, ai diritti dei senzatetto, alla solidarietà nella crisi economica, richiedendo che tutte le proposte legislative, le politiche e le azioni dell'Unione europea, anche in campo economico, siano passate ad un vaglio ex ante ed ex post sui diritti fondamentali.

Viene preso in esame come i diritti fondamentali vengano violati dalla criminalità organizzata e dalla corruzione, viene dato ampio spazio alla tutela delle vittime di reato. Bene, mi chiedo: non sono tutti diritti che pongono al centro degli interessi la persona? Non stiamo parlando di diritti degli individui?

E poi ancora mi vorrei soffermare sul nuovo meccanismo, sul quale molti ancora nutrono dei dubbi. Bene, commissario Timmermans, come avrà avuto modo di constatare, il paragrafo 9 già prende in considerazione gli strumenti già esistenti, fa riferimento alle procedure di infrazione, fa riferimento ad un avvio automatico dell'articolo 7.

Ciononostante, credo che in Europa si possa essere molto più ambiziosi. Oggi abbiamo enumerato diverse storie di violazioni di diritti fondamentali e credo che questo sia lo specchio di come probabilmente gli strumenti di cui l'Europa di oggi si dota non siano sufficienti. Bisogna essere più ambiziosi e l'ambizione consiste nel prevenire e non nell'intervenire ex post, quando le violazioni sono state già commesse.

Il nuovo meccanismo: brevemente nel paragrafo 10 – la prego, mi dia qualche minuto in più –si parla di indicatori comuni e obiettivi sulla base dei quali la Commissione possa valutare lo stato di tutela dei diritti fondamentali. Bene, già alcuni colleghi vi hanno fatto riferimento, parliamo dei criteri di Copenaghen per i paesi in adesione. Perché non continuare ad applicare, a fare riferimento agli stessi indicatori per i paesi che continuano a far parte dell'Unione europea, facciamo riferimento al monitoraggio, paese per paese. Lei stesso, Commissario Timmermans – e concludo – parafraso ciò che lei stesso ha detto – Commissario Timmermans – ogni Stato che ha fiducia in se stesso non deve temere il controllo da parte degli altri, sulla base dei diritti umani.

Ebbene, se mi conferma questo, qual è il timore nel richiedere una relazione annuale sullo stato di tutela dei diritti fondamentali paese per paese? Si parla poi di un richiamo formale, di un dialogo istituzionale, molto spesso ci si spaventa per la terminologia utilizzata, nuovo meccanismo, probabilmente è questo che spaventa, ma si tratta semplicemente di buonsenso. Io vi invito domani a votare con coscienza e a renderci portavoce del volere dei cittadini europei.

  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek 8 września 2015 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)

  Hugues Bayet (S&D), par écrit. – Le rapport adopté par le Parlement sur la situation des droits fondamentaux au sein de l'Union européenne souligne des éléments essentiels liés au respect de la démocratie, de l'état de droit et des droits fondamentaux. Il aborde, d'une manière progressiste, des domaines aussi essentiels que l'égalité et la non-discrimination, les droits des enfants, des migrants, des personnes LGBTI, des personnes handicapées, la violence envers les femmes, la protection des minorités, etc.

Je souhaite mettre en exergue un point particulier du rapport, à savoir la nécessité de mettre en place un mécanisme permanent pour surveiller le respect des droits fondamentaux et de l'état de droit par chaque État membre. C'est évidemment fondamental pour la protection de tous les citoyens européens.

Je ne peux que me féliciter qu'une majorité du Parlement ait appuyé ce rapport qui rappelle l'importance du respect, par les États membres, de la dignité humaine, de la liberté, de la non-discrimination, de la diversité et des principes fondamentaux de la démocratie, autant de valeurs qui fondent la construction européenne et doivent donc être respectées à tout moment par chaque État membre.

  Kinga Gál (PPE), in writing. – We still have today national linguistic minorities living within EU borders which face discrimination and are treated as second-class citizens. As Co-chair of the Intergroup for Traditional Minorities, National Communities and Languages, I am sorry to see plenty of cases that are missing from the report. I would especially like to raise the situations of the Hungarian minority in Romania and Slovakia.

The report is a highly political document which, under the veil of ‘fundamental human rights’, covers a whole range of positions that overstep EU competence and are highly controversial among European citizens. Although being sympathetic with Mrs Ferrara for the huge amount of energy she had to put into this report, as in 2010 I was also rapporteur for the same report, nevertheless I cannot agree with her proposal. The report proposes a new rule-of-law mechanism, which I do not consider necessary because a mechanism to check the state of fundamental rights in Member States already exists. As we have witnessed during past years, the political groups of the left use fundamental rights politically and would use a new rule-of-law mechanism politically against governments led by PPE parties, such as in Hungary.

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – Valoro el esfuerzo de la ponente por resaltar las numerosísimas violaciones de las libertades civiles y derechos sociales en la UE. Pero poco puede avanzarse cuando los Estados actúan como juez y parte en sus abusos de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales. Sigue pendiente la obligatoria adhesión de la UE a la Convención Europea de Derechos Humanos: sin duda conveniente, dada la extrema violencia de sus militarizadas políticas migratorias y de seguridad. En cuanto a la Carta Social Europea, se ignora su presencia en los tratados fundamentales o su carácter vinculante para todos los Estados Miembros. En España, el Comité Europeo de Derechos Sociales ha dictaminado la insuficiencia de la protección social y las múltiples violaciones de derechos laborales, como el derecho a un salario decente, a un trabajo seguro y una jornada razonable: pese a ello, la UE sigue aplaudiendo los recortes y reformas laborales que han conducido a esta situación. La Carta Social y el Convenio de Derechos Humanos son la prueba que otra Europa es posible -otra Europa muy distinta a la actual UE.

  József Nagy (PPE), írásban. – Az emberjogi jelentésnek az lenne a feladata, hogy tükröt állítson elénk, hogy is állunk országainkban az alapvető értékek, szabadságjogok tiszteletében. Van még hova fejlődnünk. A jelentéshez benyújtott módosító javaslataimmal arra a jelenségre hívtam fel a figyelmet, mely az extrém nacionalizmus, rasszizmus, xenofóbia és intolerancia megerősödésére és terjedésére utal szerte Európában. Ennek okai között ott vannak a terroristatámadások, de egy dolog az ok, másik pedig a jelenség maga, mellyel sürgősen kezdeni kell valamit. A polgárok közötti bizalmatlanság nő, különösen az ismeretlen vagy a többségitől más kultúrák irányában. Ez pedig nemcsak a bevándorló közösségeket érinti, hanem különösen negatívan befolyásolja az őshonos nemzeti és etnikai kisebbségek helyzetét is. Sürgetem, hogy tegyünk konkrét lépéseket az agresszió, s ezen belül is a gyűlöletbeszéd megállítására. Nekünk, politikusoknak, különösen fokozott körültekintéssel kell megválogatnunk szavainkat. Európa jövőjével játszik, aki populizmusból, pillanatnyi szavazatnyerészkedésből gerjeszti az agressziót, s mélyíti a bizalmatlanságot.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – The legal basis for respecting the fundamental rights of EU citizens used to be in the references in the Treaties to the ECHR. However, with the Treaty of Lisbon coming into Force, the Charter of Fundamental Rights was given the same legally binding status as all other treaties, meaning that all member states shall prioritize the respect of Fundamental Rights. The situation is not exactly desirable. Of course, we seem to be within the limit of normal, there are no evident cases of capital punishment or tortures, nonetheless, as a member of the Petitions Committee I have observed that the petitions regarding breaches of fundamental rights exceeds the acceptable standards. Most of them concern the discrimination on sex or origin basis. Moreover, the easily noticed tendency is that the less economic stability, the higher the amount of fundamental rights violations recorded. I believe that we should be able to strengthen the monitoring mechanism in order to prevent the breaches from happening in member states of EU. Unfortunately, having in mind the migration crisis, we must be prepared for the significant increase of number of petitions concerning violations of fundamental rights based on the origin, and since no consensus has been reached so far, we will not be able to control it.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

22. Interventi di un minuto su questioni di rilevanza politica

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Ausführungen von einer Minute zu wichtigen politischen Fragen (Artikel 163 GO).

  Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señor Presidente, mientras Europa abre sus fronteras a los refugiados, en Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro los expulsa.

Esa es hoy la realidad de Venezuela. Pero no solo eso: miseria, inseguridad, falta de libertad, vulneración de los derechos humanos y persecución de los medios de comunicación independientes. Casi un centenar de presos políticos cuyo único delito es ser la voz de la oposición a un Gobierno que impide que el pueblo venezolano viva en paz y se atiendan las necesidades básicas de la ciudadanía. Mientras, la canaria Andrea González de León y su pareja siguen detenidas ilegalmente con acusaciones completamente falsas ―y desde aquí pedimos su libertad condicional y, en su caso, un juicio justo―.

El Gobierno de Venezuela sabe que tiene fecha de caducidad ―el 6 de diciembre―, y nosotros sabemos que hará lo que sea para que el cambio que Venezuela necesita no se produzca. Europa debe decir ¡basta ya! El pueblo de Venezuela tiene derecho a vivir en paz y en libertad.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, with our neighbours from the Republic of Moldova, we the Romanians share a common language, traditions, culture and history. Last year Moldova set the record in ratifying the EU association agreement, clearly showing its interest in becoming a close partner of the European Union. This is why I believe the European Union should strongly support the Republic of Moldova’s objective of further integration into European structures and should develop increasingly close relations with Moldova, going beyond simple cooperation to gradual economic integration and a deepening of political cooperation. To define prospects of EU membership should be a key priority of both the Republic of Moldova and the European Union. This should have to lead to the accession of Moldova into the European Union in the future. We have to give clear EU membership prospects to the citizens of the Republic of Moldova. This is clearly in the interest of Europe as well.

  Yana Toom (ALDE). – Mr President, in the context of the refugee crisis I would like to address the problem of statelessness in Europe. The right to nationality is an internationally recognised human right. In the European Union the large stateless population originates mainly from the break—up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. For example, there are almost 90 000 stateless people in Estonia and more than a quarter of a million in Latvia. The large size of the stateless population is among the main reasons for reluctance of Estonians and Latvians to bring a worthy contribution to the solution of Europe’s refugee crisis. The problem of statelessness will not go away by itself, at least in the foreseeable future. The fight against statelessness should be promoted at EU level for the sake of European values, internal peace and stability.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). – A União Europeia está hoje confrontada com uma realidade vergonhosa na qual tem uma enorme quota-parte de responsabilidade. Não foi a União Europeia e a maioria deste Parlamento que há uns tempos tudo fizeram para que a Líbia fosse bombardeada? Diziam, então, para libertar o povo líbio. Não foram os mesmos que há uns tempos apoiavam entusiasticamente todos, independentemente de pertencerem ou não a organizações terroristas, que combatessem o regime de Assad na Síria? Os sírios hoje dizem que apenas querem paz. Quem vivia na Líbia também diz que queria a paz. Ali, como em outros países africanos e do Médio Oriente, a NATO e a União Europeia tudo fizeram para destabilizar e poder saquear.

As consequências são os milhões de refugiados que, tentando sobreviver, enfrentam a Europa-Fortaleza com as portas cada vez mais controladas. Agora, se a União Europeia acolher o parco número de 120 mil refugiados, cumprindo apenas um dever internacional, vai tentar resolver apenas o problema daqueles que conseguem sobreviver e não morrer afogados.

Quando é que são criadas rotas seguras e legais para os migrantes e refugiados poderem viajar evitando, assim, que tenham que arriscar a sua vida?

  Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Señor Presidente, deseo recordarle a la Cámara dos acontecimientos importantes para Cataluña que van a tener lugar este mes de septiembre. El primero es esta semana, el viernes día 11, cuando celebraremos nuestra fiesta nacional y, dentro de tres semanas, el 27 de septiembre, tendremos unas elecciones cruciales en las que los ciudadanos podrán expresarse democráticamente sobre si quieren iniciar un proceso que culmine con la independencia de Cataluña.

El Gobierno de España, además de impedir un referéndum oficial, ha dado pasos que resultarían inimaginables en cualquier otro país europeo, como el de poner al Tribunal Constitucional de España al servicio de los intereses ideológicos y partidistas del Gobierno. Espero que, en su debido momento, esta Cámara sea sensible al clamor de libertad y de democracia del pueblo de Cataluña y apoye la voluntad mayoritaria de sus siete millones y medio de ciudadanos.

  Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io voglio parlare della relazione che c'è tra l'Unione europea o i fondi europei, l'agricoltura e la mafia, che sembrano tre parole messe a caso insieme, invece, c'è una grossa relazione tra le tre cose, perché la Commissione europea attraverso la PAC, la politica agricola comune, in realtà ha finanziato, nel corso degli anni, con tantissimi soldi, con una barca di soldi, le criminalità organizzate.

Pensate che soltanto la mafia in Sicilia ha fatto scomparire qualcosa come 400 milioni di euro, che non sono bruscolini per una regione che è al collasso, in cui il settore agricolo, che era appunto l'attività produttiva principale, è completamente al collasso. Pensate che tutti i terreni che sono stati sequestrati alla mafia sono terreni che avevano usufruito di fondi UE, quindi sostanzialmente vorremmo cercare di fare in modo che ci siano, appunto, procedure di controllo migliori e che ci siano soglie più basse per questi fondi.

  Philippe Loiseau (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, la crise que connaît l'agriculture française actuellement est symptomatique de l'échec de la politique européenne. Votre politique d'élargissement et de financement des agricultures des pays candidats à l'adhésion n'a plus aucun sens et si on y ajoute le résultat de votre idéal libéral qui est de produire à bas coût, cela crée évidemment une forte concurrence déloyale de la part de certains pays membres, comme l'Allemagne par exemple, notamment avec les porcs.

Pour nous, il y a deux mesures à prendre d'urgence. Premièrement, il est nécessaire de redonner aux États la possibilité de protéger un secteur synonyme d'indépendance d'un pays, c'est-à-dire l'agriculture. Deuxièmement, il est indispensable que le Parlement européen cesse ses déclarations d'intention et prenne la décision de l'étiquetage obligatoire, assurant ainsi la traçabilité des produits. C'est une demande forte de nos compatriotes et des Européens en général. Par conséquent, l'agriculture ne doit pas être condamnée par un libéralisme mondialiste.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – A szerb-magyar határon lévő, sokat szenvedő település, Ásotthalom polgármesterének nyílt leveléből idézek, amelyet fényképekkel is illusztrált. Tegnap a határt törvénytelenül átlépő, betolakodó migránscsoport néhány kilométer megtétele után Ásotthalom közigazgatási területén egyszerűen lezárt, blokád alá vett egy forgalmas közutat. Túl azon, hogy rendkívül balesetveszélyes volt, el tudják-e képzelni, mit érezhetett az a törvénytisztelő, adófizető magyar állampolgár, aki szembetalálta magát ezzel az őrjöngő, fenyegetőző társasággal? Főleg, ha a gyermekei is ott ültek az autóban és látták, hogy nem engedi őket hazajutni saját otthonaikba ez a csürhe. Az Európai Unió vezetőinek elmebeteg döntései miatt egyre többen jönnek, egyre agresszívebbek, egyre követelőzőbbek, látják, hogy a törvényeket nekik nem kell betartani.

Timmermans biztos úr, ön, mint a joguralom nagy szakértője, mit szól ehhez? És a jogegyenlőséggel kapcsolatos eszme... (Az elnök megvonta a szót a képviselőtől.)

  Francesc Gambús (PPE). – Señor Presidente, señoras y señores diputados, quisiera llamar la atención de esta Cámara ante una de las amenazas latentes más peligrosas para la biodiversidad en la Unión: el caracol manzana, que llegó el año 2009 al delta izquierdo del Ebro e impulsó una decisión de la Comisión en 2012 para luchar contra él, ha ampliado su zona de puesta.

Hace tres días se conocía la aparición de 43 caracoles en el hemidelta derecho del Ebro y este verano aparecieron ejemplares de esta especie invasora en Pals, en el norte de Cataluña. Aunque los indicios hacen pensar en una puesta intencionada ―y evidentemente estos delitos ambientales deben ser perseguidos―, ello no implica que desde las instituciones europeas no afrontemos un problema que amenaza con expandirse a otros países europeos.

Cuanto más tardemos en actuar, peores serán las consecuencias para los productores locales y mayores las posibilidades de una expansión de esta especie invasora que tengamos que lamentar más adelante.

(El orador repite la última frase de su intervención en catalán.)

  Anneliese Dodds (S&D). – Mr President, the Commission released a package of measures against aggressive tax planning just before the summer, and we have all now had time to digest them. Although many are welcome, some serious gaps still remain.

Above all, we need a robust, objective definition of tax havens to underpin the list produced by the Commission; we need concrete measures to stop those who use tax havens benefiting from EU funds; and we need protection for those whistleblowers who have done so much to lift the lid on aggressive tax planning in Europe.

In addition, the Commission must not create new loopholes with the new loss adjustment mechanism it has proposed. Parliament’s special committee on corporate tax has, for the first time, provided democratic oversight of the activities of tax authorities, which until now have largely been hidden from their domestic populations. I hope that while the Commission follows up the welcome proposals in its own tax package it will look seriously at the proposals now emanating from that Special Committee on Tax Rulings and the report on tax matters being produced by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. Our constituents demand nothing less.

  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Panie Komisarzu, chciałbym zainteresować Komisję sytuacją polskich rolników dotkniętych klęską suszy na niespotykaną do tej pory skalę, o czym dobitnie świadczy najniższy od dwustu lat poziom wód w największych rzekach naszego kraju. Straty oszacowane do tej pory tylko w produkcji roślinnej idą w miliardy euro, a wszystko wskazuje na to, że jesienią przeniosą się na produkcję zwierzęcą ze względu na dramatyczny brak tak zwanych pasz objętościowych. Wprawdzie polski rząd zapowiedział wsparcie dla rolników, ale tylko w ramach pomocy de minimis, co oznacza, że otrzymają ją niektórzy rolnicy w sytuacji, kiedy zagrożone są wręcz podstawy egzystencji większości gospodarstw rolnych. Co więcej, na tę pomoc zostały przygotowane środki budżetowe w kwocie około stu milionów euro, co oznacza, że nie wystarczy ich nie tylko na wyrównanie strat, ale nawet na odtworzenie produkcji rolnej na rok następny. Dlatego jeszcze raz proszę Komisję o pilne zainteresowanie się skutkami suszy w Polsce i innych krajach Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej oraz uruchomienie pomocy adekwatnej do skali zagrożenia, ze środków tak zwanej rezerwy kryzysowej. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, solo en España, entre el 1 de julio y el 27 de agosto pasado, 16 mujeres y 8 menores han sido víctimas de la violencia de género. Cuatro agresores se han suicidado, 18 han sido arrestados y en los incidentes han muerto el novio de una de las asesinadas y la amiga de otra: 33 muertos.

Para resolver esta lacra, necesitamos, además de un radical compromiso de cada uno con la igualdad, una respuesta europea. Seguimos sin estadísticas homogéneas sobre este terrorismo doméstico, una consecuencia de las inaceptables diferencias que el tratamiento penal de estos delitos tiene en algunos Estados: un error que debemos corregir. Nos falta una legislación de mínimos para prevenir estos ataques y proteger a las víctimas e incluir a los menores en riesgo en estos programas.

Hoy es demasiado tarde para todas las víctimas de un drama silente, cotidiano, próximo, y que produce tragedias e imágenes que también deberían remover conciencias.

  Matt Carthy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, the ruling by Eurostat to the Irish Central Statistics Office has exposed the pathetic attempts to impose another tax on ordinary families in the guise of water conservation. Having already lost the political and democratic argument, Irish Water has now been deprived of any economic rationale. It is ironic that it was at the behest of the Commission and the ECB that a Fianna Fáil government first proposed the introduction of water charges in Ireland, and that it is a decision of another EU institution, Eurostat, to the effect that Irish Water has to remain on the books, that will be the final nail in the coffin of this regressive taxation policy.

Contrary to spin, Eurostat are clear that Irish Water cannot reach any sort of off-book status, especially with such a high non-payment rate. The report is a damning attack on the incompetence that has been a hallmark of Irish Water’s existence. It is now time for the Irish Government and the European institutions to accept the wishes of the Irish people and scrap water tax once and for all.

  Ernest Maragall (Verts/ALE). – (El orador comienza su intervención en catalán.) Señor Presidente, en las últimas semanas, la cuestión catalana se ha incorporado plenamente a la agenda europea. El señor Cameron y la señora Merkel, con sus declaraciones, han sido los notarios autorizados de esa inclusión en el orden del día de la Unión Europea. Ahora, el notario final será la propia ciudadanía catalana con su voto libre y decisivo.

Cinco años después de la agresión constitucional desde el Estado español, continuada hoy mismo, la sociedad catalana se ha cargado de razón hasta límites increíbles. Aspiramos a ejercer plenamente como Estado europeo, asumiendo todos los derechos y todas las obligaciones que tal condición implica.

Le pedimos a Europa que se disponga a acogernos, no solo para gestionar un problema o arbitrar en el conflicto, también para recibir una inyección del mejor europeísmo, para incorporar un valor añadido neto, para trabajar juntos en la recuperación de ese proyecto europeo, hoy en riesgo de extinción.

  Gerard Batten (EFDD). – Mr President, the biggest problem facing my constituents in London is the unavailability of affordable housing. There are thousands of people on the public housing waiting lists in every one of the 33 London boroughs. Most people have no chance of being allocated housing or, at least, they will have to wait very many years. Now David Cameron has said that we are going to take 20 000 of the Syrian migrants over the next five years and this will be on top of the one million or so migrants that come to Britain every three to four years.

Since mass migration is not going to stop any time soon, where are we going to put them all? Let me offer a solution. England is a very densely populated country. Scotland, on the other hand, is a very sparsely populated country. There is plenty of space to build new towns and cities in Scotland to accommodate the UK’s ever-growing population. I am sure that the generous Scottish people and their political representatives in the Scottish National Party would welcome such an exciting and humanitarian policy.

  Sophie Montel (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, le 24 septembre prochain, en France, plus de 100 000 moutons vont être saignés en toute conscience lors de la fête musulmane de l'Aïd-el-Kébir. Pourtant, le règlement (CE) n° 1099/2009 du Conseil du 24 septembre 2009 sur la protection des animaux au moment de leur mise à mort dispose que beaucoup de méthodes de mise à mort sont douloureuses pour les animaux. L'étourdissement est donc nécessaire pour provoquer un état d'inconscience et une perte de sensibilité avant la mise à mort ou au moment de celle-ci. Toutes ces précautions écrites pour finir par autoriser les dérogations en matière d'abattage rituel. Quelle hypocrisie! D'innombrables rapports, études et reportages vidéo témoignent en effet de la terrible souffrance endurée par les animaux égorgés vifs sans étourdissement préalable, certains mettant près de 10 minutes à mourir.

Les dérogations pour ces rites religieux doivent être abolies en France. La France doit suivre les exemples de la Suède, du Danemark, de la Suisse et de certaines régions d'Autriche, qui ont interdit ces dérogations et rendu obligatoire l'étourdissement préalable.

En conclusion, Mesdames et Messieurs, Gandhi disait: "On reconnaît la grandeur d'une nation à la manière dont elle traite ses animaux".

(Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)

  Pál Csáky (PPE). – Chcel by som povedať dve vety o migrácii z hľadiska Vyšehradskej štvorky. Nejde o to, že Vyšehradská štvorka by nebola solidárna v tejto veci. Sme pripravení spolupodieľať sa na riešení tejto krízy, no chceme upozorniť, že migračná kríza sa nedá doriešiť len na území Európskej únie. Systém kvót nebude fungovať ani v strednodobom horizonte. Udalosti v Budapešti z minulého týždňa jasne dokazujú, že skoro každý migrant chce pokračovať ďalej, do západnej časti Európy. My nie sme presvedčení o tom, že riešením svetových krízových situácií je to, že najmobilnejšie a možno najvzdelanejšie vrstvy týchto spoločností premiestnime do Európy. Náš návrh je: treba vyvinúť aktivity aj smerom k migráciou dotknutým africkým a ázijským krajinám a v spolupráci s nimi hľadať riešenia na obmedzenie týchto migračných pohybov aj vytvorením bezpečnostných a stabilizačných zón v týchto regiónoch.

  José Blanco López (S&D). – Señor Presidente, los productores del sector lácteo, con sus tractores, salieron a la calle en defensa de algo que es de justicia: precios justos que les permitan vivir dignamente de su trabajo. La Unión Europea y los Estados miembros tienen la obligación de escuchar este grito de los ganaderos de Galicia, de España, de Europa. Tienen la obligación de tomar medidas extraordinarias para que nuestro mundo rural no desaparezca. Adelantar pagos ―como hoy ha propuesto la Comisión― o habilitar medidas y ayudas específicas es adecuado, pero no es suficiente.

Necesitamos asegurar la sostenibilidad estructural de los ganaderos de nuestro territorio, de los ganaderos productores de leche, si queremos que el medio rural esté vivo, que no se siga despoblando y que tenga futuro en Europa. Y Europa, para ello, no debe dejar a los ganaderos a su suerte. Europa es algo más que un mercado en el que se fijan precios; debe demostrarlo comprometiéndose con el futuro de los ganaderos y con el medio rural.

  Jana Žitňanská (ECR). – Slovenská republika ratifikovala dohovor OSN o právach osôb so zdravotným postihnutím už pred viac ako piatimi rokmi. Aj napriek tomu sa na Slovensku ešte stále nemôžu deti so zdravotným postihnutím bežne vzdelávať v klasických školách, pretože štát im nevie zabezpečiť potrebný počet asistentov učiteľa. Aj tento začiatok školského roka sa tak niesol pre mnohých rodičov, učiteľov, riaditeľov no najmä pre stovky detí v smutnom duchu. Napriek tomu, že by sa mohli plne integrovať, väčšina z týchto detí sa nebude môcť. Keď hovoríme o kvalitnom vzdelávaní, vždy podčiarkujeme skutočnosť, že ide o investíciu, ktorá sa jednotlivcovi, ale aj nám ako spoločnosti viacnásobne vráti. Toto platí aj o deťoch s postihnutím. Včasná diagnostika, kvalitná raná starostlivosť, odbúranie bariér a podľa možností čo najskoršie začlenenie sa medzi zdravú časť populácie sú predpokladom pre naplnený život týchto detí a ich ochranu pred hrozbou chudoby.

Preto chcem aj z tohto miesta apelovať na slovenskú vládu, aby zabezpečila deťom so zdravotným postihnutím potrebných asistentov učiteľa alebo umožnila, aby deti v škole mohli sprevádzať asistenti, ktorých by mohli vykonávať aj ich rodičia... (predsedajúci prerušil rečníčku)

  Ivo Vajgl (ALDE). – Vsi, o katerih bi rad spregovoril nekaj besed, so v Evropi: imenujejo se Zlata zora v Grčiji, Jobbik na Madžarskem, NPD in Pegida v Nemčiji, Nacionalna fronta v Franciji, FPÖ v Avstriji, The Boots Boys na Norveškem, Fronta skinhedov v Venetu v Italiji, pa neoustaši in neočetniki na Hrvaškem in v Srbiji.

Vsak posebej v svojih državah, z redkimi izjemami, še ne predstavlja resne nevarnosti za ustavni red, za naše skupne evropske vrednote.

Ko pa seštejemo njihove cilje in si ogledamo programe, ne moremo mimo spoznanja,da v senci in pod okriljem krize, ekonomske in begunske, raste nevarna moč netolerance, razdora in agresivnosti.

Zato se mi zdi pomembno, da o pomenu desnega ekstremizma in o nevarnosti,ki jo napoveduje, spregovorim danes, pa čeprav samo za eno minuto.

  David McAllister (PPE). – Mr President, two weeks ago in Brussels the High Representative hosted another meeting of the high-level dialogue for normalising the relations between Serbia and Kosovo with Prime Ministers Aleksandar Vučić and Isa Mustafa. The goal of the meeting – to finalise the implementation of four key agreements – has been reached. Both parties agreed on the general principles on the main elements of the Association of Serb-majority Municipalities. This paves the way for its establishment. Both parties further agreed on the implementation of the energy agreement, the action plan for telecoms and an arrangement for the Mitrovica Bridge. These agreements mark a further step towards the normalisation of relations between Serbia and Kosovo and provide momentum for the high-level dialogue. The significant progress made in the dialogue ought to be acknowledged. I believe the time has come to open the first chapter in the process of negotiating Serbia’s accession to the European Union.

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Mr President, the refugee crisis is a massive challenge for Europe, but let us not forget that it is an even bigger challenge for Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. But, on our side in Europe, have we met a common challenge with a common response? No. Too many governments, far from recognising that, whether we like it or not, we are facing a common problem, are trying to pass the problem on to their neighbour.

But, worst of all, there are those – for instance in my country – who are trying to play political games with this tragic humanitarian situation. Some of them, with a view to our forthcoming referendum, are trying to blame the EU’s freedom of movement for this crisis. It is, of course, nothing to do with the EU’s freedom of movement. These are not EU citizens. They are refugees fleeing wars from outside. It is, though, a situation that would exist as a common challenge whether the EU existed or not. It is high time they started looking at the EU as a provider of....

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, срам и позор за така наречената международна общност, че досега търпя пред очите ни да се разрасне туморът „Ислямска държава“ и различните му метастази, довели до невиждана миграционна вълна към европейските граници.

Тези варвари са загубили правото си да са част от човешката общност. Така нареченият „цивилизован свят“ остави Сирия и околните страни между чумата и холерата, между режима на Асад и „Ислямска държава“. Сега в Европа се опитваме да се справим със симптомите - милиони бежанци. Ние се люшкаме между европейската солидарност и националния егоизъм.

Призовавам за незабавни координирани действия на всички страни, преди всичко Европейския съюз, САЩ, Русия, Иран, арабските страни. Не е време за геополитически игри и пропаганда с взаимни обвинения.

Трябва да се помогне, трябва да се възстанови държавността и сигурността в този регион, всяко отлагане води до нови хиляди бежанци към нашите морски и сухопътни граници.

Времето на приказките мина. Ако цивилизованият свят не действа сега, то в бъдеще ни очакват още по-трудни времена.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, dok pokušavamo pronaći način kako zbrinuti stotine tisuća izbjeglica koji stižu na naše granice, treba podsjetiti i na tisuće europskih građana koji kao ekonomski migranti rade u zemljama sjeverne Afrike i Bliskog istoka.

Jedan od njih je i Tomislav Salopek, 31-godišnji hrvatski građanin, otac dvoje djece, čija je sudbina nakon otmice u Egiptu krajem srpnja neizvjesna. Nažalost, objavljene fotografije upućuju na najgore – još jedan barbarski čin tzv. Islamske države. Međutim, ovaj slučaj izdvaja se od drugih jer je Tomislav radnik europske tvrtke u Egiptu, nije boravio na području okupiranom od strane Islamske države, ali mu, nažalost, nije bila osigurana odgovarajuća zaštita. To ukazuje da su razmjeri problema tzv. Islamske države širi nego što se misli.

Ne znam što je dramatičnije, sve veći priljev unesrećenih izbjeglica ili nedostatak našeg koherentnog odgovora na problem tamo gdje on nastaje. Pošaljimo jasan poziv europskim tvrtkama koje posluju na tim nestabilnim područjima: osigurajte svoje radnike koji jedino žele osigurati bolju budućnost za svoje obitelji.

  Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, željela bih danas ukazati na događaje nad kojima se zgražavam i koji su me duboko potresli, ali koji se sakrivaju od očiju javnosti. The Center for Medical Progress objavio je devet video klipova koji jasno pokazuju da je Planned Parenthood Association of America uključen u ilegalnu prodaju dijelova tijela abortiranih beba.

Iz video klipova je vidljivo kako ove aktivnosti nisu ograničene samo na jednu ustanovu, već su one uveliko proširene. Planned Parenthood Association of America dio je International Planned Parenthood Federation, koju, između ostalih, financira i Europska komisija, i to izdašnim iznosima. Podružnice ove organizacije nalaze se u većini država članica Europske unije.

Stoga, ne možemo isključiti mogućnost da se isto ne događa i na prostoru Europske unije. Uzimajući u obzir ozbiljnost ove situacije, tražim pokretanje istrage te trenutačni prestanak financiranja ove organizacije koja se bavi takvim zastrašujućim i gnjusnim ilegalnim aktivnostima.

  Adam Gierek (S&D). – Zmiany klimatu prowadzą do ekstremalnych zjawisk, gwałtownych powodzi i katastrofalnych susz. Wielkie środki finansowe wydawane aktualnie na łagodzenie tych zmian nie są w stanie odwrócić niekorzystnych trendów. Dyskusje o klimacie zdominował problem emisji gazów cieplarnianych, podczas gdy coraz bardziej paląca sprawa adaptacji do zachodzących zmian klimatycznych jest odsuwana na dalszy plan. Ostatnia susza w Europie, a później powodzie to wyraźny sygnał alarmowy. To wskazanie na konieczność przewartościowania unijnej polityki klimatycznej, która bardziej winna się skupić na sposobach adaptacji, w tym na zalesianiu celem łagodzenia zmian klimatu. I na to powinny być kierowane główne środki finansowe. W przypadku mojego kraju, Polski, będzie to między innymi konieczność powrotu do ambitnej koncepcji inwestycyjnej, jaką był program Wisła. Dziękuję.

  Esther Herranz García (PPE). – Señor Presidente, colegas, hace hoy exactamente una semana, un enorme pedrisco, una tremenda tormenta de granizo, asoló 6 000 hectáreas de algunas comarcas de mi región, La Rioja. Municipios como Tricio, Leiva, Nájera, Hormilleja, Hormilla, Azofra, Nalda, Islallana, Albelda o San Asensio vieron destrozados cultivos como el viñedo, las peras, frutas variadas y también el pimiento, todos ellos con denominación de origen.

Vaya desde aquí, desde luego, un reconocimiento a todos esos ciudadanos que se han puesto ya a limpiar sus calles, locales, viviendas y demás para continuar con su trabajo.

Pero lo que esto ha puesto en evidencia es que solamente el 20 % de los productores tenían seguros agrarios para cubrir esos enormes daños. Yo llamo desde aquí la atención de los diputados y de la Comisión Europea con objeto de llevar a cabo campañas de información a los productores sobre el beneficio que los seguros agrarios traen aparejados para ellos y de poner a disposición una dotación presupuestaria para que estos seguros agrarios se cofinancien con dinero europeo.

  Csaba Molnár (S&D). – Vannak olyan európai kormányok, amelyek az európai szolidaritást egyirányú utcának tekintik. Elfogadják az Európai Unió pénzét, de felelősséget semmiért nem hajlandóak vállalni. Ilyen a magyar kormány is, amely értelmetlen szögesdrótkerítést épít az ország déli határára, és a hozzánk érkező menekülteket embertelen körülmények között tartja. Ez a kormány jövő héten a magyar parlamentben olyan törvényt készül elfogadni, amelynek eredményeképpen a hadsereget is be lehet majd vetni a legyengült, háborús övezetekből érkező menekültekkel szemben. És persze a bűnöst is megtalálja, bűnbakot is keres. Hiszen egy olyan parlamenti határozati javaslatot terjesztett elő, amely az Európai Uniót – így Önöket is kedves képviselőtársaim – hibáztatja azért, hogy menekültek haltak meg, és kialakulhatott ez a menekülthelyzet.

Azonban, hála Istennek, a magyar kormány nem egyenlő a magyar emberekkel. A magyar emberek jelesre vizsgáztak az elmúlt hetekben emberségből. Ezért köszönet illeti a magyar civileket, önkénteseket, a Migration Aid munkatársait, hogy megmutatták, nem vagyunk azonosak a kormányunkkal, mi fontosabb... (Az elnök megvonta a szót a képviselőtől.)

  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, tuto sobotu jsem se v Praze setkal s kurdskou velitelkou Nesrin Abdullahovou, která sehrála významnou roli při osvobozování města Kobani od jednotek ISIS. Ozbrojené kurdské jednotky hrají zásadní roli v boji proti ISIS a zaslouží si podporu Evropské unie.

Již vloni Česká republika dodala iráckým Kurdům pět set tun munice. Vyzývám z tohoto místa vlády zemí Evropské unie, aby podle svých možností dodávkami munice a pěchotních zbraní podpořily i syrské Kurdy. Syrští Kurdové si velice cení zásahu koaličních letadel proti ISIS, ale zároveň se domnívají, že vykořenit toto zlo je možné jedině pozemní operací. Proto doporučuji, aby Evropská unie iniciovala jednání o této možnosti s NATO. Bylo by dobrým gestem, kdyby Evropský parlament pozval představitele syrských kurdských bojovníků do Bruselu či Štrasburku, aby se nám mohli představit. Nezapomeňme, že existence ISIS je jednou z hlavních příčin masové migrace do Evropy.

  Der Präsident. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.

23. Audizioni dei commissari: insegnamenti da trarre dalla procedura 2014 (breve presentazione)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die kurze Darstellung des Berichts von Richard Corbett über die Verfahren und Gepflogenheiten bei den Anhörungen der Kommissionsmitglieder – aus dem Verfahren 2014 zu ziehende Lehren (2015/2040(INI)) (A8-0197/2015).

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. – Mr President, sometimes what we do here is an example that national parliaments might consider emulating – just sometimes – and, in my view, the process we have of holding public hearings of candidates for the Commission, before we take our vote of confidence on the Commission as a whole, is an example that they might consider. Just imagine how it would be if, when a government takes office in a national parliament, each minister, before taking office, had to go for a three-hour public grilling, with incisive questioning. I think it would be revealing.

We do it here, and it is to our credit, but what we do can always be improved, and my report has been about looking at how we operate this system and making a number of suggestions for improvement. Let me highlight just three.

The first is about the questioning – the incisive nature of the questions. We had at the last hearings, I think, 42 questions by individual Members to Commissioners and 42 answers. I propose that we cut that number to about 25, but allow each questioner to come back with a follow-up question. That would be more incisive: it would permit a real to and fro. The purpose of the hearings is not to give the floor to a maximum number of Members: the purpose is to get precise information and answers out of the candidate Commissioners.

The second proposal to improve things is to look at how we evaluate the Commissioners after the hearings. At the moment, the coordinators from each Group have a meeting, but our rules are not very clear on this. Indeed, our rules as they currently read could require a vote in every single committee, on every single Commissioner, at the request of just one Political Group. I do not think that is wise because formally, legally, the only vote that matters is the vote by Parliament as a whole on the Commission as a whole. The vote by individual committees on individual Commissioners has no legal consequence. Therefore, we have to make sure it has political consequences and carries weight. In other words, a vote should be taken on a Commissioner only in a case of genuine doubt, and not as a matter of routine. Then, if as we have seen in the past there is a negative verdict, it will have consequences. That is how I think we should proceed, and my report proposes to clarify the procedures in that regard.

A final point I would mention is the question of gender balance in the Commission. This Parliament has always attached importance to improving the gender imbalance that has existed up to now, but of course we are tied by the nominations that come from national governments if they all nominate just one candidate. Last time, however, there was at least one country which nominated two and allowed the President of the Commission to choose. Why do we not institutionalise that and propose – as a parliament we can only propose in this case – that each country’s government nominates two candidate Commissioners at least, one of each gender, two people in whom the national government has full confidence? The Commission President would then be in a better position to get gender balance in the team as a whole, and that would go some way to improving the balance.

There are some other suggestions in this report, but those are three worth highlighting. I urge colleagues to read the other suggestions as well because they all would improve the situation.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Milan Zver (PPE). – Že odkar sem postal evropski poslanec, me je to vprašanje zelo vznemirjalo.

Najprej sem ugotovil, da imamo res neznansko nedodelan sistem imenovanja komisarjev in že nekajkrat sem tudi v tej hiši predlagal, da bi morali storiti vse, da ima predsednik Komisije, ki je izvoljen tukaj v Parlamentu, vso možnost izbrati maksimalno kompetentno in pa spolno uravnoteženo ekipo.

Sedanji način, če se smem osredotočiti samo na nominacijo, na rekrutacijo komisarjev iz držav članic, ni dober. Strinjam se z vami, gospod poročevalec, da bi bilo prav, da bi države članice predlagale najmanj dva kandidata, moškega in žensko. Idealno pa bi bilo, da bi tudi predlagale različne tipe strokovnih profilov kandidatov, tako da bi lahko kasneje predsednik Evropske komisije maksimalno imel na izbiro in oblikoval maksimalno kompetentno in uravnoteženo ekipo komisarjev.

  Biljana Borzan (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, željela bih se zahvaliti kolegi Corbettu i ostalim kolegama iz drugih odbora s kojima sam imala prilike raditi na ovom izvješću. Saslušanja kandidata za europske povjerenike proces je koji Europskoj uniji, a osobito Parlamentu, daje veliku pozornost i veliku vidljivost.

Budući da tada biramo ljude koji će sljedećih pet godina obnašati najodgovornije pozicije i funkcije u Europskoj komisiji, moramo se pobrinuti da oni budu kompetentni, kvalificirani i da je njihova moralnost neupitna. Proces saslušanja povjerenike izlaže javnosti koja secira njihov život i karijeru i to tako i treba biti. No, smatram da u čitav proces trebamo uključiti i građane Europske unije kako bi oni mogli svojim pitanjima sudjelovati u saslušanjima.

Izuzetno mi je drago što je u konačni dokument ušao i moj prijedlog da se provjera financijskih interesa proširi i na članove obitelji. Zaključno, želimo da svaki sljedeći put države članice predlože i muškarca i ženu, dakle po dvoje kandidata, kako bismo imali stvarnu rodnu ravnopravnost.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε πρόεδρε, θεωρώ ότι η διαδικασία της ακρόασης των Επιτρόπων είναι μια πολύ σημαντική διαδικασία διότι έτσι διαμορφώνεται ο δημοκρατικός έλεγχος. Μπορεί πραγματικά το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο να ασκήσει τα δικαιώματά του και να δώσει – όταν χρειαστεί – την ψήφο εμπιστοσύνης, συνολικά, στην ίδια την Επιτροπή. Βεβαίως, η διαδικασία πρέπει να είναι πιο ανοιχτή στην ίδια την κοινωνία. Πρέπει να μπορούν και οι πολίτες να συμμετέχουν. Είχα την ευκαιρία, όπως και εσείς, να λάβω πέρυσι μέρος σε αυτή τη διαδικασία. Λάβαμε πολλά e-mails από πολίτες που έθεταν ζητήματα για διάφορους υποψήφιους επιτρόπους. Νομίζω ότι, ως βουλευτές, πρέπει να έχουμε μεγαλύτερο ρόλο και πρέπει να έχουμε και περισσότερο χρόνο για να υποβάλουμε ερωτήσεις. Δεν πρέπει να αφήνουμε όλο το παιχνίδι στους συντονιστές. Τέλος, θέλω να θέσω ένα βασικό ζήτημα και να τονίσω ότι η Επιτροπή πρέπει να είναι πραγματικά ανεξάρτητο όργανο – έτσι όπως τη θέλουμε – και να μην υπηρετεί απλώς την Τρόικα. Αυτό είναι πολύ σημαντικό κ. Timmermans.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, I respect Mr Corbett’s attempt to make the Commission a little more accountable, even if it is merely a drop in the ocean. There are some good suggestions here and also in the committee opinions. Allowing follow-up questions and genuine scrutiny is a great idea, for example. And, who knows, if we introduce something like that in the European Parliament itself, we might get something approaching a real debate here too. But we are completely ignoring the elephant in the Chamber. Commissioners hold huge power and yet we are given the opportunity to interview just one potential candidate. I can think of another union which used to love elections with just one candidate.

Ultimately, though, the problem is that it is we, here in this Chamber, who give away those positions of huge power. The people have no say. Unelected Commissioners are unaccountable Commissioners.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I am tempted to ask Mr Arnott how many candidates he can hear in the House of Commons, let alone in the House of Lords, but we shall not go into that debate.

I want to thank the rapporteur, Mr Corbett, for his excellent and well—reflected report on a topic that Members will understand is of great relevance for the Commission. The Commission welcomes and fully supports the pursued objective of making the hearings a more flexible and dynamic exchange. The hearings not only allow for Parliament’s scrutiny of the Commission, in line with the Treaty, but also provide an important window for citizens on the workings of the Union.

Incidentally, I was a Minister in a national government, then I became a Commissioner and all of a sudden, in the media, I went from being in some quarters a politician to an anonymous bureaucrat, whereas the scrutiny I went through in this Parliament was much tougher than the scrutiny I had to face in the national parliament in the Netherlands before becoming a Minister. By the way, in quite a number of Member States – because the second objection you always get is ‘unelected’ – how many governments do you suppose there are (I do not know the exact number, but there are quite a number of governments) where Ministers are not elected? Parliaments are all elected like this Parliament. So it is very often simply a matter of perception.

For the Commission, it is of foremost importance that the hearings are conducted in an open, fair and consistent manner. In particular, hearings for all Commissioners-designate should follow the same approach for questions and answers, both in the written and in the oral phase, and for the evaluation of each Commissioner-designate. For Vice-Presidents-designate, who have a horizontal responsibility spanning the competences of a larger number of EP committees, it is indeed appropriate to foresee that hearings are carried out in an adapted format, such as an open Conference of Presidents.

More generally, the confirmation period should be enough time to ensure that the new Commission can take up office immediately on the normal expiry of the previous Commission’s mandate. In this context, the Commission supports the call on Member States to make timely and gender-balanced nominations for candidate Commissioners.

As to the conduct of the hearings, the Commission supports the envisaged increase of written questions from five to seven, on condition that sub—questions are abandoned. The Commission also welcomes the limitation of questions in the oral phase to 25, with the possibility of immediate follow—up questions.

In principle, the Commission supports Parliament’s objective to ensure that the hearing process is accessible and transparent for EU citizens. Hearings are, however, for the elected Members of Parliament to exercise their scrutiny on Commissioners-designate. Therefore, it is the right of Members of the European Parliament to directly put questions to Commissioners—designate.

The Commission is open to considering how best to facilitate Parliament’s examination of potential conflicts of interest of Commissioners-designate. Should the Commission consider it appropriate to come forward with an amendment to its Code of Conduct, it will seek Parliament’s opinion, as foreseen by the Framework Agreement.

To ensure that Commissioners-designate are evaluated exclusively with regard to their personal competencies and knowledge of the envisaged portfolio, the Commission maintains that the results of the evaluation of each Commissioner-designate should be published individually within 24 hours after completion of her/his evaluation.

As for horizontal issues affecting the composition and structure of the Commission as a whole, the Commission recalls the need to fully respect each Institution’s competences and prerogatives. The Commission looks forward to examining the concrete proposals for amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure regarding the hearings of Commissioners—designate.

I would like once again to thank Mr Corbett for a job very well done from the Commission’s perspective.

  Richard Corbett, rapporteur. – Mr President, I did save one minute of my speaking time to be able to come back at the end, but I will be very brief. Firstly, I am pleased that I gather there is quite a high level of consensus between the Groups in Parliament on what I have proposed. I was also delighted that Mr Timmermans, for the Commission, went through in detail some of the things that I did not have time to cover in my speech, and that the Commission is very supportive of the thrust of what I propose – indeed, almost everything, bearing in mind his caveat that the devil can sometimes be in the detail. I am very glad of that support. I thank him very much, and may I at the same time thank him for his earlier speech, which was an exemplary reply in the previous debate on human rights.

  Der Präsident. – Damit ist dieser Punkt abgeschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 8. September 2015, statt.

24. Diritti umani e tecnologia nei paesi terzi (breve presentazione)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die kurze Darstellung des Berichts von Marietje Schaake über das Thema „Menschenrechte und Technologie: die Auswirkungen von Systemen zur Ausspähung und Überwachung auf die Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten“ (2014/2232(INI)) (A8-0178/2015).

  Marietje Schaake, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to say to the shadow rapporteurs in particular that I enjoyed our discussions and cooperation on this report on human rights and technology, so thank you very much. In addition, I would like to thank the people from all over the world who have shared their input and suggestions. Many did so online and they have made the draft text that we voted on in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and will vote on tomorrow in this House, a lot stronger. I think crowdsourcing works.

Technological developments have a major impact on human rights, both to advance them and to restrict them. They can advance access to information, freedom of expression and association, but the documentation and sharing of human rights abuses or uncovering of corruption have benefited too from mobile phones and access to the open Internet for more people. Disaster relief, aid efforts, election monitoring, they increasingly rely on technologies to help emancipate and empower people.

However, technological systems can be and are also misused as tools for human rights violations through censorship, mass surveillance, tracking and tracing of individuals, unauthorised access to devices, jamming, interception and a lot more. So besides technological specifications, the context in which ICTs are used determines to a great extent whether these tools advance or violate human rights: what country, which user or buyer, and what legal safeguards or democratic oversight are in place.

These contextual aspects should be assessed carefully in EU policies. More transparency and accountability in the market of the most intrusive and damaging technologies is key, both for security and for human rights. This is too often presented as a false dichotomy between security and freedom or actually justifying restrictions to peoples’ rights and freedoms in the name of advancing security when in fact they should reinforce each other and, at the very least, EU-made systems should not be sold in an unrestricted market.

Without smart policies, proliferation of these systems is inevitable and in fact I am sure that we here in the EU institutions, the European External Action Service, struggle to protect our own people, our own diplomats and our own information from the very same systems that we are discussing here. Intelligence services, criminal networks, hackers with bad intentions, all can buy and use intrusive technologies that are made in Europe.

The credibility of Europe’s foreign policy is undermined directly when an Italian company unjustly gets a licence to sell to Sudan or Russia, or when a French company sells digital keys to open any door, even the ones we may think are protected or locked by passwords, or much stronger measures. But, much worse, human rights defenders in Mexico, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Egypt, Turkey, Iran or Russia should be protected by EU policies and not harmed with the help of EU-made technologies.

In concluding, EU policy should mainstream human rights in the way that technologies are designed and used and mainstream the role of technologies throughout all human rights policies, and this report presents many concrete ideas. One of the strong recommendations is that there should not be a ban on encryption technologies or requirements to hand over the keys. Instead, we, through our EU policy, should train and equip journalists, human rights defenders and others facing repression and violations with the knowledge and the tools to protect themselves and their communications. Europe has the opportunity and should have the ambition to be a global leader in ensuring technologies benefit human rights and this is only possible if we lead by example.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President

Catch—the—eye procedure

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Vážená předsedající, já bych chtěl poděkovat za předložení této zprávy, protože podle mého názoru je skutečně velmi důležitá a míří na podstatu věci. To znamená do jisté míry na otázku, za kolik se ještě je schopno prodat naše svědomí. Za kolik jsou firmy, které podnikají v evropském prostoru, ochotny prodat své svědomí v jiných státech, kde například provozují činnosti, které jsou v České republice nebo v Evropské unii naprosto nemyslitelné.

Je to zpráva tedy o tom, do jaké míry jsou skutečně přenositelná veškerá lidská práva i do ostatních zemí. A já si myslím, že o tom bychom měli vést skutečně velmi silnou debatu. Vnímám to, že je celá řada práv základních lidských, která jsou univerzální, která skutečně představují hodnotu, pro kterou je možno jaksi odklánět i ty ostatní problémy, jako jsou například zaměstnanost, HDP atd. Ale jsou určitě i hlediska lidských práv, která prostě bohužel s námi doposud celý svět nesdílí. A tu hranici bychom měli tedy pevně hledat.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la proposta di risoluzione evidenzia – devo dire finalmente – i rischi di compressione e violazione dei diritti umani che derivano dall'uso delle nuove tecnologie, in particolare di Internet. Emerge infatti chiaramente quanto nell'anno scorso hanno più volte ho affermato in due mie dichiarazioni scritte sull'etica dell'innovazione tecnologica e sulla sanità elettronica, così come in numerose interrogazioni, che si tratta di un rischio insito nell'utilizzo stesso di queste tecnologie.

Questo connotato, se non viene opportunamente regolato, rischia di rendere impossibile qualsiasi controllo ex post, ciò è tanto vero che in termini di diritti umani, anche il semplice utilizzo per un fine nobile di queste tecnologie può rendere – e in effetti rende – ciascuno di noi più esposto e più vulnerabile. Il vulnus quindi si è spostato dalla possibile pratica illecita, all'atto lecito e di conseguenza la regolamentazione deve coprire ogni aspetto, anche quelli dell'utilizzo comune, senza trascurare gli interrogativi etici connessi. Condivido quindi la proposta di risoluzione e la richiesta di una partecipazione inclusiva e responsabile di ogni parte coinvolta: governi, società civile, settore privato e utenti.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, čestitam gospođi Schaake na izvještaju i odmah na početku želim reći da je internet naravno otvorio velika nova prostranstva slobode. Međutim, to me pomalo podsjeća i na ono što je učinio jedan velikan, Alfred Nobel, koji je izumio dinamit vjerujući da će služiti u mirnodopske svrhe, a kasnije je, kao što znamo, služio za ratove. Tako i internet. Na neki je način otvorio velike prostore slobode, ali s druge strane i velike opasnosti zloupotrebe te slobode. Naročito zloupotrebe te slobode od diktatorskih režima s kojima, kao što znamo, i Europska unija trguje i radi velike, unosne poslove.

Zato je dobro da ovaj izvještaj upozorava na ovakve činjenice, na mogućnosti zloupotrebe naših sloboda i vjerujem da će i Komisija u svom budućem radu koristiti temelje ovoga izvještaja.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, there is no doubt that ICT is a human rights issue. It is ‘both and’– it is both an advantage for people to communicate and spread knowledge of human rights violations, but it has also become something of a trap for people who defend human rights. Mrs Schaake has produced an excellent report which we have to defend in the vote.

I think we should be ready to recognise that the complicity of some enterprises, including some from the EU area, has greatly damaged our reputation by creating serious human rights violations in Iran, in Uzbekistan, in Belarus and in other countries, and I am talking about some telecommunications providers, that is Astellia, Sonora, Nokia, Siemens. I think we also have to defend the point in the report which says that the service providers and the network providers should publish reports about their connections between themselves and oppressive regimes. We have also to protect whistle—blowers.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, there is actually quite a lot of good stuff in this report. I believe that we must take great care to avoid unnecessary censorship – particularly of the Internet – although I personally believe that is best achieved through national governments, rather than through EU diktat.

However, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 17 of the report. This paragraph is all about the politicisation of trade. It is about imposing our Western values upon third countries as a condition of trade with developing nations. To me this is not only unacceptable but also supremely arrogant because it assumes that we know better than developing countries what their laws should be, and that we can tell them what they ought to be doing. This is riding roughshod over their sovereignty, and I cannot support a report which contains such phrasing.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I want to thank Ms Schaake for this excellent report. Reading it, you sometimes get a bit of flavour of Dave Erus and his writings about the downsides of modern technology and the ICT world. The report contains a number of very timely, pertinent and often challenging ideas and recommendations for action. The Commission appreciates the strong call to the EU to step up its efforts and strengthen the link between human rights, digital freedom, development, Internet governance, trade and security. This same message can also be found in the Digital Single Market Strategy recently adopted by the Commission.

The EU is committed to promoting human rights in all areas of its external action. Nowadays, given the increasing importance of ICT in our daily lives and the expansion of Internet access and access to mobile telephony, the promotion of human rights online and offline and the linkage between new technologies and human rights are key to our endeavours towards promoting human rights and democracy worldwide. We therefore share the European Parliament’s view that ICTs are key in safeguarding and fostering human rights and fundamental freedoms. We also share the concern voiced in the report that certain fundamental rights, notably the right to freedom of expression and information, the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, may be violated as a result of unlawful or arbitrary surveillance, censorship, the unlawful interception of communications, or the collection of personal data, in particular when carried out on a mass scale and not for legitimate purposes.

This requires us all to unite in our efforts to protect fundamental rights. We need to promote the development of democratic oversight capabilities in order to monitor activities by intelligence and law enforcement services, lest these are used to suppress dissent and free speech. This is firmly anchored in the EU guidelines for freedom of expression online and offline, and we are highly committed to promoting these guidelines in our relations with third countries. That is also why the Commission is very supportive of, and welcomes, the appointment of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy.

It is very important to ensure that our response to terrorist attacks does not impact negatively on fundamental rights, notably freedom of expression and information and the right to privacy. The European Security Agenda adopted by the Commission this year has made clear, therefore, that the Commission will strictly test any security measures for compliance with fundamental rights, while ensuring their effectiveness.

The EU is committed to assisting human rights defenders, civil society activists, and independent journalists to use ICTs to fight for freedom. The EU is also active in defending media freedom and pluralism, and has launched two new independent projects within the framework of the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, with the support of this Parliament. The projects will address media freedom violations in the EU and neighbouring countries and promote action to support threatened journalists, complemented by digital training. The European Union has also adopted sanctions to prevent authoritarian regimes using technologies to crack down on human rights defenders, for example in the case of Syria.

In addition to country-specific sanctions, the EU is reviewing its export controls to prevent exports of sensitive technologies that could be misused in violation of human rights. In December 2014 we introduced new controls on exports of intrusion software and of internet monitoring technologies, and we are further exploring options to extend export controls to rapidly evolving cyber-surveillance technologies that might be used for Internet monitoring and/or telecommunication surveillance in violation of human rights.

As Ms Schaake writes in the report, there is indeed a need to mainstream the impact of technologies on the improvement of human rights in all the EU’s external action. The Commission and the External Action Service are working together towards this goal. ICTs have helped to promote freedom on a global scale, and preserving the benefits of freedom is a shared responsibility for all of us – the private sector, civil society, governments, international organisations and individuals. The European Union stands, therefore, ready to reiterate its commitment to promote unhindered, uncensored and non-discriminatory access to ICTs.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

25. Protezione degli interessi finanziari dell'UE: verso controlli basati sui risultati relativamente alla PAC (breve presentazione)

  President. – The next item is the report by Petri Sarvamaa, on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on protecting the European Union’s financial interests: towards performance-based controls of the Common Agricultural Policy (2014/2234(INI)) (A8-0240/2015).

  Petri Sarvamaa, rapporteur. – Madam President, we need efficiency. Checking 40 million transactions and other common agricultural policy controls costs around EUR 4 billion a year. As the rules and regulations governing the CAP have only got more diverse and complex it is expected that monitoring costs of the almost EUR 58 billion CAP budget will only grow if nothing is done.

So as I said, the cost is currently estimated at EUR 4 billion at Member State level. The farmers face a never-ending mountain of paperwork which has to be submitted to national officials, with increasingly complex regulations and control measures.

A Finnish farmer illustrated the absurdity perfectly by displaying next to each other all of the official forms demanded annually by the national authorities. The documents ended up stretching over 33 metres in length. That is approximately the length of two full rows of EPP Members in this Chamber and that is a long, long line.

If we do not manage to streamline the CAP and ease the burden of controls on farmers, we cannot hope to attract new entrants to agriculture. It will be a struggle to even retain the current beneficiaries.

But this is not just a matter of agriculture. Complex rules and controls of those rules inevitably mean that taxpayers’ money is not spent efficiently. Even worse, with inefficiency comes uncertainty about correct and responsible use of EU funds. The promotion of performance-based controls can be an answer to some of those questions. The report at hand insists that the definition of performance in respect of controls should primarily entail the quality of the Member States’ checks and administrative systems: that is, the efficiency, consistency and reliability of the managing and certifying authorities.

In order to ease the burden on the beneficiaries, the authorities should aim to organise on-site checks in a way that would not subject the farmer to multiple annual on-site checks by the national authorities, the Commission or the Court of Auditors. This should be done by advancing and implementing the famous single audit scheme that we have been waiting for too long.

Furthermore, the report advocates identifying the best and worst performing Member States in its policy area, with the best performing States being rewarded with a reduction in controls. Now in some quarters this is being suspected of not being in accordance with the basic ideas of the Union, but let me underline that this fear is in vain: it is indeed in accordance with those ideas. And a key part of this approach is the sharing of experience and best practices with the worst performing States.

The key factor behind the thinking of the report is this: simplification is inevitable. The Commission is on this path and so should this Parliament be.

Your rapporteur has been driven by the ultimate desire to release farmers from behind their desks into the fields and simultaneously provide better control for taxpayers’ money.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Андрей Новаков (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, аз вярвам, че най-добрият ПР на тази институция са резултатите, които тя постига.

Нищо не говори по-добре от това от резултатите, които постигаме ние заедно тук и вярвам, че това, което прави г-н Сарвама е именно такъв резултат, защото програмен период 2007- 2013 ни научи на нещо много важно и то е, че дългите процедури, многото документи, дългите опашки не ни помагат.

Ако мога да обобщя стотиците си срещи с бенефициенти на европейски средства в няколко неща, то те ще са следните:

Трябва драматично да съкратим времето от подаване на документи до изплащане реално на средствата; трябва да базираме контрола върху риска – тези, които се справят добре, да бъдат проверявани по-малко, тези, които се представят зле, да бъдат проверявани повече.

Трябва да избягаме от хартията и да използваме колкото се може повече електронни услуги, така че да не се редят хората по опашки, а да подават документите си от вкъщи с по-малко чакане.

Вярвам, че с всичко това няма как да не оптимизираме и средствата за изразходване на управление, и контролиране на европейски проекти.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel corso dei due cicli di riforma della politica agricola comune, le norme sono divenute più eterogenee e complesse ed è noto che per regole più complesse determinano anche più errori.

Gli obiettivi della PAC possono essere correttamente attuati solo con un'efficace semplificazione e sburocratizzazione, riducendo al minimo il costo dei controlli, che già oggi ammonta a circa 4 miliardi di euro. Ho notato che troppo spesso gli organismi pagatori rendono dichiarazioni inesatte. La Commissione ha dovuto rivedere al rialzo i tassi di errore comunicati da ben 42 organismi pagatori su 68. Opportuno sarebbe elaborare proposte intese a sanzionare gli organismi pagatori.

(La Presidente chiede di parlare più lentamente)

Opportuno sarebbe elaborare proposte intese a sanzionare gli organismi pagatori, in caso di dichiarazioni false, fino a permettere alla Commissione di revocare il riconoscimento degli organismi pagatori in caso di gravi inesattezze. È necessario sviluppare criteri per definire quali Stati membri registrano le migliori performance e quali quelle peggiori, in modo da attuare un programma di diffusione delle best practice. Insomma, è necessaria una nuova PAC razionalizzata, una PAC orientata agli agricoltori. Solo in questo modo potremo efficacemente raggiungere i target che ci proponiamo.

  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Noriu pasveikinti iniciatyvą, paraginti Europos Komisiją pasinaudoti bendros žemės ūkio politikos supaprastinimo procesu. Svarbu tai, kad šis supaprastinimas būtų naudingas ne sofos ūkininkams, o tiems, kurie gyvena iš žemės ūkio. Būtent toks gyvenimas parodo, koks svarbus yra žalinimas, nes jis susijęs su atsakingu ūkininkavimu – tokiu, kuriuo užsiiminėja kaime gyvenantys ir iš kartos į kartą žemę dirbantys žmonės. Kitas svarbus aspektas – svarbu atsižvelgti į tai, kad nauju laikotarpiu nemažai pasikeitė taisyklių, todėl manau būtina, kad Komisija paragintų agentūras ne tik naudotis baudomis, jei randama kokia nors klaida, o, priešingai, pradėti nuo daug švelnesnių priemonių: įspėjimo, mokymo ir visa kita.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η γραφειοκρατία και η πολυπλοκότητα της Κοινής Γεωργικής Πολιτικής πλήττουν τους αγρότες και είναι ένα από τα ζητήματα που πρέπει να αντιμετωπίσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Πρέπει να υπάρξει απλούστευση του συστήματος εάν θέλουμε να βελτιωθεί και να αυξηθεί η αποδοτικότητα των ενισχύσεων της Κοινής Γεωργικής Πολιτικής. Πρέπει να δοθεί λύση στα μεγάλα προβλήματα της γεωργίας. Στη χώρα μου την Ελλάδα, οι φτωχοποιημένοι από το μνημόνιο Έλληνες αγρότες αδυνατούν να ανταπεξέλθουν οικονομικά, καθώς τη χρονιά που πέρασε δοκιμάστηκαν από τις καταστροφές που έπληξαν την παραγωγή στην πατρίδα μου. Την ίδια στιγμή, η φοροεπιδρομή που βίωσαν και συνεχίζουν να βιώνουν με εντολές της Τρόικας επεκτάθηκε παράνομα και στις κοινοτικές ενισχύσεις που λαμβάνουν. Την τελευταία πενταετία, το εισόδημα των Ελλήνων αγροτών μειώθηκε κατά 1,5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ ενώ οι φόροι αυξήθηκαν κατά 150%. Παράλληλα, η κρίση που έπληξε τη γεωργία λόγω του ρωσικού εμπάργκο κατέστρεψε οικονομικά τους Έλληνες αγρότες. Για τους λόγους αυτούς, πρέπει να υπάρξει άμεση αύξηση των ενισχύσεων στους φτωχοποιημένους από τα μνημόνια Έλληνες αγρότες.

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, συζητούμε ένα σημαντικότατο θέμα έχοντας ενώπιον μας την εξαιρετική έκθεση που συνέταξε ένας εξαιρετικός συνάδελφος, αγγίζοντας το πρόβλημα στην καρδιά του. Μετά από αυτά που είπε, δεν χρειάζεται εμείς να συνεισφέρουμε και να προσθέσουμε πολλά. Η λέξη κλειδί είναι η «αποτελεσματικότητα» και αντιλαμβανόμαστε τι σημαίνει εάν σκεφτούμε το πρόβλημα που αποτελούν 50 εκατομμύρια πράξεις που είναι έλεγχοι, που κοστίζουν 4 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ και που ουσιαστικά αντιστοιχούν στο 7% των χρημάτων που δίνουμε για την Κοινή Γεωργική Πολιτική. Με άλλα λόγια, από κάθε 100 ευρώ που δίνουμε, τα 7 ευρώ πηγαίνουν αποκλειστικά και μόνο σε ελέγχους. Αν, τελικά, δεν είμαστε διατεθειμένοι να αξιοποιήσουμε αυτή τη σημαντική έκθεση και να λύσουμε στη ρίζα του το πρόβλημα, τότε και η αγροτική οικονομία θα πλήττεται, και οι αγρότες μας θα ταλαιπωρούνται και κερδισμένη θα βγαίνει και πάλι η γραφειοκρατία που σκοτώνει κάθε προοπτική και κάθε ανάπτυξη. Είναι ευκαιρία λοιπόν να στηρίξουμε τους αγρότες μας, καταργώντας τον διοικητικό φόρτο και δίνοντας – θα εισηγηθώ μια καινοτόμο πρόταση – τη δυνατότητα αυτοελέγχου στον γεωργικό τομέα.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, of course the simplification of the common agricultural policy is a way to reduce the number of controls on the spot. Simpler rules mean that it is going to be easier to implement them, easier for farmers to work with them and easier for authorities to check up on them.

As some of you have said, Phil Hogan has already started with this simplification exercise and it is well advanced. We have received many contributions from all stakeholders. Some changes have already been implemented and the Commission will present more proposals in the coming months.

However, we do not have to wait for new rules to impact on the number of controls farmers face. The current legislation allows Member States with reliable management and control systems to reduce the level of the spot checks. Some Member States have expressed interest in taking advantage of this possibility. The Commission services are working closely with them to ensure all conditions for this reduction are met. Of course we want simple rules and better application, but we also have a great responsibility in ensuring that taxpayers’ money is not misappropriated and does not end up where it should not.

Member States are also encouraged, in the current legislation, to organise their controls in a way that reduces the burden for farmers. Let us not forget either that only 5% of farmers are subject to on-the-spot checks for compliance with CAP rules. Most of the controls they are faced with result from national laws and from cross-compliance requirements, which do not originate from CAP legislation. Obviously, to most farmers it does not make any difference whether a rule comes from Brussels or from their own country: they are faced with rules and they want fewer of them. They are absolutely right. They should be farming and not involved in constant bureaucracy. But we believe that Member States could, in so far as possible, try to group their own controls with those resulting from CAP obligations, and perhaps they could also learn more from each other than they do today.

As I said, controls are, and will remain, necessary. If the EU legislator or the Member States has specified a conditional requirement to be respected before aid can be paid, then there needs to be a check that this condition or requirement has been met. The more numerous or complex the requirements, the more numerous or complex the controls. Taxpayers have the right to know whether subsidies from the EU budget are being spent according to the rules, and we will therefore not accept any proposal that might compromise the sound financial management of the EU budget.

Finally, we should ask ourselves whether an error rate of 2% is, per se, the appropriate benchmark for a complex policy such as the CAP and, more concretely, rural development. In that context, we should also raise the issue of the acceptable relation between the cost and the benefits of controls. Any reflection that does not attempt to tackle this question would really be a missed opportunity.

The common agricultural policy is, and will remain, a cornerstone of EU policies. It is in our common interest that this policy be as effective as possible and that it retain the support of farmers and citizens. Taxpayers will want to be sure that their money is well spent.

I would like to thank Mr Sarvamaa very much for his report, which will be added to the contributions to the ongoing debate about simplification of the CAP.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Daniel Buda (PPE), în scris. – În UE trăiesc 12 milioane de agricultori, pentru care agricultura reprezintă o ocupație permanentă (agricultura și industria agroalimentară, care este dependentă de sectorul agricol pentru aprovizionare). 500 de milioane de consumatori din Europa depind de o sursă fiabilă de hrană sănătoasă și la un preț accesibil. PAC a fost creată pentru a ajuta fermierii din Europa, dar complexitatea acestei politici și birocrația aferentă au crescut în mod semnificativ în ultimii ani atât pentru autoritățile competente, cât și pentru agricultori.

Este nevoie de o PAC care să poată fi pusă în aplicare și interpretată în mod clar, pentru a se reduce rata de eroare. Este necesar să se dezvolte instrumente care să demonstreze erorile în cazurile de fraudă, asigurându-se, în același timp, că agricultorii pot continua livrarea producției de alimente. Mai mult, Comisia trebuie să aibă în vedere eliminarea diferențelor dintre agricultorii europeni, având în vedere că, în unele țări, subvențiile sunt sub nivelul UE, ceea ce constituie un imens handicap în competiția cu agricultorii din celelalte țări din UE. Inițiativa Comisiei de simplificare a PAC este binevenită, cu analizarea imediată a măsurilor care pot fi puse în aplicare, fiind în beneficiul agricultorilor, al agenților de plăți, al instituțiilor Uniunii Europene și al contribuabililor. Aceasta ar ușura sarcinile administrative care apar.

  Beata Gosiewska (ECR), na piśmie. – Cztery miliardy euro, które wydawane są obecnie na koszty kontroli oraz zapewnienie doradztwa zainteresowanym podmiotom i rolnikom, to stanowczo za dużo. To skandal, że tak dużo środków przeznaczanych jest na ten cel w obliczu kryzysu wywołanego przez rosyjskie embargo czy susze, które dotknęły Polskę i inne kraje Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. Niestety, ostatnia reforma wspólnej polityki rolnej (WPR) przyczyniła się do dalszego zróżnicowania przepisów, co w konsekwencji prowadzi do większej liczby błędów w terenie. Koszty te mogą jednak wzrosnąć w związku z realizacją ostatniej reformy, w szczególności ze względu na wprowadzenie środków dotyczących ekologizacji. Dlatego uproszczenie oraz odbiurokratyzowanie WPR powinno być dla nas zadaniem priorytetowym.

Popieram sprawozdanie posła Sarvamy, ponieważ uważam, że konieczne jest polepszenie jakości kontroli, a nie ich zwiększenie przez państwa członkowskie, Komisję czy Trybunał Obrachunkowy. Należy zmniejszyć biurokrację związaną z WPR oraz stworzyć system instrumentów umożliwiających faktyczne odróżnienie błędu od nadużycia.

26. Imprese a conduzione familiare in Europa (breve presentazione)

  President. – The next item is the report by Angelika Niebler, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on family businesses in Europe (2014/2210(INI)) (A8-0223/2015).

  Angelika Niebler, Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin, verehrter Herr Vizepräsident, verehrte Kolleginnen, verehrte Kollegen! Zunächst möchte ich mich ganz herzlich bei allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen – nicht nur in meiner eigenen Fraktion, sondern auch in den anderen Fraktionen – für die Unterstützung bei der Erarbeitung des Berichts zu Familienunternehmen in Europa herzlich bedanken. Es war wirklich eine schöne und sehr interessenorientierte Zusammenarbeit.

Sie kennen wahrscheinlich alle die bekannten Firmennamen, die De Longhi, Lego, Heineken, Oetker, Clarins und wie sie alle heißen – Hersteller von qualitativ hochwertigen Produkten, die nicht nur in ihrem Heimatland, sondern über die europäischen Grenzen hinaus bekannt sind. Diese ganzen Firmen haben eine Gemeinsamkeit, meine Damen und Herren: Es handelt sich hierbei um Familienunternehmen, die seit Jahrzehnten existieren und gut im Geschäft sind.

Es gibt aber nicht nur die großen, erfolgreichen Familienunternehmen, sondern in der Europäischen Union haben wir insgesamt rund 14 Millionen Familienunternehmen. Alle Familienunternehmen haben einige Gemeinsamkeiten: Sie denken und handeln nachhaltig, sie vererben ihr Geschäft von Generation zu Generation, sie haben eine enge Bindung, eine hohe soziale Verantwortung gegenüber ihrer Belegschaft, ihrer Arbeitnehmerschaft, und in der Regel sind sie sehr standorttreu. Das heißt, sie ziehen nicht von einem Ort zum anderen, wenn die Steuergesetzgebung vielleicht in dem einen oder anderen Land mal etwas günstiger ist. Nein, sie haben die Verantwortung auch in ihrer Region, sie bleiben in der Region und sind damit für Stadt oder Gemeinde vor Ort genauso wichtig wie für die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit in Europa. Alles – also die Stabilität, die Erneuerung und das Wachstum – im Bereich der Familienunternehmen begünstigt letztlich gleichzeitig auch unsere europäische Wirtschaft und das Wachstum, das wir in der Europäischen Union so dringend brauchen.

Viele der Familienunternehmen sind kleine mittelständische Unternehmen, aber nicht alle. Es gibt viele Familienunternehmen, die etwa 500 bis 1 000 Mitarbeiter haben und dadurch leider nicht unter die Definition der KMU fallen. Und dennoch haben eben auch diese größeren Familienunternehmen die gleichen Probleme wie die KMU: Sie leiden unter zu viel Bürokratie, unter komplizierten Steuersystemen, unter zu wenig Unterstützung. Gleichzeitig aber profitieren sie auch nicht von spezieller KMU-Förderung.

Deshalb denke ich, ist es richtig, sich auch hier im Parlament die Frage zu stellen: Müssen wir bei der Definition von KMU vielleicht weg von rein quantitativen Kriterien, sollten wir nicht auch qualitative Kriterien stärker berücksichtigen, wie zum Beispiel die Verflechtung von Eigentum, Kontrolle und Leitung, Risiko der Haftung? In jedem Fall brauchen wir endlich eine EU-weite Definition des Begriffs Familienunternehmen, die auch für die Statistikämter in den Mitgliedstaaten geeignet ist und mit der gearbeitet werden kann.

Familienunternehmen haben alle fast in ganz Europa die gleichen Probleme. Das eine ist die Suche nach einem geeigneten Nachfolger, die sich bei vielen Familienunternehmen sehr oft schwierig gestaltet. Die Statistik sagt, dass es in jedem Jahr etwa 150 000 Unternehmen gibt, die Probleme haben, die schließen müssen, weil sie keine geeigneten Nachfolger finden. Wenn man das mal in Arbeitsplätze umrechnet, dann reden wir da von 600 000 Arbeitsplätzen, die jährlich verloren gehen. Und natürlich haben Familienunternehmen in der Regel auch eine deutlich höhere Eigenkapitalquote als die Nicht-Familienunternehmen. Dies führt eben zu einer wirtschaftlichen Stabilität der Unternehmen und der gesamten Wirtschaft. Deshalb muss das bei Investitionen berücksichtigt werden. Kein Wunder, dass die Unternehmen in allen Mitgliedstaaten über zu hohe Besteuerung klagen. Eigenkapital, das in der Region bleibt, das investiert wird, um den Betrieb aufrechtzuerhalten, sollte von Steuerbelastungen möglichst verschont werden.

Ich bitte die Kommission ganz nachdrücklich, sich den Familienunternehmen endlich wieder mehr zu widmen. Vor sechs Jahren hat es mal eine Arbeitsgruppe in der Kommission gegeben, die sich diesem Kapitel gewidmet hat. Seitdem ist nichts passiert. Ich denke, wenn wir Wachstum, Wohlstand, Beschäftigung in der Europäischen Union wollen, wie das unser Ziel ist, dann müssen wir die Besonderheiten der Familienunternehmen berücksichtigen und uns einfach fragen: Wie können wir diese familiengeführten Unternehmen – unser Rückgrat, auch der Industrie und der Wirtschaft in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft – noch stärker unterstützen, wie können wir ihnen bei ihren Problemen besser zur Seite stehen? Da wird viel auf nationalstaatlicher Ebene anfallen. Aber ich denke, der Best-Practices-Vergleich und ein klares Commitment auch auf europäischer Ebene, diese unsere starken Familienunternehmen zu fördern und zu unterstützen, ist eine ehrenwerte Sache. Und deshalb bitte ich morgen um Unterstützung für meinen Bericht.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – Rada by som poďakovala kolegyni Angelike Niebler za vynikajúci text. Tému rodinného podnikania, ktorú som navrhla, prijme Parlament v tomto pléne vďaka Angelike a verím, že sa stane inšpiráciou aj pre Komisiu. Viacgeneračné rodinné podniky posilňujú ekonomiku a idú príkladom v spoločenskej zodpovednosti. Je preto dôležité podporiť ich hodnotovú integritu a garantovať im ako právnickým osobám slobody zakotvené v Charte základných práv pri praktizovaní hodnôt v podnikaní. Rodinné podniky majú špecifické potreby. Verím, že prijatá správa povedie k zlepšeniu ich postavenia, pretože posilnenie rodinného podnikania pomôže zvýšiť zamestnanosť, predovšetkým v ekonomicky slabších regiónoch. Zároveň môže priviesť mladých ľudí k pracovným návykom, lebo ich chýbanie je jedným z najčastejších dôvodov nezamestnanosti mladých v Európskej únii.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, ovo je posebno važno izvješće zato što obiteljska poduzeća tradicionalno čine kralježnicu europske ekonomije. Njihova opstojnost i rast od presudne su važnosti za stvaranje pozitivne gospodarske, socijalne i demografske slike europskog kontinenta pa mi je drago da izvjestiteljica to prepoznaje.

Složila bih se i s potrebom za internacionalizacijom poslovanja ovih poduzeća jer mnoga od njih imaju ogroman potencijal koji ostaje neiskorišten u okviru lokalnog ili regionalnog poslovanja. Pritom smatram da je uklanjanje administrativnog tereta koji poskupljuje proizvodnju i trgovinu najvažniji korak u procesu otvaranja malih obiteljskih poduzeća zajedničkom europskom tržištu.

Suvišna regulativa pogoduje velikim gospodarskim subjektima i potpomaže stvaranje monopola, što ne samo da uništava tradiciju europskih obiteljskih poduzeća, već ugrožava i 60 % radnih mjesta u privatnom sektoru koje ta poduzeća osiguravaju.

  Eva Kaili (S&D). – Madam President, allow me on behalf of the S&D Group to thank our colleague Angelika Niebler for her great report on family businesses, which are an important and vital element in the functioning of the European economy, especially in the most remote and peripheral areas of the EU.

For the S&D Group it is particularly important that we stress with this report the significance of size when we are talking about family businesses, and we would like to underscore the social role that family businesses play in the European economy – on the path to recovery of course – and also the necessary standards for those working in family businesses, the quality of jobs and the need for everyone to have social insurance and a pension plan. We also want to ensure that we keep the references in this report to the balance between genders, the importance of smoothing transfers of ownership and management from generation to generation, and the tax burden.

Last but not least, we expect the Commission to take the initiative to strengthen the framework in which family businesses operate in the EU today, and to improve their access to information, educational programmes and financial resources.

  Juan Carlos Girauta Vidal (ALDE). – Señora Presidenta, ante todo, gracias a la ponente. Dicho lo cual, resulta increíble que, siendo ponente alternativo de este informe, no tenga tiempo asignado para el debate en el Pleno.

Pero no voy a desperdiciar los segundos que me quedan quejándome, más bien me interesa subrayar la relevancia de un informe que llama la atención sobre la gran contribución que la empresa familiar hace a la economía europea y que recuerda lo importante que es trabajar para lograr una definición común que permita conocer la situación y los desafíos de estas empresas; crear reglas que simplifiquen el proceso de transferencia de las empresas familiares, muchas veces complicadísimo por la aplicación no solo del Derecho mercantil, sino también del Derecho sucesorio; promover la innovación y el uso de las tecnologías de la comunicación y la información para aumentar el ámbito potencial de consumidores; crear una ventanilla única que les facilite todos los trámites administrativos e incluir en los currículos educativos europeos información sobre las características de la gestión de una empresa familiar.

  Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin! Auch ich möchte mich bei der Berichterstatterin bedanken für ihre Initiative sowie dafür, dass sie aufgezeigt hat, welchen Stellenwert die Familienunternehmen in Europa einnehmen. Europa hat hier eine ganz besondere Bedeutung: Etwa die Hälfte der 500 Top-Familienunternehmen weltweit sitzen in Europa, das zeigt die Dimension auf.

Die Top-10-Unternehmen aus diesem Bereich generieren etwa hundert Milliarden Euro des europäischen BIP und beschäftigen 2,5 Millionen Menschen. Insgesamt tragen Familienunternehmen in Europa zu 13 Prozent des Bruttoinlandsprodukts und zu 3,2 Prozent der Gesamtbeschäftigung bei, Die Unternehmen sind im Durchschnitt 90 Jahre alt. Familienunternehmen sind wesentlich kompetitiver als andere Unternehmen, sie sind auf langfristigen Erfolg abgestellt, und die Betriebsübernahme – dass wurde heute schon angesprochen – spielt dabei eine ganz besondere Rolle.

In dem Bericht wurde auch herausgearbeitet, dass jährlich in Europa in etwa 480 000 Unternehmen übernommen wurden. Wir haben gehört, für 150 gibt es wahrscheinlich keinen geeigneten Nachfolger. Es ist ein großes Thema. Hier muss die Politik die Rahmenbedingungen schaffen. Ebenso das Eigenkapital – ein zweites wichtiges Thema –und die Anerkennung der Strukturen, nämlich Ownership von Familienunternehmen, zusätzlich zu den steuerlichen Dingen, Rahmenbedingungen, Lohnnebenkosten, die ganz wesentlich sind für die Erhaltung dieser familiären Strukturen.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Niebler, for her excellent report.

Europe’s family businesses are important economic actors and deserve attention. Across Europe, about 70% of enterprises are family businesses and they account for between 40% and 50% of employment.

The most effective way to help family businesses is to address their problems in existing SMEs or industry-related policies such as the creation of a supportive business environment or participation in the various European Union funding programmes.

Family businesses need a level playing field when the implementation of national or EU policies has an impact on them. A number of points mentioned in the report have, to a large extent, already been addressed by the Commission, for example the contact points, the collection of statistical data and the need for vocational training for younger family members. However, we are ready to look at these issues with you again and, if needed, to take further steps to improve the situation.

There are also a number of important problems that are family-business specific and need special attention, like the smooth transfer of business to the next generation and its fiscal consequences. As you know, taxation is a sole competence of Member States, so we have pointed out the issue of the family business to them, asking them for more growth—friendly tax policies at national level.

To make governments more sensitive to the issue of family businesses, we took action to make more visible the economic importance of the sector. In many Member States, unfortunately, there is no statistical information. For this reason, we are financing a number of national statistical offices to collect data on family businesses in order to get a clearer picture on them. The results will be known in about two years’ time. We are also running a project on identifying good practices and useful tools in preparing on-time transfer of businesses because, as I said, the transfer of businesses is a problem for many families.

In your report, you also referred to the need to offer young family members entrepreneurship education and training. I would like to mention that there are various programmes, like Erasmus for young entrepreneurs, from which all younger members of the family business can benefit if they envision entrepreneurship as an attractive and realistic career option.

Concerning the role of women in family businesses, we promote and support women entrepreneurship in Europe with concrete actions, providing encouragement, advice and support to women entrepreneurs. Such measures include the European Network of Female Entrepreneurship Ambassadors, the European Network of Mentors for Women Entrepreneurs and, as from 2016 onwards, the online e-platform for women entrepreneurs.

I hope we can continue our dialogue to improve the position of family businesses in the European Union.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Ева Паунова (PPE), в писмена форма. – Европа може да се превърне в уникална екосистема от иновативни предприятия, ако заедно приложим успешно работещи модели за подкрепа на предприемачите във всички страни членки.

Семейните предприятия представляват дългосрочен поглед върху перспективите за растеж и са стабилен фактор за създаването на работни места.

Те могат да играят важна роля в насърчаването на повече граждани да бъдат активни участници в местните икономики. Това е резултат на високата степен на социална отговорност, която тези предприятия имат по отношение на своите служители.

За съжаление не се наблюдава равномерно развитие на семейните предприятия във всички страни-членки на ЕС. Затова са необходими равни възможности за предприемачите в цяла Европа.

Европа има нужда от синхронизирани правила и политики, които създават сигурност за бизнеса, насърчават иновациите и помагат на стартиращите предприятия да се развиват на национално и международно ниво.

27. Ricerca e innovazione nell'economia blu per creare occupazione e crescita (breve presentazione)

  President. – The next item is the report by João Ferreira, on behalf of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, on untapping the potential of research and innovation in the blue economy to create jobs and growth (2014/2240(INI)) (A8-0214/2015).

Mr Sylikiotis is deputising for Mr Ferreira.

  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης , Αναπληρωτής εισηγητής. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο εισηγητής της έκθεσης, συνάδελφος João Ferreira, δεν μπόρεσε δυστυχώς να είναι σήμερα μαζί μας και για τον λόγο αυτό θα παρουσιάσω εγώ, εκ μέρους του, τους κύριους στόχους που επιδιώκονται με αυτήν την έκθεση. Επισημαίνουμε, αρχικά, ότι η έκθεση λαμβάνει υπόψη την έκθεση της Επιτροπής με τίτλο «Καινοτομία στο πλαίσιο της Γαλάζιας Οικονομίας: Αξιοποίηση του δυναμικού των θαλασσών και των ωκεανών μας με στόχο την προώθηση της απασχόλησης και της μεγέθυνσης», ένα έγγραφο που έχει πολλά περιθώρια βελτίωσης, αφού έχει περιορισμένο πεδίο εφαρμογής και δεν καλύπτει όλους τους τομείς. Προστίθενται λοιπόν τα πιο κάτω καινούργια στοιχεία:

- εκφράζεται δυσαρέσκεια για το βραχυπρόθεσμο και μακροπρόθεσμο αντίκτυπο που θα έχουν στα εθνικά προγράμματα έρευνας οι περικοπές των δημόσιων επενδύσεων στον τομέα της έρευνας, της ανάπτυξης και της καινοτομίας·

- ζητείται να αποτελούν τα αποτελέσματα της έρευνας που χρηματοδοτείται με δημόσια κονδύλια δημόσια ιδιοκτησία για μη εμπορικούς σκοπούς, και πιστεύουμε ότι πρέπει η αρχή αυτή να είναι δεσμευτική για τους εταίρους στα ερευνητικά προγράμματα της Ένωσης·

- απορρίπτονται οι περικοπές στον προϋπολογισμό του προγράμματος-πλαίσιο «Ορίζων 2020» για την έρευνα και την καινοτομία τις οποίες πρότεινε η Επιτροπή.

Η ορθή ανάπτυξη της γαλάζιας οικονομίας απαιτεί αξιοπρεπή επαγγέλματα που συνδέονται με αυτή και δημιουργία θέσεων ποιοτικής εργασίας με δικαιώματα. Με την έκθεση, λοιπόν, παροτρύνεται η Επιτροπή και τα κράτη μέλη να ενσωματώσουν τη διάσταση του φύλου σε όλα τα στάδια ανάπτυξης της γαλάζιας οικονομίας, καθώς και να ενθαρρύνουν και να ενισχύσουν την πραγματική συμμετοχή των γυναικών σε αυτή. Καλείται η Επιτροπή να προσδιορίσει όλα τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια που διατίθενται για τη χρηματοδότηση των δραστηριοτήτων της γαλάζιας οικονομίας και να τα συγκεντρώσει σε μια ενιαία πλατφόρμα, στην οποία θα έχουν πρόσβαση όλοι οι πολίτες. Επίσης τονίζεται ότι η Επιτροπή πρέπει να προβλέψει κονδύλια για καινοτομία και γαλάζια ανάπτυξη με σκοπό να χρηματοδοτηθούν η βασική έρευνα, η επαγγελματική κατάρτιση, η δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας, οι νεοσύστατες επιχειρήσεις, οι μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, οι επιχειρήσεις κοινωνικής οικονομίας, οι συνεταιρισμοί, η εκπαίδευση, η μείωση της φτώχειας των παράκτιων ζωνών, η ανάπτυξη της βιοτεχνολογίας, οι μεταφορικές συνδέσεις, η ενεργειακή διασύνδεση, η παράκτια πρόσβαση σε ευρυζωνικές υπηρεσίες, η προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και η εμπορική εκμετάλλευση των καινοτόμων προϊόντων, υπηρεσιών και συνεργασιών.

Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, οι επενδύσεις στη γαλάζια οικονομία θα πρέπει να επικεντρωθούν, μεταξύ άλλων, στην οικολογική καινοτομία, στην αποδοτικότητα της χρήσης πόρων, στην κυκλική οικονομία, στη διατήρηση της φύσης, στην προστασία του θαλάσσιου και παράκτιου περιβάλλοντος, στον μετριασμό της κλιματικής αλλαγής και στην προσαρμογή σε αυτή και στη βιώσιμη χρήση των πόρων. Με την έκθεση, λοιπόν, ζητείται από την Επιτροπή να ενσωματώσει τις αρχές αυτές στα υφιστάμενα, καθώς και στα μελλοντικά προγράμματα στήριξης. Εξίσου σημαντικό είναι το να καταρτιστεί κατάλληλο χρηματοδοτικό πλαίσιο προκειμένου να τονωθούν η καινοτομία, η αειφόρος ανάπτυξη της γαλάζιας οικονομίας και η δημιουργία απασχόλησης. Το πλαίσιο αυτό θα συνδυάζει, θα συντονίζει και θα διευκολύνει την πρόσβαση στα διαθέσιμα χρηματοδοτικά μέσα, στα διαρθρωτικά και τα επενδυτικά ταμεία, στα δημόσια ιδρύματα, στις τοπικές αρχές αλλά και στις επιχειρήσεις, ιδίως μικρομεσαίες, και στις μη κυβερνητικές οργανώσεις, για να υπάρξει, έτσι, ευρεία ενημέρωση για τις υφιστάμενες ευκαιρίες.

Είναι σημαντικό να υπογραμμίσουμε πως οι δημόσιες επενδύσεις διαδραματίζουν καθοριστικό ρόλο στην προώθηση της ανάπτυξης και την πλήρη αξιοποίηση του δυναμικού της γαλάζιας οικονομίας. Πρέπει, λοιπόν, να ενισχυθούν, χωρίς αυτό να σημαίνει πως θα παραγνωρίσουμε τον ρόλο των ιδιωτικών επενδύσεων. Πολύ σημαντικό ρόλο διαδραματίζουν, επίσης, οι δημόσιες εταιρίες ή οι εταιρίες που ανήκουν κατά πλειοψηφία στο κράτος σε τομείς όπως η εμπορική ναυτιλία, η διαχείριση των λιμένων, η ναυπηγική και τα έργα θαλάσσιας και παράκτιας προστασίας. Απορρίπτουμε λοιπόν την έμφαση μόνο στον ιδιωτικό τομέα. Όλα αυτά τα σημεία συμπεριλαμβάνονται στην έκθεση και καλούμε τους συναδέλφους να την υπερψηφίσουν, ούτως ώστε να ενισχύσουμε την ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για τη γαλάζια οικονομία.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση είναι πράγματι ενδιαφέρουσα και θίγει πάρα πολύ σημαντικά σημεία. Η γαλάζια οικονομία καλύπτει ένα ιδιαίτερο ευρύ πεδίο δραστηριότητας, την αλιεία, τις υδατοκαλλιέργειες, τις θαλάσσιες μεταφορές, τον τουρισμό, τη ναυσιπλοΐα, τις κρουαζιέρες. Θα πρέπει, κυρίως, να στηρίζεται στην καινοτομία και στις νέες τεχνολογίες. Αυτό σημαίνει στήριξη και των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων, αλλά, στήριξη και στην ίδια την ποιότητα. Σημαίνει στήριξη στις ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας και σε μορφές τοπικής συνεργασίας. Σημαίνει προσπάθεια δημιουργίας νέων θέσεων εργασίας και ανάπτυξης νέων προϊόντων. Σημαίνει ότι πρέπει να έχουμε στήριξη της οικονομικής κοινωνικής και εδαφικής συνοχής στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Αυτό, λοιπόν, σημαίνει επιπλέον συνεργασία μεταξύ και των ίδιων των περιφερειών. Απαιτείται, συνεπώς, να υπάρξει ενίσχυση μέσω των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων, μέσω του ίδιου του Ταμείου Περιφερειακής Ανάπτυξης και μέσω του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινωνικού Ταμείου.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, kada govorimo o plavoj ekonomiji zaista bismo mogli govoriti o mnogim temama jer je plava ekonomija iznimno široko područje. Hrvatska, zemlja iz koje dolazim, je zemlja koja ima Jadransko more, a plava ekonomija ima itekako važnu ulogu u razvoju naše zemlje.

Međutim, nešto što želim posebno naglasiti je pitanje brodogradnje i zato povjereniku Timmermansu želim posebno dati do znanja da smatram da Europska unija mora javnim novcem što je više moguće, zajedno u sinergiji s nacionalnim državama i jedinicama lokalne i regionalne samouprave, raditi na financiranju istraživanja i inovacija u brodogradnji.

Brod je jedinstven europski proizvod. Jedinstven europski proizvod zato što može biti sastavljen od raznih dijelova koji dolaze iz raznih država. Zato pozivam da ne zaboravimo na europsku brodogradnju koja, kao što znamo, i dan danas daje mnogo radnih mjesta i naravno očekujem da će to činiti i ubuduće.

  Ernest Maragall (Verts/ALE). – Señora Presidenta, Comisarios, le devolvemos a la Comisión un trabajo intenso en este informe. Era un enfoque relativamente simple y fragmentado y le devolvemos —yo creo— una pieza coherente y de mucha mayor ambición y también de mucha mayor exigencia.

Hablamos ahora de un enfoque integrado, de un enfoque global, que parte de la sostenibilidad como concepto central, que, por otra parte, quiere evitar los riesgos tradicionales, si se quiere, de los siglos, que la propia Comisión, a veces, nos ofrece como línea de acción. Hablamos, pues, del papel que Europa debe ejercer en nuestros mares; un papel ahora fragmentado y escasamente coordinado que debe adquirir potencia, estrategia y coherencia. Hablamos de la acuicultura y de la sostenibilidad con la que debe contemplarse; hablamos del principio de cautela en la actividad minera en el fondo marino; hablamos del conocimiento que debemos adquirir y compartir respecto de las maravillas del mar, pero también de los numerosos errores que ya hemos cometido.

No podemos repetir los errores cometidos en la tierra; el mar se merece nuestro respeto y nuestra mejor estrategia para comprenderlo de una manera inteligente.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, I suppose one of the biggest problems with these five-minute debates is that we cannot adequately do justice to a subject – 31 pages of a report in a 60—second speech. I agree that tidal power is the future, but I hope that we can learn from the mistakes of wind power. It is best to get the research and cost correct first and then introduce a new technology, not the other way around. I believe we are getting towards that point with tidal power and we need to continue the research.

I will just pick up one other point that I have time for: the suggestion to move to liquefied natural gas as a transitional fuel to help the environment. The word ‘transitional’ implies that it will require more than one change in an industry which, frankly, certainly in the UK, is already on its knees, so I would urge extreme caution in that because we do not want to sleepwalk into creating unemployment.

  Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Terminus "blaue Wirtschaft" umfasst alle Wirtschaftszweige, die sich mit dem Meer und mit den Ozeanen verbunden fühlen. Die Schnittstelle zwischen Land und See ist dabei eine ganz besonders wichtige. Die blaue Wirtschaft schafft drei bis fünf Prozent des europäischen BIP; beschäftigt 5,6 Millionen Menschen und trägt mit einem Wertschöpfungsvolumen von 495 Millionen Euro zur europäischen Wertschätzung bei.

Der Bericht geht dabei ganz klar auf die Wechselwirkung zwischen Meer und Land ein, wobei er feststellt, dass Daten von Land und Meer als Einheit betrachtet werden müssen und dass eine nachhaltige Bewirtschaftung von wesentlichem Interesse, von wesentlicher Wichtigkeit ist, und darauf eingeht, welche Rolle neue Technologien spielen, und hier kommen wir insbesondere auf das Thema Innovation und Forschung.

Der vierte Punkt, den ich anführen möchte, sind die Investitionen: Im Bericht wird kritisiert, dass bei Horizont 2020 eingespart werden soll. Das ist besonders schlecht für die blaue Wirtschaft sowie natürlich für andere Wirtschaftszweige, hier muss nachgeholt werden. Hier muss die blaue Wirtschaft entsprechend unterstützt und gefördert werden.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, even though he is not here, and the members of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) for this very extensive and welcome report, which also takes account of the opinions of the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs.

It is an important contribution to the EU’s Blue Growth agenda. It recognises the significant potential of the Blue Economy to create jobs and growth, and stresses the importance of action by the EU and its Member States to unlock this potential. The report stresses that the sustainability dimension must be fully embedded in our approach, and I can confirm that the Commission is wholeheartedly in agreement with this approach. We must indeed protect, restore and maintain coastal and oceanic ecosystems, biodiversity, resilience and productivity, keep the oceans free from pollutants and litter and apply the precautionary principle. Cross-sectoral and inter-disciplinary research and rolling-out of innovation will be essential to achieve these goals, along with support from Member States. We are also looking at promoting innovation in both emerging and more traditional maritime sectors.

The focus on marine knowledge and seabed mapping, the creation of the marine research information platform and the work on developing skills will boost innovation and job creation over the whole varied range of interacting sectors, including existing industries. For instance, there are two specific articles in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Regulation which focus on innovation and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture; and Horizon 2020, the Framework Programme for Research Innovation, supports a considerable amount of research in the traditional sectors. The European Fund for Strategic Investments also offers possibilities for projects with a higher risk profile.

I was very happy to read that the report asks for a proper assessment of the size of the Blue Economy and appraisal of its financial needs. We are already working on this. We have now made some first estimates of the size of the Blue Economy and will be comparing notes with statisticians and economists from Member States later this month. Solid figures will no doubt also help us to measure progress in driving the Blue Industry forward.

We are also working on delivering some other key points of your report. For example, we are considering how to close the skills gap in the Blue Economy, and calls for proposals will be issued in 2016 to tackle this. We are also making progress on developing an information platform to make the results of marine and maritime research more easily available.

Finally, I could not agree more that a global level playing field is needed to further strengthen the EU’s position as a global leader in a sustainable Blue Economy. I have launched an international public consultation on what the EU needs to do to improve the governance of the oceans, including ensuring a sustainable use of ocean resources and guaranteeing a level playing field. I encourage you to contribute to this consultation.

In conclusion, the Commission very much welcomes this report and looks forward to working closely with the European Parliament in realising the full potential of the Blue Economy.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD), per iscritto. – Per un paese che, come il nostro, è costituito da una penisola, il mare costituisce un aspetto importante tanto della vita sociale quanto dell'economia. Le attività connesse al mare sono quindi molteplici e importanti, proprio per questo va salvaguardato. La relazione sembra esprimersi in questo senso e riconosce anche che si debba tener conto delle specificità degli ecosistemi di riferimento in Europa, ma accanto alle enunciazioni di principio esprime modalità di intervento che mettono in pericolo quegli stessi ecosistemi. Non viene infatti posto alcun limite allo sfruttamento minerario, e quindi a trivellazioni e perforazioni petrolifere e di gas naturale. Ciò dimostra come non si tenga in alcun conto l'apporto degli studi scientifici in merito, giungendo a trascurare completamente il principio di precauzione, che è alla base della sostenibilità economica per la quale noi continueremo invece a lottare.

  Miriam Dalli (S&D), in writing. – Our seas are extremely diverse one from the other and a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy will definitely defy the purpose for which we are standing here today. However, there is one common factor. Our seas offer an extreme vast economic and job creation potential in a period of time when we need to create both employment demand and supply. We need to ensure that whilst maximising the potential of our seas we ensure the protection of our maritime environment from any damaging effects including the proliferation of further plastics and micro-plastics, which is an issue of utmost urgency. And issue a final message to the Commission to heed our call, and put all already existing policy and strategy formulation bodies related to the blue economy under one Authority. It is only when we have real coordination that we can reap the benefits of a proper blue economy.

  Elena Gentile (S&D), per iscritto. – Come relatrice ombra per il gruppo S&D sul parere che la commissione EMPL ha reso alla commissione ITRE ho condiviso sin dall'inizio la necessità di cogliere pienamente tutte le opportunità offerte dall' "economia blu", per contribuire ad un uso sostenibile delle risorse marine e stimolare la crescita e l'occupazione nell'UE, attraverso la creazione di posti di lavoro di qualità in settori quali la pesca, l'acquacoltura, i trasporti marittimi, la ricerca sui fondali marini, le biotecnologie, il turismo, così come di tutte le attività che si possono svolgere sulla terraferma quali la nautica da diporto, le industrie della trasformazione e lo sviluppo integrato dell'entroterra, promuovendo l'integrazione sociale dei gruppi vulnerabili e delle donne, tenendo conto dei rischi ambientali derivanti da ogni fonte di inquinamento.

Tuttavia, per trasformare le potenzialità legate all'economia blu in effettive opportunità di sviluppo, la Commissione deve mettere in campo azioni finalizzate a rendere più accessibile per le PMI l'accesso al credito e ai finanziamenti pubblici, promuovere la mobilità e la qualificazione della forza lavoro e sostenere le attività legate a una pratica sostenibile e responsabile della pesca. È necessario, infine, ricercare un equilibrio tra la dimensione economica, sociale, spesso sottovalutata, e ambientale della politica marittima integrata sostenibile.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), par écrit. – Avant tout, je voudrais saluer la Commission pour avoir inscrit avec détermination l'économie bleue dans l'agenda européen. La perspective de 1,6 million d'emplois dans ce secteur est une puissante motivation. Pourtant, des obstacles tenaces freinent le développement de l'économie maritime. Contre les lacunes scientifiques, le manque de données sur les océans et l'urgence de les rendre accessibles, nous appuierons sans relâche la Commission. De même nous la soutenons quand elle indique les besoins en chercheurs spécialistes des océans, même s'il nous semble utile d'ajouter que la formation doit couvrir tous les niveaux de compétences, des marins, des techniciens et des ingénieurs.

En revanche, à l'instar de l'avis dont je suis la rapporteure, nous proposons deux modifications. La première concerne l'exhaustivité de la liste des activités établie par la Commission. Énergie marine renouvelable, nouvelles propulsion pour les navires du futur, sélectivité de la pêche et biotechnologies marines, la liste ne doit pas être fermée. La transition écologique peut ici trouver l'un de ses meilleurs vecteurs. Reste le financement. Alors que la Commission se contente de récapituler les programmes budgétaires auxquels l'économie bleue peut prétendre, nous pensons qu'il n'y aura pas de véritable impulsion sans ligne budgétaire spécifiquement consacrée au maritime.

28. Promuovere lo spirito imprenditoriale nei giovani attraverso l'istruzione e la formazione (breve presentazione)

  President. – The next item is the report by Michaela Šojdrová, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on promoting youth entrepreneurship through education and training (2015/2006(INI)) (A8-0239/2015).

  Michaela Šojdrová, zpravodajka. – Vážené kolegyně, vážení kolegové, vážený pane komisaři, ráda bych vám představila zprávu Promoting Youth Entrepreneurship through education and training.

Příprava této zprávy soustředila mnoha poznatků ze vzdělávacích systémů a z podnikatelského prostředí a vede k jednoznačnému závěru: „Podnikatelské dovednosti je třeba vyžadovat, je možné je učit a je možné se je naučit. Je to užitečné pro jedince i pro společnost.“ K původní zprávě bylo předloženo 225 pozměňovacích návrhů, zpráva tedy vzbudila velký zájem a je výsledkem velmi dobré spolupráce se zpravodaji všech skupin, kterým tímto také děkuji.

Evropský parlament touto zprávou reaguje na vysokou nezaměstnanost mladých lidí, která v některých regionech dosahuje až 50 %. Orgány Evropské unie sice věnovaly podpoře podnikání mladých opakovaně pozornost. Tato zpráva je však jediná, která se tímto tématem zabývá samostatně. Shodli jsme se mimo jiné na tom, že mladí lidé potřebují získat smysl pro iniciativu a podnikavost. Zdůrazňujeme sociální rozměr podnikání. Naše zpráva zdůrazňuje roli neformálního a informálního vzdělávání, které je doménou zejména neziskového sektoru, výjimečně i firem a je třeba ho uznávat a podporovat.

Zpráva se podrobně zabývá definicí podnikatelských dovedností a možnostmi jejich výuky. Evropský parlament potvrzuje, že „smysl pro iniciativu a podnikavost“ je jednou z klíčových kompetencí pro celoživotní učení. Zahrnuje mimo jiné tvořivost, schopnost zavádět novinky, nést rizika, finanční a mediální gramotnost, plánovat a řídit projekty. Zpráva klade hlavní důraz na roli Evropské komise a Rady a vyzývá lepšímu využití nástrojů, které mají.

Pro Evropskou komisi znamená toto usnesení velkou výzvu. Vzhledem k dosavadnímu proaktivnímu přístupu DG EAC si dovolujeme stanovit konkrétní data a úkoly. Například, aby Komise posílila podporu podnikatelského vzdělávání jako jeden z cílů programu ERASMUS+ pro příští finanční období po roce 2020 a aby tyto dovednosti byly zařazeny do povinného obsahu vzdělávacích programů. Evropská komise by měla od roku 2016 zahrnout opatření spojená se vzděláváním v této oblasti do ukazatelů k hodnocení evropského semestru. Do konce roku 2017 by pak měla předložit zprávu o osvědčených postupech v této oblasti.

Jsme si vědomi toho, že členské státy nečekají na toto usnesení, ale samy již usilují o rozvoj podnikatelských dovedností, i když velmi různorodě a nedostatečně systematicky. Proto Evropský parlament i pro ně uvádí opatření, která mohou pomoci, například formou start-upů, poradenstvím, usnadněním přístupu k půjčkám, využitím crowdfundingu či partnerstvím mezi podniky a univerzitami, podporou podnikatelských inkubátorů a především propojením výuky s praxí. Zdrojem pro financování těchto aktivit bude Evropský sociální fond, Iniciativa pro podporu zaměstnanosti mladých, Program Evropská unie pro zaměstnanost a sociální inovace, Erasmus pro mladé podnikatele a další.

Protože klíčovou roli mají učitelé, vyzýváme členské státy, aby iniciovaly zlepšení jejich přípravy již v rámci pedagogických studijních programů.

Evropský parlament vnímá podporu podnikání mladých prostřednictvím vzdělávání jako velmi perspektivní, proto žádáme Komisi, aby do konce tohoto funkčního období Parlamentu předložila hodnotící zprávu o pokroku, jehož bylo v této oblasti dosaženo.

Ještě jednou děkuji kolegům za spolupráci a věřím, že opatření, která navrhujeme, pomohou zlepšit kvalitu vzdělávání a zlepšit zaměstnanost. Vždyť podnikání přináší zisk. Jak pro podnikatele, tedy pro jedince, tak pro zaměstnance, a tedy celou společnost.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Panie Komisarzu! Gratuluję Pani Poseł Šojdrovej sprawozdania, które porusza ważne kwestie związane z promocją zatrudnienia ludzi młodych w Unii Europejskiej.

Pragnę zwrócić uwagę na jeden ważny aspekt – mianowicie na promowanie rozwoju ekonomii społecznej oraz jej istotnej roli w zwalczaniu wykluczenia społecznego, szczególnie w odniesieniu do ludzi młodych. Tego typu przedsiębiorstwa nie tylko przynoszą dochody i napędzają gospodarkę europejską, ale także wspierają rozwój społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, zaangażowanego i wrażliwego na potrzeby innych. Wielu młodych ludzi pragnie, aby praca zawodowa była nie tylko ich pasją, ale także aby była społecznie pożyteczna.

Dlatego też uważam, że ważnym elementem promowania przedsiębiorczości powinno być budowanie europejskiego kapitału społecznego – począwszy od wolontariatów opartych o wiedzę i umiejętności ludzi młodych, poprzez wartościowe staże, kończąc na programach wymiany międzynarodowej studentów i młodych przedsiębiorców. Te działania z pewnością zapewnią perspektywiczny rozwój Wspólnoty Europejskiej.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mi fa piacere che ci sia anche il Commissario, credo che questo sia un impegno che noi affidiamo anche alla Commissione, in collaborazione con il Parlamento. Devo ringraziare la collega Šojdrová, ha fatto un ottimo lavoro e abbiamo lavorato tutti molto bene insieme. Credo che dire come noi diciamo continuamente, che l'Europa ha bisogno di più imprenditori, più innovazione, creatività e maggiore crescita delle piccole e medie imprese, questo si raggiunge anche attraverso un orientamento dei programmi scolastici e delle opportunità di partenariati dei siti scolastici, universitari, con il sistema delle imprese, ma anche nell'educazione allo sviluppo della mentalità imprenditoriale e il ruolo centrale che la formazione degli insegnanti ha in questo campo.

Penso che sia anche un grande strumento, come si è detto, a favore di una nuova occupazione: un ragazzo su due in Europa, fra i 15 e 25 anni, dice che preferirebbe un'attività autonoma, ma spesso non ci sono le condizioni per creare queste competenze. Si tratta di competenze trasversali, che non servono soltanto a metter su un'impresa, ma che servono anche ad affrontare le competenze chiamiamole "di cittadinanza" e credo che però sia necessarissima la qualificazione dei docenti e una alleanza più forte su questo tema, anche con le associazioni europee degli imprenditori.

  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca, Szanowni Państwo! W zeszłym roku zorganizowałem w Lublinie – to moje rodzinne miasto – konferencję dla młodych osób, której celem było między innymi zachęcenie ich do zakładania własnej działalności gospodarczej. W wyniku tej dyskusji z młodzieżą upewniłem się, że czynnikiem hamującym w nich rozwijanie tej działalności gospodarczej nie jest brak dobrych pomysłów czy ducha przedsiębiorczości: oni mają naprawdę wiele fajnych pomysłów. Większy problem stanowi raczej kwestia braku barier finansowych bądź też nieświadomość, jak te bariery pokonać.

Jestem zatem zdania, że musimy położyć większy nacisk na kampanię informacyjną dotyczącą dostępnych narzędzi w tym aspekcie – takich jak Europejski Fundusz Społeczny, instrument mikrofinansowy i wiele innych unijnych programów, takich jak chociażby „Aniołowie biznesu”.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, some of the challenges in this report are common to all Member States in Europe, while other vary from one Member State to another. I will talk a little bit about the situation in the United Kingdom. We actually have a very good quality education system in the UK but quite often we educate in the wrong way, in the wrong things. We push almost half of all young people to go to university but actually, in fact, there are not that many graduate—level jobs available. We need to be doing more of this kind of thing: we need to be promoting entrepreneurship, we need to be promoting the kind of skills, the kind of training, that are going to develop young people in the right direction.

Paragraph 43 of this report urges the Commission to ensure nothing impedes the free movement of workers, but often that does impact on young people and takes young people away from employment when it allows older people coming into the country the opportunity to take advantage and compete for the same jobs, and they often win.

  Ева Паунова (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, ключовите думи в този доклад според мен са три: първата е образование, защото бизнес усетът е качество, което трябва да се гради от най-ранна възраст. Броят на младите предприемачи и бизнес лидери може да бъде многократно увеличен, ако образователната система възпитава иновативно, креативно и критично мислене.

Втората дума е дигитализация, защото дигиталните умения са необходими за реализацията на всеки предприемач и млад човек. Те подобряват достъпа им до устойчиви работни места, помагат им да бъдат самостоятелно заети лица и ги учат по-добре да разбират нуждите на бъдещите си работодатели.

И третата дума е бизнес, защото големите корпорации могат да подпомогнат малките компании и новите проекти чрез ноу-хау и опит, а ние тук, нашата работа е да създаваме най-подходящата среда за развитие на предприемачеството.

Затова e абсолютно важно стажът, обучението по предприемачество и програмирането да бъдат част от всяко едно обучение от най-ранна възраст във всички европейски държави.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Tibor Navracsics, Member of the Commission. – Madam President. I wish first to thank the rapporteur, Ms Šojdrová, for her very successful report, for the valuable points and concrete proposals she makes on a topic of increasing relevance.

It is not the first time that you, the Parliament, and the Commission have discussed this topic, and my impression is that the discussion has reached a level of maturity that will enable substantial progress. We are no longer wondering whether entrepreneurship can be taught or not: whether a classroom is a proper place to do it. No, those questions are now obsolete, and we should focus on how to improve and increase the teaching of entrepreneurship in educational institutions, including schools, and how to reach a critical mass of pupils.

One crucial point captured in the report is that learning entrepreneurship is not only about setting up a business: far from it. It is about bringing education and work closer, acquiring crucial skills, and most importantly acquiring values – a sense of initiative, creativity, teamwork, resilience, the ability to learn from mistakes, and self-confidence, among others.

With still unacceptably high levels of youth unemployment in the EU, teaching and spreading entrepreneurship is definitely part of the solution to reduce the skills mismatch.

Let me also mention the social dimension of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is not only for the few highly qualified students. On the contrary, it is a powerful tool that can help address social exclusion.

As I said, this is not the first time we have spoken about entrepreneurship, and we must acknowledge that substantial progress has been accomplished in the last few years. This is well reflected in the Council conclusions of 12 December 2014 on entrepreneurship in education. The Commission has also put in place several policies to support and develop entrepreneurial skills in schools, as well as in further education and lifelong learning. Let me name a few.

First of all, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIIT) has pioneered the integration of entrepreneurship education in the higher education curriculum. Students of the EIIT’s knowledge and innovation communities follow entrepreneurship and innovation-related courses in addition to their scientific education.

Secondly, in line with the recommendation of the report, the Commission will continue to successfully upscale and support the HEInnovate initiative, which the Commission and the OECD launched together in 2013 to support higher education institutions in developing to become more entrepreneurial and innovative. As of today, we have some 500 European higher education institutions that have used the initiative voluntarily, and the number keeps growing.

Do you know that, thanks to Erasmus placements, 55 000 students, one in five, benefitted from traineeships in enterprises in 2013; that the Commission supports knowledge alliances which are cooperation projects between businesses and higher education institutions; or that the Commission launched a project on creating companies in 20 different schools across five Member States? I will stop here because the list is long and I am not here to describe what the Commission has done, but rather to think about the way forward: supporting Member States in improving and extending the teaching of entrepreneurship throughout the EU.

The first challenge to be met, and this is well reflected in the report, concerns ICT skills, a crucial sector in today’s economies, especially for youngsters. We must find ways to exploit the possibilities as effectively as possible for the benefit of young Europeans. The second challenge is the recognition of entrepreneurship skills. Assessing and certifying them at European level in order to allow mobility is of the essence. Pilot projects exist but, once again, we must reach a critical mass and make sure that entrepreneurial skills are increasingly recognised in curricula and throughout Member States.

Honourable Members, I think we are on a good track. The Commission already supports Member States’ expanding and improving the teaching of entrepreneurship in schools and universities, but still more can and should be done. I hope, together with my colleagues Commissioners Bieńkovska and Thyssen, to improve on these encouraging results in the coming years.

Allow me to finish by acknowledging the key role of the several NGOs and enterprises – vibrant civil-society operators – who are playing a crucial role and enabling remarkable progress to be made in this field.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Andrea Bocskor (PPE), írásban. – Először is szeretném megköszönni Michaela Šojdrová képviselő asszonynak a színvonalas és átfogó jelentést a Fiatalok vállalkozói készségének oktatás és képzés révén történő előmozdításáról c. témában. Nagyra értékelem munkáját. Az Európai Unióban továbbra is égető probléma a fiatalok munkanélküliségének magas aránya, amely az EU-ban átlagosan 22%-os, és egyes országokban és régiókban meghaladja az 50%-ot. A magas ifjúsági munkanélküliség és az Európai Unióban a nagyszámú betöltetlen álláshely egyik oka az oktatás és képzés, valamint a munkaerőpiac közötti szakadék, amelyet oly módon is kezelni kell, hogy felruházzák a fiatalokat az ahhoz szükséges kulcsfontosságú kompetenciákkal – többek között vállalkozói készségekkel –, hogy magabiztosan a mai tudásalapú gazdaság és társadalom részeseivé válhassanak. A vállalkozásoktatás minden szinten (alapfok, közép- és felsőfok) igen hatékony eszközt kínál a fiatalok motiválására, és saját vállalkozásuk és pályafutásuk megkezdésére irányuló döntéshozatalukra, és e pályán való sikerességükre. Úgy gondolom, hogy a jelen Európájában nagy szükség van olyan megközelítésre, amely támogatja a fiatalokat, például kreativitásuk, kockázatvállalási képességük, kudarckezelésük és felelősségteljes magatartásuk tekintetében. Köszönöm szépen a figyelmet.

  Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. – În prezent, rata șomajului în rândul tinerilor din Uniunea Europeană este de peste 20 % – dublu față de rata șomajului aferentă tuturor grupurilor de vârstă la un loc și de aproape 3 ori mai ridicată decât în cazul celor de peste 25 de ani. Uniunea Europeană promovează antreprenoriatul prin intermediul Strategiei Europa 2020 și al inițiativelor sale emblematice privind „Noi competențe și locuri de muncă”, „O agendă digitală pentru Europa”, „O Uniune a inovării” și „Tineretul în mișcare”. Tinerii au capacitatea de a influența semnificativ direcția pe care o va urma forța de muncă din Europa în anii următori. Consider că Uniunea Europeană, împreună cu statele membre, trebuie să sprijine tinerii să se dezvolte profesional și să creadă în forța acestora de a genera schimbare și de a contribui la creșterea inteligentă, durabilă și favorabilă incluziunii pe care Strategia Europa 2020 o propune.

  Isabella De Monte (S&D), per iscritto. – La proposta di risoluzione del Parlamento europeo sulla promozione dello spirito imprenditoriale nei giovani attraverso l'istruzione e la formazione tratta un tema di forte interesse per le politiche di crescita che in questi anni stiamo portando avanti. Infatti, la crisi economica e finanziaria ha lasciato il continente europeo con dei forti squilibri al suo interno, tra cui uno dei più' significativi è la disoccupazione giovanile.

Per questa ragione, è necessario uno sforzo congiunto tra politiche europee e nazionali per sostenere la formazione scolastica ed universitaria dei giovani al fine di una loro maggiore inclusione sociale. Oltre quattro milioni e mezzo di giovani disoccupati è una cifra inaccettabile, e pertanto un tessuto imprenditoriale di giovani motivati, che mostrano particolare attenzione all'innovazione e alla ricerca rappresenta una chiave per tornare a crescere, riducendo la disoccupazione. In questa proposta di risoluzione, vengono particolarmente sottolineati i caratteri fondamentali dell'imprenditoria da sviluppare quali la creatività, l'innovazione, l'individuazione di opportunità e l'autonomia di pensiero, quali fattori chiavi per costruire una rete attiva di giovani imprese soprattutto nell'ambito dell'imprenditoria sociale. Infine, viene sottolineata l'importanza di promuovere l'imprenditorialità femminile in modo da valorizzare talenti e competenze fondamentali per incentivare la crescita in Europea.

  Damian Drăghici (S&D), în scris. – În calitate de raportor din umbră, consider că acest raport este unul important, care trebuie să fie o parte integrantă din strategia Uniunii Europene de susținere a tinerei generații în vederea creșterii economice, a ocupării forței de muncă, a educației și a integrării sociale. Însă, ca rezultat al ratei foarte înalte a șomajului în rândul tinerilor, ei încă se confruntă cu niveluri crescute de sărăcie și excludere socială, în special cei aparținând grupurilor dezavantajate și vulnerabile. Raportul arată clar că grupurile dezavantajate au nevoie de atenție specială și de sprijin de-a lungul întregii educații, prin implicarea părinților și a comunităților în procesul educațional, precum și de ajutor pentru a demara, conduce sau dezvolta o afacere sau o întreprindere. Am susținut ideea că activitățile de învățare non-formală și informală au o relevanță deosebită pentru tinerii care beneficiază de mai puține oportunități, oferindu-le acestora posibilități suplimentare de învățare în scopul integrării lor în sistemul formal de educație și formare. Consider că statele membre trebuie să continue dezvoltarea sistemelor de recunoaștere și validare a competențelor dobândite în cadrul învățării non-formale și informale cu scopul de a oferi tinerilor posibilitatea reorientării și o a doua șansă, dar și de a încuraja autorecunoașterea și continuarea învățării.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE), in writing. – I would like to express my support for the report on ‘Promoting youth entrepreneurship through education and training’. I am convinced that in order to promote youth entrepreneurship, we should start from education. Investing in all levels of education, in training and in developing transversal and soft skills is essential, because being entrepreneurial requires acquisition of different skills – not just to start a business, but also to plan it, run it and develop it.

Being entrepreneurial also helps us achieve sustainable employment and reveal our full potential. Entrepreneurial education develops a sense of initiative which will help young people with their own initiatives and their everyday life – NOT only for their companies and associations.

I do realise that youth entrepreneurship cannot completely solve the youth unemployment problem, but it is definitely one of the solutions, especially acknowledging that having an entrepreneurial mind-set is highly beneficial for the development of the creative sector, something that Europe very much needs in order to get back to growth and strengthen Europe’s competitiveness.

To encourage, help and support youth entrepreneurship we need a sustainable approach – we cannot achieve that with a single instrument. It requires sustainable, purposeful, long-term actions. I am happy that in this report we managed to set our clear direction.

  Victor Negrescu (S&D), în scris. – Antreprenoriatul în rândul tinerilor poate fi o soluție de viitor pentru creșterea competitivității europene, dar și pentru rezolvarea, măcar parțial, a problemei șomajului din Europa. În calitate de fost antreprenor, consider că educația și formarea reprezintă elemente centrale în capacitatea unui tânăr de a dezvolta o afacere. De multe ori, tineri cu idei foarte bune nu reușesc să pună în aplicare dorințele lor, date fiind lipsa de informații sau de capacități manageriale. Sistemul educațional din toată Europa trebuie să fie adaptat noului context economic și să dezvolte spiritul antreprenorial în rândul tinerilor. Acest lucru presupune formări pentru profesori, dar și o adaptare a programei școlare, în așa fel încât activitățile de antreprenoriat să fie dezvoltate. Nu în ultimul rând, fondurile europene trebuie să sprijine antreprenoriatul în rândul tinerilor, susținând componenta de formare, dar și de consiliere a tinerilor antreprenori grație cărora Europa se poate mândri cu o rețea puternică de IMM-uri.

  Андрей Новаков (PPE), в писмена форма. – Вярата в младите хора и в потенциала им ме прави защитник на идеята за младежка заетост чрез предприемачество.

Ако искаш да управляваш самолет, не може да го постигнеш в класната стая с прочитането на учебник – изискват се много часове здрава работа и практическо обучение. По същия начин, за да станеш предприемач и да извървиш пътя от идея до успешен продукт, трябва да разчиташ на практически опит и да се учиш от най-добрите предприемачи. И понеже младите хора ценят конкретни предложения, не просто думи, имам две идеи:

На първо място, защо не превърнем „Еразъм за млади предприемачи“ в глобална програма, отваряща възможности извън границите на ЕС. Нека младите ни предприемачи се учат от най-доброто и донесат този модел тук в Европа.

Второ, да сложим край на неплатените стажове в Европа. Стажове, практики и обучения са пряк път към трупането на опит, но около 50% от предлаганите стажове в ЕС са неплатени. Това е дискриминация – ако не може да си го позволиш, нямаш стаж. Често неплатените или нископлатените стажанти имат отговорности наравно със служителите, а всяка работа трябва да е платена.

Нека да покажем на младите, че Европа означава действие в техен интерес и това се очаква от нас в тази зала.

29. Verso un approccio integrato al patrimonio culturale per l'Europa (breve presentazione)

  President. – The next item is the report by Mircea Diaconu, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe (2014/2149(INI)) (A8-0207/2015).

  Mircea Diaconu, raportor. – Doamnă Președintă, raportul pe care vi-l prezint acum încearcă să convingă decidenții politici de importanța pe care o are patrimoniul cultural și de oportunitățile pe care acest sector le poate crea atât pentru profesioniștii din domeniu, cât și pentru comunități. Această importanță rezultă chiar din titlu - „O abordare integrată”, spune titlul acestui raport. „Integrată” înseamnă că, practic, componenta culturală există în aproape oricare subiect pe care îl putem dezvolta în viața de zi cu zi în orice dezbatere publică.

Iată câteva puncte pe care aș dori să le subliniez pentru început.

Solicităm desemnarea cât mai rapidă a unui an european dedicat patrimoniului cultural și care să aibă un buget pe măsură.

Apoi, cerem Comisiei Europene să organizeze mai bine informația despre finanțarea patrimoniului cultural, să înființeze un portal unic la nivelul Uniunii Europene, dedicat patrimoniului cultural. Să încetăm să ne mai ascundem, vă rog, în spatele faptului că toată informația este disponibilă pe Internet. Realitatea crudă este că domeniul cultural are o nevoie acută de finanțare în toate statele membre și trebuie să ajutăm operatorii culturali să folosească toate fondurile europene la care au dreptul.

Un alt pas important pe care trebuie să îl facem este eliminarea din Regulamentul FDR a pragului de cinci milioane de euro fixat pentru proiectele de patrimoniu cultural. Deja de luni de zile ne luptăm pentru eliminarea acestui prag, care a fost stabilit total artificial, iar raportul nostru este foarte clar pe acest subiect. Rog, deci, Comisia Europeană să nu ignore vocea cetățenilor care ne-au cerut ajutorul pentru eliminarea acestui prag.

O altă fisură identificată de raportul nostru constă în lipsa unui sistem adecvat de control al calității pentru proiectele de patrimoniu. Un proiect de restaurare al unui sit de patrimoniu nu este numai o simplă enumerare de facturi. În momentul în care turnăm beton peste o frescă medievală nu mai contează că auditul financiar a fost perfect în regulă, acoperit cu facturi. De aceea, raportul nostru solicită includerea în regulamentul programelor europene a unor mențiuni obligatorii cu privire la calitatea lucrărilor de restaurare. Putem distruge cu fonduri europene ceea ce n-au distrus mii de ani de intemperii sau de războaie.

Pentru că am ajuns aici, cu regret, trebuie să amintesc doar o clipă despre monstruosul atac asupra orașului antic Palmyra. Acolo este doar un oraș antic, în pustiu; este un oraș antic, o minune de patrimoniu mondial, și un izvor cu apă termală, atât. Nu pot fi alte interese: nu este petrol, nu este populație, nu este nimic. Nu este nimic, este doar pustiu… Și totuși, niște criminali au atacat atât de crud exact acest loc. De ce? Simplu: pentru că este vorba de memoria culturală mondială. Și spun asta pentru că recent a fost votată la propunerea președintei Comisiei pentru cultură, doamna Silvia Costa, care este de față în plenul Parlamentului, o rezoluție care consideră acest tip de acte de distrugere a patrimoniului cultural mondial drept crime împotriva umanității. Despre crimă este vorba.

Acum, în final, cu regret vă spun că, cel puțin după părerea mea, evaluări recente pe zone de risc aflate în proximitatea Uniunii Europene au creat o situație aberantă, periculoasă, explozivă. Aceste evaluări au ținut cont de criterii politice, geopolitice, militare, probabil economice etc. și deloc de criterii culturale. Vreau să spun prin asta că există riscul ca așa-numita, astăzi, criză a refugiaților, a migrației imense, neașteptate, explozive asupra Uniunii Europene, să ascundă în ea o altă criză posibilă și care poate fi o criză culturală, de ciocnire a culturilor. Sper să nu am dreptate, aștept de la Comisia Europeană un răspuns adecvat și cât mai rapid. Vă mulțumesc și aștept votul mâine.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, για μένα η Ευρώπη είναι συνώνυμη με τον πολιτισμό και την πολιτιστική κληρονομιά και θεωρώ ότι η Ευρώπη έπρεπε να είναι και να παραμείνει θεματοφύλακας ολόκληρης της ευρωπαϊκής πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς. Προέρχομαι από μία χώρα, την Κύπρο, της οποίας οι πολιτιστικοί και θρησκευτικοί θησαυροί, ανεκτίμητης και αμύθητης αξίας, λεηλατούνται εδώ και σαράντα ένα χρόνια και διακινούνται αυτήν τη στιγμή συλημένοι, στα χέρια λαθρεμπόρων, ακόμη και μέσα στην ίδια την Ευρώπη. Η Κύπρος είναι μέρος της ευρωπαϊκής πολιτιστικής και θρησκευτικής κληρονομίας. Δικαίως αποκαλείται νήσος των Αγίων. Χιλιάδες εκκλησίες, χιλιάδες μνημεία, χιλιάδες χρόνια πολιτισμού θρησκευτικού και αρχαιοτήτων έχουν καταστραφεί και έχουν καταντήσει αυτήν τη στιγμή εμπόρευμα μέσα στην ίδια την Ευρώπη. Όταν κλέβεις ένα Μουσείο Αρχαιοτήτων διαπράττεις έγκλημα. Όταν καταστρέφεις πολιτιστικά μια χώρα διαπράττεις, κατ`εμέ, έγκλημα καθοσιώσεως. Αναμένω από την Επιτροπή, στην οποίαν έχω απευθυνθεί πολλές φορές, να πάρει μέτρα και να θεσπίσει νομοθετικό πλαίσιο για τον αυτόματο επαναπατρισμό αρχαιοτήτων που διακινούνται στην Ευρώπη. Δεν πρέπει να υπάρξουν άλλες χώρες θύματα όπως υπήρξε η Κύπρος - και έχω στο νου μου την Παλμύρα της Συρίας τώρα - ούτε στην Ευρώπη, ούτε σε άλλες περιοχές του κόσμου.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio ringraziare molto il collega Diaconu per l'ottima relazione che ha fatto, per il grande impegno che ha messo; ha veramente colto un tema fondamentale. Abbiamo per questo voluto dare seguito alla comunicazione della Commissione con una relazione del Parlamento, caro Commissario il che significa chiedere alla Commissione e al Consiglio di continuare quest'impegno di rilancio del tema del patrimonio culturale, che è un asse di sviluppo, un asse di nuova occupazione, un asse di nuova forma di intervento anche per quanto riguarda gli investimenti e anche, naturalmente, ha un valore simbolico che non sfugge a nessuno.

Purtroppo, sono stati i fatti tragici che ci hanno fatto ricordare nel decennale della convenzione Unesco sulla diversità culturale, che noi onoreremo il 15 settembre in commissione, che il patrimonio culturale è un bene dell'umanità. È importante riprendere gli importanti indirizzi che vengono dalla relazione, in particolare per quanto riguarda un approccio integrato, trasversale a tutte le politiche, e anche che metta insieme attori pubblici e privati, perché le risorse sono anche il grande tema sul patrimonio.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, με αφορμή τη συζήτηση για την ολοκληρωμένη προσέγγιση της πολιτιστικής κληρονομιάς της Ευρώπης, θα ήθελα να υπενθυμίσω στο Σώμα για άλλη μια φορά ότι, κατά τη διάρκεια του Δευτέρου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου, τα ναζιστικά στρατεύματα κατοχής λεηλάτησαν τους αρχαιολογικούς θησαυρούς της πατρίδας μου, της Ελλάδας. Μάλιστα, η λίστα με τους κλαπέντες αρχαιολογικούς θησαυρούς περιέχεται τόσο στον ειδικό τόμο που εξέδωσε το 1946 το ελληνικό Υπουργείο Παιδείας, όσο και στην αντίστοιχη ειδική έκθεση που συνέταξε το βρετανικό Υπουργείο Πολέμου. Σύμφωνα με την οδηγία 93/7/ΕΟΚ που αφορά στην επιστροφή στον τόπο προέλευσής τους των κλαπέντων αρχαιολογικών θησαυρών αλλά και σύμφωνα με τη Σύμβαση «Unidroit» της UNESCO, του 1970, προβλέπεται ο επαναπατρισμός των πολιτιστικών αγαθών. Επομένως κύριε Επίτροπε, σας θέτω εκ νέου το θέμα που σας είχα θέσει και πριν ένα χρόνο, κατά τη διάρκεια της συζήτησης της υποψηφιότητάς σας για το αξίωμα του Επιτρόπου. Έχετε μια απάντηση κ. Επίτροπε ως προς την επιστροφή των κλαπέντων από τους ναζί αρχαιολογικών θησαυρών στην Ελλάδα;

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, kažu da će Amerika biti jedan veliki šoping centar, Azija tvornica, Afrika turistička destinacija, a Europa muzej za stotinjak ili više godina. To kažu futuristi, u dobroj vjeri, pokazujući uostalom i time da je naša materijalna i nematerijalna kulturna baština od neprocjenjive vrijednosti.

Zato želim podvući samo jednu stvar. Pogledajmo samo što znači kultura za europski turizam i time smo već sve rekli. Koliko je tu ustvari ekonomije? Koliko je tu našeg identiteta? Zato podržavam projekt europskih prijestolnica, ali predlažem da Komisija razmisli i o tome da možda imamo i regije kao kulturnu destinaciju. Odnosno da imamo godišnju regiju kulture kao što imamo prijestolnicu kulture.

  Ernest Maragall (Verts/ALE). – Señora Presidenta, hablar de patrimonio cultural mientras contemplamos impotentes la destrucción de Palmira es, como mínimo, una terrible paradoja. Que sirva al menos para que Europa tome conciencia de lo que está en juego.

El título del informe es bien explícito: «Hacia un enfoque integrado del patrimonio cultural europeo», con un eje muy claro, muy coherente. Hay que integrar estrategias, conocimiento, recursos, líneas de conservación, líneas de acción, líneas también —como se ha dicho— de repatriación. Digámoslo claro, lo que este informe nos dice es que, si queremos hablar de Europa en futuro, hemos de empezar por respetar nuestra propia historia, por conocerla, mostrarla y darle el valor europeo precisamente que siempre acompaña, siempre, a la genuina personalidad cultural, religiosa, social o económica de un lugar, de un espacio, de una cultura determinada.

Vamos, pues, en la buena dirección y por eso el informe reclama tanto la disponibilidad de un portal europeo único que integre y coordine las dispersas actuaciones como el reconocimiento de regiones y ciudades como actores indispensables para esta estrategia conjunta europea.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Tibor Navracsics, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the Commission would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Diaconu and the shadow rapporteurs for the quality and the comprehensiveness of his report. The report covers the full breadth of cultural heritage, making a wide spectrum of policy recommendations and suggesting next steps to be taken. The Commission shares the report’s view that supporting, enhancing and promoting cultural heritage through an integrated approach is of paramount importance.

In addition to its intrinsic value, cultural heritage contributes significantly to economic and social development and it touches the lives of all Europeans, nurturing their sense of belonging and strengthening their European identity.

As we speak, heritage is unfortunately the target of acts of vandalism, defacement and even destruction, as we can see in the terrible images of destruction in Iraq and Syria. But there are also other, less violent, threats to heritage. We are so used to our surrounding historic environment that we may forget that such a fragile beauty needs a lot of care to survive. The report will help the Commission to fine-tune the existing instruments and to make further progress on putting into practice tools, policies and mechanisms in an integrated way to address the challenges the heritage sector is facing today.

The Commission has already taken action on many of the spheres of action mentioned in the report. The Commission has started to work with the Member States on participatory governance. In 2016-2017 this work will be continued on heritage skills, training and knowledge transfer. The Commission is also promoting peer learning among cities and regions to support the exchange and transfer of the wealth of experience and good cultural practices, including heritage. The Commission will also continue to enhance internal cooperation and availability of information on financing opportunities within the existing European funding programmes.

If I might just respond to the honourable Member’s observations: unfortunately, my answer is the same as it was during my hearing. The Commission has no powers to handle debates between two Member States and historic debates. We have simply no powers for that; these are bilateral conflicts and bilateral discussions.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE), písemně. – Děkuji kolegovi Diaconu za představení zprávy, kterou považuji za velmi dobrou, a jsem ráda, že jsme ji na výboru jednomyslně podpořili. Nový integrovaný přístup ke kulturnímu dědictví zahrnuje řadu aspektů, často opomíjených, například nutnost podpory jak hmotného – tj. památky, tak i nehmotného kulturního dědictví – folklór či divadla. Zpráva je také dobrým vzkazem o tom, že kultura má nesmírně velký význam nejen pro naši identitu či volný čas, ale také ekonomiku a vzdělávání. Tyto aspekty bych právě ráda zdůraznila. Kulturní dědictví je zdrojem růstu a mělo by takto být chápáno a podporováno. Kulturní památky přitahují turisty, a pokud jsou živé svým obsahem, mohou skvěle posloužit ke vzdělávání mladších generací. Zpráva se moudře zabývá i finanční podporou kultury, kde mimo jiné volá po prolomení zastropování projektů, aby bylo možné do kulturních zařízení lépe investovat. Zdůrazněna je výměna osvědčených postupů či podpora mobility pracovníků v oblasti kultury. Jsem ráda, že jsem k ní mohla zásadně přispět v roli stínové zpravodajky a oceňuji skvělou spolupráci se zpravodajem a dalšími kolegy. Těším se, že zpráva bude zítra přijata a stane se textem, od kterého se bude odvíjet další debata a praktické kroky v podpoře evropské kultury.

  Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE), na piśmie. – Chciałbym pogratulować Panu Posłowi Diaconu i wszystkim, którzy tworząc to sprawozdanie, zaproponowali szereg efektywnych rozwiązań w zakresie ochrony wspólnego dziedzictwa kulturowego Europy.

Popieram zawartą w sprawozdaniu inicjatywę utworzenia unijnego portalu poświęconego temu dziedzictwu, zawierającego informacje o unijnych programach finansowania kultury. Pragnę podkreślić znaczenie dziedzictwa filmowego jako istotnej części dziedzictwa kulturowego Europy, w tym potrzebę digitalizacji filmów europejskich, zwłaszcza że poddane jej zostało jedynie 1,5% tego dziedzictwa. Istotnym aspektem jest także wprowadzenie na wszystkie poziomy nauczania, już od najmłodszych lat, edukacji filmowej, która umożliwiłaby młodym widzom krytyczne korzystanie z mediów i lepsze zrozumienie proponowanych publiczności treści.

Przyjęcie przez Parlament mojego sprawozdania dotyczącego filmu europejskiego w dobie cyfrowej jest dobrym przykładem na to, że europejska kinematografia oraz potrzeba digitalizacji naszego dziedzictwa filmowego jest istotnym aspektem ochrony europejskiej tożsamości i wspólnego dziedzictwa kulturowego.

30. Seguito dell'iniziativa dei cittadini europei "L'acqua è un diritto" (breve presentazione)

  President. – The next item is the report by Lynn Boylan, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water (2014/2239(INI)) (A8-0228/2015).

  Lynn Boylan, rapporteur. – Madam President. The Right2Water European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) was the first successful example of this democratic mechanism and it reached almost double the minimum requirements with a staggering 1.8 million signatures.

It is clear that the human right to water is an issue of great importance for citizens across Europe. Ownership and management of water services are clearly key concerns for citizens and cannot be ignored.

In my home country, Ireland, which you will be familiar with yourself, Madam President, the introduction of flat-rate regressive charges has resulted in some of the largest protests the country has ever seen. Given that Ireland previously had what was considered one of the most progressive forms of paying for water, through general taxation, this anger is understandable. Irish people should not have to submit to an unjust double taxation, which will also affect the poor the hardest.

In spite of the unparalleled success of this ECI, the official response of the Commission was vague, disappointing and did not properly address the demands of the Right2Water campaign. The response lacked ambition and ignored the key demands of Right2Water. In this report I have tried to better answer the citizens who are still waiting for proper action from the EU. It is pitiful that the Commission had not come forward with legislative proposals enshrining water as a human right and a legal requirement across the European Union. This was a key demand of the Right2Water ECI and it has been roundly ignored by the Commission so far.

I have called on it in this report to rectify the situation. I have recognised that the provision of water services is a natural monopoly, where competition amongst private operators has not worked, does not work and will never work. Water is a public good and should never be commodified. Profits should not be made on public goods such as water. All revenues must be reinvested into improving infrastructure of water service and not go to shareholders or executives’ pay. It is critical that the Commission respect the Member States’ right to organise their water services as they see fit.

Indeed, across the world, we have experienced a growing rise in the re—municipalisation of water services. In other words, water services previously run by private companies are being brought back under public management due to the abject failures of privatisation in the water sector.

I would like to express my thanks for the support from the Right2Water campaign itself and the support of MEPs in the more progressive Groups, but I am extremely disappointed with the EPP Group, which along with the ECR has produced an alternative resolution which strips the strong and progressive aspects from my report.

I can see that they have worked very hard to disguise their sham, but if anyone reads the two reports it is clear where their ambitions lie. They have worked wormholes through the report to weaken it beyond any recognition. Gone is any criticism of the Commission’s failure to respond to the campaign. Gone is the call for the human right to water to be enshrined in legislation, and gone is any criticism of the privatisation of water services.

They have removed the call for the Commission to remain neutral on the question of ownership and not to promote privatisation of water services. Indeed the whole motion is very private-sector-friendly, so much so that the original call for water services to be removed from TTIP is completely missing. They have deleted so many positive aspects of the report that it has gone from 37 pages to a 9-page document which reads more like an EPP position paper supported by the Tories than an honest response to the almost 2 million citizens who signed this ECI. It is a dishonest attempt to gag the voices of those who campaigned for the human right to water. Given that this was meant to be Parliament’s opportunity to respond to the Right2Water ECI it will reflect incredibly poorly on us as the supposed voice of European citizens if this alternative motion is passed, which is not supported by the Right2Water campaign. The ECI was meant to show citizens that the EU is willing to re-engage with them on matters which are important to them. If this alternative motion passes, then the ECI is dead in the water.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, Istra, jedna mala europska regija na zapadu Hrvatske, je možda najbolji primjer kako se javnom vodoopskrbom može zadovoljiti potrebe građana i pravo na vodu. I zaista, osnovno, elementarno, ljudsko pravo je pravo na vodu.

Uspjeli smo u jednoj relativno ruralnoj regiji doći do toga da 99,4 % stanovništva ima javnu vodoopskrbu, pitku vodu. I to prvenstveno zahvaljujući solidarnosti građana i javnog lokalnog i regionalnog sektora. Zato ja nisam, neovisno što pripadam skupini ALDE, za privatizaciju vodoopskrbnog sustava pod svaku cijenu.

Dapače, suprotno, pokazalo se da je voda nešto na što svaki građanin ima pravo i u tom se kontekstu značajno zalažem da voda i upravljanje vodom budu što više u javnom vlasništvu, jer je to garancija da će onda i svaki građanin imati pravo na vodu.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Fast 2 Millionen Bürger haben in Europa diesen Aufruf unterzeichnet für Wasser als öffentliches Gut. Wasser soll in Europa nicht der Liberalisierung, der Privatisierung, dem Wettbewerb ausgesetzt werden, das sollen also nicht Konzerne, sondern Stadtwerke ausrichten. Und drittens soll Wasser auch aus Handelsverträgen herausgehalten werden, um eben zu verhindern, dass in Drittweltländern Konzerne die Wasserwirtschaft diktieren.

Ich dachte, wir im Parlament hätten eine breite Mehrheit, das zu unterstützen. Das war auch der Fall im Umweltausschuss, und ich bin auch sehr, sehr traurig über den Ansatz der Konservativen, PPE aber auch ECR, hier quasi den Konzernen auf den Leim zu gehen und zu fordern, dass man auch in Europa die Wasserwirtschaft liberalisiert, privatisiert und Wasser auch in TTIP, TISA, CETA – also in die internationalen Handelsverträge –mit einschreibt. Ich hoffe, dass wir das morgen in der Abstimmung verhindern können. Vielen Dank!

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κατ’ αρχάς θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ την εισηγήτρια για την έκθεσή της που περιλαμβάνει όλα όσα είχαμε τη δυνατότητα να συζητήσουμε στην ημερίδα που διοργάνωσε το κίνημα «SOSτε το ΝΕΡΟ» στη Θεσσαλονίκη τον προηγούμενο Μάιο, όπου είχαμε κληθεί να συμμετάσχουμε ως ομιλητές. Στηρίζω με τη σειρά μου τον αγώνα των κινημάτων και την ευρωπαϊκή πρωτοβουλία των πολιτών για το δικαίωμα στο νερό και καλώ την Επιτροπή να εξαιρέσει τις υπηρεσίες ύδρευσης από τις διαπραγματεύσεις που βρίσκονται σε εξέλιξη για την ΤΤΙΡ και για την TiSA. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να τηρήσει τη Συνθήκη και να πάψει να προωθεί την ιδιωτικοποίηση των επιχειρήσεων ύδρευσης, ιδίως, σε χώρες που βρίσκονται σε μνημόνιο, όπως συμβαίνει στην Ελλάδα με την ΕΥΑΘ στη Θεσσαλονίκη. Στηρίζω την έκθεση και αντιτάσσομαι στις τροπολογίες του ΕΛΚ που προσπαθεί να αποδυναμώσει την έκθεση και την εκστρατεία των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Το νερό αποτελεί δημόσιο αγαθό και η πρόσβαση στην ύδρευση και την αποχέτευση αποτελεί αναφαίρετο δικαίωμα κάθε πολίτη όπως καθορίζει και η ίδια η Γενική Συνέλευση του ΟΗΕ.

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo ringraziare la collega Boylan per questa importante relazione. Io vengo da un paese l'Italia, in cui i più di 27 milioni hanno votato affinché l'acqua rimanesse un bene comune, rimanesse pubblica. Eppure questo referendum è stato ampiamente disatteso, non considerato. Ecco, io non vorrei che la legge, la proposta di iniziativa popolare, l'iniziativa popolare di milioni di cittadini europei, facesse la stessa fine. Ed è per questo che sono convinta che si sia importante sostenere l'ICE sul diritto all'acqua e che Lynn Boyan abbia fatto un ottimo lavoro in questa direzione.

Credo che l'Unione non possa tardare ulteriormente nel riconoscere quello che già l'ONU ha riconosciuto come un diritto umano: il diritto all'acqua potabile. Siamo già in ritardo nel riconoscere questo come un diritto anche nell'Unione europea. Aggiungo, per la democrazia, per la struttura democratica dell'Unione, la Commissione ha il dovere di rispettare quello che è il contenuto dell'ICE. Mi auguro che il gruppo, l'intergruppo di questo Parlamento su beni comuni servizi pubblici, sappia essere utile anche in questa direzione.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, I am at a loss for how to vote on this one, because I agree with so much of what the rapporteur says. I agree: water is a human right. I agree that public services must be exempted from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – it is something which simply should not be negotiable. I agree that water must be a natural monopoly, personally. I share a lot of the concerns about foreign aid and helping with water supplies in the poorest countries, and we have a Citizens’ Initiative, where over a million-and-a-half citizens in Europe have petitioned – and yet fewer than 15 people are here today to debate it.

We have had so much contact from constituents, and I support all that. At the same time, as somebody who is opposed to the European Union in principle, I have concerns about EU money, about nation states’ rights, about the direction of travel for more Europe. I genuinely do not know how I am going to vote on this one.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Tibor Navracsics, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like, on behalf of the Commission, to thank the European Parliament, and in particular, Ms Boylan, for the report on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right2Water’. As the Commission has made clear in its response to the initiative, water is not a commercial product like any other, but rather a heritage which must be protected, defended and treated as such. Access to it cannot be taken for granted, although many people in Europe do so.

The Commission has always underlined that an important condition for providing access to water is the preservation and protection of water resources. This is a cornerstone of EU environment policy. The EU directives on drinking water and urban wastewater treatment, as well as the Water Framework Directive, set the standards for water and sanitation and provide the basis for integrated water resource management. As your report states, globally, access to water and sanitation is a global issue of huge importance. Fifteen years on from the UN Millennium Declaration, the statistics are still challenging: 748 million people still do not have access to safe drinking water and 2.5 billion people lack access to basic levels of sanitation. Therefore I welcome Sustainable Development Goal 6, which aims to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.

The SDGs are at the core of the post-2015 agenda. The EU stands ready to play its full part in its implementation, both through its external action as well as its internal policies and actions, and I hope that we will be able to gather momentum with all partners to achieve universal access in the not too distant future.

I wish to reaffirm the Commission’s position on the importance of the human rights dimension of access to safe drinking water and sanitation, including within the EU itself. Firstly, the Commission recognises the importance of water as a public good. The provision of water services is in general the responsibility of the local authorities, as they are closest to the citizens. Secondly, the Commission has clarified the principle of neutrality. Treaty rules require the EU to remain neutral in relation to national decisions governing the ownership regime for water undertakings, be it public or private. Moreover, EU rules on concessions acknowledge the specificity of water. Works and services concerning drinking water and sanitation have been excluded from the scope of the Concessions Directive, and the subsidiarity principle regarding the choice of method of water management has been fully recognised. This also applies to trade deals. No EU trade deal has ever restricted EU Member States’ freedom to organise their public services – including water – the way they choose. TTIP – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership – will be no different. Thirdly, I re-confirm the Commission’s commitment to a number of actions which will ensure that these principles remain at the heart of its policies, and I welcome the emphasis placed in the committee’s report on the importance of Member States implementing EU legislation.

The Commission will build on existing legislation and policies to continue to increase and improve access to safe drinking water and sanitation for the whole population through environmental policies and infrastructure funding.

Let me now emphasise again the positive impact the Citizens’ Initiative has had on putting water issues high on the political agenda. We welcome your numerous calls on the Commission for action. The Commission is carefully considering them in the context of a number of actions, for example in the evaluation of the Drinking Water Directive, the preparation of the Water Re-use Initiative and the upcoming review of the Water Framework Directive, and the ongoing dialogue with the stakeholders – including the initiators of the Citizens’ Initiative – on benchmarking water quality and services.

To conclude, I would like to add an important element. EU water policies and activities over the past decades have allowed access to adequate sanitation and drinking water services for the large majority of EU citizens. Challenges remain. Member States play a big role in the implementation of EU legislation, while further targeted action by the Commission is under way. We all have to play together in ensuring full compliance with EU water legislation, thus helping to ensure access to clean water and sanitation for all citizens throughout the EU. We welcome the strong support and additional calls from this House for more ambitious action, in particular to involve citizens and to provide more transparency. Also, the call for access to safe drinking water and sanitation is much welcomed and will be taken into account in future Commission work.

As regards the European Citizens’ Initiative tool itself, I am pleased to note that this major innovation introduced by the Lisbon Treaty is now up and running and involving citizens more closely in EU agenda-setting. However, there is still clearly room for improvement. In the report on the application of Regulation No 211/2011 on the Citizens’ Initiative published on 31 March 2015, the Commission took stock of this situation after three years of application. The report identified a number of issues in the current functioning of the instrument as a basis for further discussion and reflection on how to improve it. The Commission is now awaiting input from stakeholders, in particular the own initiative report of the European Parliament on ECI. This report will feed into the Commission’s analysis on how to improve the functioning of the European Citizens’ Initiative and make the tool as effective as possible. The Commission is looking forward to further cooperation with Parliament on both these important issues: the follow-up of the Right2Water initiative and the evolution of the tool.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday, 8 September 2015.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Nicola Caputo (S&D), per iscritto. – Right2Water è la prima iniziativa dei cittadini europei che, con i suoi due milioni di firme ha raggiunto la soglia minima per essere sottoposta ufficialmente alla Commissione europea. Questi numeri sono sufficienti per farci capire quanto il tema sia sentito dai cittadini europei. Proprio per questo motivo ci si aspettava molto di più dalla comunicazione della Commissione che risulta invece deludente e poco ambiziosa, non rispondendo alle richieste specifiche espresse dall'iniziativa.

Ecco perché questo Parlamento ha l'obbligo di spingere la Commissione europea a rispondere con i fatti alle preoccupazioni sollevate dai cittadini. La Commissione deve lavorare prioritariamente a una revisione della direttiva quadro sulle acque che riconosca l'accesso universale e il diritto umano all'acqua, così come l'accesso universale ad acqua potabile sicura e ai servizi igienico-sanitari dovrebbe essere riconosciuto nella Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea.

Inoltre, dobbiamo essere compatti nell'affermare che i servizi idrici e fognari, in quanto servizi di interesse generale, dovrebbero essere esclusi dalle regole del mercato interno e dagli accordi commerciali che l'UE sta attualmente negoziando, come il TTIP. Mi auguro davvero che la Commissione saprà dare seguito a queste istanze. Se non dovesse farlo, l'Unione europea in quanto tale perderebbe credibilità agli occhi dei cittadini.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D), por escrito. – Los ciudadanos lo han dicho alto y claro: el agua no es un bien comercial sino un bien público. El derecho al agua y el saneamiento es un derecho humano y, sin embargo, solo en la UE más de un millón de personas no tienen acceso al agua potable segura y limpia y el 2% de la población tampoco dispone de servicios de saneamiento. En el resto del mundo son muchos millones de personas los que padecen esta situación inhumana. La respuesta de la Comisión a los ciudadanos es decepcionante, no responde a las demandas de éstos, que piden acciones nuevas y la presentación de una propuesta legislativa para la implementación del derecho humano al agua y el saneamiento como servicios públicos esenciales para todos, tal y como ha reconocido la ONU. Los socialistas defendemos el derecho al agua y el saneamiento de todas las personas, que debe incorporarse a la Directiva marco, apostamos por un modelo de titularidad y control público de la gestión, basado en el agua como derecho indiscutible y no como mercancía, nos oponemos a cualquier intento de privatizar este bien público y a los cortes de suministro a los ciudadanos sin recursos económicos.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), písemně. – Je nezbytné si uvědomit smutný fakt, totiž že minimálně 748 milionů lidí nemá trvalý přístup k bezpečné pitné vodě a že třetina světové populace nemá k dispozici základní sanitární a hygienická zařízení, což jsou naprosto alarmující fakta. V důsledku této situace je naplnění práva na zdraví ohroženo, dochází k šíření nemocí, které způsobují utrpení a smrt a výrazně brání rozvoji. Smutným faktem je i to, že denně umírá 4 000 dětí na následky infekčních onemocnění z nekvalitní vody a v důsledku neadekvátních hygienických zařízení a 3,5 milionů lidí umírá každý rok v důsledku infekčních onemocnění z vody. Tento trend musíme změnit. Občanskou iniciativu Right2water podpořilo téměř 1,9 milionu občanů ze všech členských států EU. Doufám a zároveň jasně vyzývám Komisi, aby v souladu se stávajícím hlavním cílem evropské občanské iniciativy předložila adekvátní legislativní návrhy, a to v dohledné době!

  Pavel Poc (S&D), písemně. – Evropská občanská iniciativa je nový mechanismus participativní demokracie, který má od roku 2012 umožnit občanům Evropské unie přímo ovlivnit a formovat politický program. Občanská iniciativa „Voda a hygiena jsou lidská práva! Voda je veřejný statek, ne komodita!“, známá pod názvem Right2Water, získala v době předložení 1,6 milionu ověřených podpisů od občanů ze všech států EU a stala se tak první úspěšnou evropskou občanskou iniciativou. S ohledem na tento fakt i vzhledem k masovým hnutím občanů v jednotlivých členských státech očekávali signatáři a organizátoři iniciativy odpovídající reakci Evropské komise. Místo toho se jim dostalo naprosto vágní odpovědi, která postrádá jakékoli ambice. Komise především nepředložila žádný odpovídající legislativní návrh, což byl klíčový požadavek iniciativy Right2Water.

Evropský parlament se proto rozhodl zareagovat zprávou z vlastního podnětu a přimět Komisi, aby dostála svým závazkům. Přesto jsme svědky snahy oslabit i tuto zprávu předložením alternativního usnesení, které postrádá všechny klíčové prvky odhlasované ve výboru ENVI. Toto alternativní usnesení není podporováno iniciativou Right2Water a vypadá spíše jako poziční dokument PPE podporovaný ECR. Apeluji proto na všechny své kolegy z České republiky, aby nepodpořili alternativní usnesení PPE, které nejen že není v souladu s tím, co chtějí občané, ale které naprosto znehodnocuje celý mechanismus evropské občanské iniciativy.

  Claude Rolin (PPE), par écrit. – "L'eau, un droit humain" ou le thème d'une initiative citoyenne pour laquelle j'avais d'ailleurs été ambassadeur dans mes précédentes fonctions de Secrétaire général de la Confédération des syndicats chrétiens de Belgique. Nous avions alors récolté près de deux millions de signatures. Deux millions d'Européens qui réclament que l'eau soit accessible à toutes et à tous, qui réclament que l'eau ne soit pas une marchandise. L'eau, c'est comme l'air, on en a tous besoin pour vivre. Il n'est dès lors pas question qu'on la privatise. Au contraire, il faut que l'eau soit accessible en qualité et en quantité pour tous. Il faut faire en sorte que les prix pour les premières tranches de consommation soient beaucoup plus bas que les prix pour les grands consommateurs. En tous les cas, cette initiative citoyenne est importante – importante pour l'humanité, mais aussi importante en termes de crédibilité démocratique. À la Commission européenne maintenant de mettre en œuvre ce qui se trouve dans cette initiative.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – As a co-author of a previous Parliament resolution dealing with the right to water, I fully support the call for legislation to implement the right to water and sanitation. This is a human right as recognised by the United Nations and should be underpinned by the proper legal framework to ensure that it is a reality for everyone. I welcome the Commission’s recognition that water is not a commercial product, but overall I think the Commission’s response to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right2Water’ has been disappointing. Pressure on water resources is growing. In the interests of the environment and human rights, the EU should provide the necessary support to ensure that resources are managed properly and water is accessible and affordable for all.

31. Ordine del giorno della prossima seduta: vedasi processo verbale

32. Chiusura della seduta

(The sitting closed at 23.25)