Пълен протокол на разискванията

Четвъртък, 16 март 2017 г. - Страсбург

1. Откриване на заседанието

Elnökváltás: GÁLL-PELCZ ILDIKÓ
alelnök

(Az ülést 9.00-kor nyitják meg.)

2. Рамка на Съюза за събиране, управление и използване на данни в сектор „Рибарство“ (разискване)

  Elnök asszony. – Az első napirendi pont a Marco Affronte által a Halászati Bizottság nevében készített, „A halászati ágazatban az adatok gyűjtésére, kezelésére és felhasználására szolgáló uniós keretrendszer” című javaslatról szóló jelentésről folytatott vita (COM(2015)0294 – C8-0160/2015 – 2015/0133(COD)) (A8-0150/2016).

  Marco Affronte, relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la raccolta dei dati scientifici è essenziale per un'attuazione della politica comune della pesca, in quanto consente di fondarla sui migliori pareri scientifici. I dati servono per valutare lo stato degli stock ittici, la redditività dei vari segmenti del settore e l'impatto della pesca e dell'acquacoltura sugli ecosistemi. Ma i dati sono necessari anche per valutare le politiche dell'Unione europea: misure di gestione della pesca, misure finanziarie e strutturali a sostegno della pesca e della cultura, misure di mitigazione destinate a ridurre gli effetti negativi della pesca sull'ecosistema.

Ci servono dati scientifici per applicare buone norme ed efficaci politiche di gestione della pesca e ci servono dati per valutare se queste politiche funzionano o se vanno modificate e migliorate. Per questo motivo nel 2000 è stato istituito un quadro dell'Unione europea per la raccolta e la gestione dei dati sulla pesca, divenuto nel 2008 il quadro per la raccolta dei dati o Data Collection Framework (DCF), che ha rappresentato un importante progresso nell'elaborazione di una serie armonizzata di norme dell'Unione per la raccolta dei dati biologici, ambientali, tecnici e socioeconomici sui settori della pesca, dell'acquacultura e della trasformazione.

La politica comune della pesca ci impone di gestire le attività di pesca tenendo conto del loro impatto sull'ecosistema. Su queste basi dobbiamo costruire una più profonda e completa conoscenza degli ecosistemi marini, in modo da non muoverci alla cieca e non accorgerci delle conseguenze delle nostre politiche solo dopo che questi appaiono, spesso in maniera negativa. Ciò è particolarmente importante per poter conseguire il massimo rendimento sostenibile (Maximum Sustainable Yield, MSY) entro il 2020. Il massimo rendimento sostenibile è un concetto relativamente nuovo, molto importante, che si basa però su valori numerici che devono essere stabiliti in maniera scientifica e sulla base di dati, studi e ricerche.

La proposta della Commissione su questo dossier si basava su ciò che già funzionava nell'attuale sistema di raccolta dati, mantenendo così la continuità ma consentendo, al tempo stesso, di adeguarsi ai nuovi requisiti. Quello che siamo riusciti a ottenere, grazie al lavoro che abbiamo fatto insieme ai relatori ombra, con i quali c'è stato grande accordo su questa relazione e grande condivisione soprattutto nei momenti difficili di discussione con il Consiglio, è un campo di applicazione ampliato in modo da comprendere la raccolta dei dati per la protezione dell'ambiente marino, cioè dati che servono per valutare l'impatto della pesca sull'ecosistema marino, comprese le zone marine vulnerabili e le specie e gli habitat più delicati. Questo, ovviamente, insieme ai dati necessari per la gestione sostenibile di tutte le specie sfruttate commercialmente e in particolare per il raggiungimento di un buono stato ecologico entro il 2020.

Abbiamo inserito la necessità di coprire quelle attività di pesca cosiddette data deficient, cioè senza il necessario supporto attuale di conoscenze scientifiche; abbiamo anche voluto che questi dati fossero disposizione di tutti: istituzioni, ricercatori, associazioni ambientaliste e chiunque sia interessato a studiarli e a valutarli. Ma abbiamo anche posto dei termini più stretti per gli Stati membri, per rispondere alle richieste dei dati da utenti finali e delle altre parti interessate.

Ci muoviamo nella direzione di database a livello regionale, questo è importante perché i dati vengono raccolti su aree marine più ampie e in maniera standardizzata e armonizzata.

Raccoglieremo dati anche sull'acquacultura, sia a livello biologico che a livello socioeconomico; raccoglieremo dati sulla pesca ricreativa, anche se in questo caso ne siamo usciti parzialmente sconfitti perché era importante inserire i dati socioeconomici ma non ce l'abbiamo fatta; abbiamo comunque l'impatto ambientale della pesca ricreativa.

Abbiamo insistito affinché si raggiunga un numero adeguato ed esaustivo di campagne di ricerca obbligatoria in mare, da stabilire a livello dell'Unione, e infine, a seguito di un lungo braccio di ferro con il Consiglio, abbiamo ottenuto che la maggior parte del quadro di raccolta dei dati, in particolare l'elenco di quali dati e quali categorie di dati raccogliere, venga adottato tramite atti delegati. In questo modo abbiamo difeso le prerogative del Parlamento europeo che deve poter valutare e pronunciarsi su atti così importanti.

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, can I just say a few words on behalf of Commissioner Vella, who would very much have liked to have been here for this discussion, but who unfortunately could not travel. Data collection might seem a rather technical issue, but it is – as we have just heard – fundamental to work in this area. It has been said that if you do not measure it, you cannot manage it, and management of our fish stocks is of critical importance for the stocks themselves and for the livelihood of our fishing communities. The European Parliament and the Council recognised this at the time of the adoption of the common fisheries policy, making a common declaration calling on the Commission to fast-track the review of the data collection framework.

The Commission delivered, and today I am happy to see that we have reached a political agreement on the new regulation, which can finally be adopted and published. This will enable the scientific institutions in Member States to start collecting the necessary data for all the new requirements of the CFP. This has been possible thanks to this House’s will to tackle efficiently such a technical subject. We can now move one step forward towards enhancing regional cooperation in data collection, which has been an important objective of the CFP reforms. The data collection framework is essential for the implementation of the CFP as it provides the basic data for scientific advice on fishing quotas and on impact assessments for the evolution of EU fisheries.

The recast was focused on two main issues. First, to ensure delivery on CFP reform objectives, providing the scientific data necessary for sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, while protecting the marine ecosystem and reducing discards and, at the same time, achieving economic, social, unemployment benefits and food security. Second, to simplify the current system: collect only what is needed, remove overlaps and reduce the number of rules at EU level.

Overall, as has been recognised, the current framework has proven to be fit for purpose, and therefore the basic principles will not change. EU multiannual programmes are agreed and adopted at EU level and then implemented by national work plans in which Member States divide tasks amongst themselves. Basic data storage will remain at Member State level, and Member States will remain responsible for ensuring that good quality data is available to end users such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

An important issue that was debated in the final stages between Parliament and Council was the adoption procedure for the multiannual programmes on data collection, which define the detailed data requirements, the list of scientific surveys at sea and thresholds for the obligation to collect data. We are satisfied with the final compromise, which splits up the multiannual programme in a delegated act for the data requirements and implementing acts for the thresholds and the list of surveys. Thank you to the rapporteur for his work on this and for the opportunity this morning to discuss this important subject.

  Werner Kuhn, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar King! Ich möchte mich herzlich beim Berichterstatter, Marco Affronte, bedanken, der hier sehr konstruktive Arbeit geleistet hat. Es war ein gutes Miteinander auch mit den Schattenberichterstattern. Und wir waren uns alle einig darüber, dass die Datenerhebung des Fischereisektors, aber auch der Freizeitfischerei und der Aquakultur eine wichtige Basis dafür ist, um die gegenwärtige Situation der fish stocks, sprich der Bestände, einschätzen zu können.

Wir sind dabei und machen Mehrjahres-, Mehrartenpläne für die Ostsee, wir sind jetzt bei der Nordsee, gehen weiter in den Westostatlantik und dann nachher auch ins Mittelmeer. Und dafür ist es absolut notwendig, dass wir wissenschaftlich basierte Daten zur Verfügung haben. Da müssen alle mitarbeiten, alle Stakeholder, die sozusagen in dem System mit eingebunden sind. Da spielt der Sektor eine ganz entscheidende und große Rolle, sprich die Berufsfischerei. Sie ist natürlich sowieso verpflichtet, die Daten über ihre angelandeten Fänge zu dokumentieren und auch an die zuständigen Stellen zu geben. Aber wir wollen das auch für den Bereich der Freizeitfischerei in Angriff nehmen. Das ist in zunehmendem Maße ein Sektor, mit dem wir uns auseinandersetzen, weil er erstens eine große ökonomische Bedeutung hat, aber zweitens natürlich auch die fischereiliche Sterblichkeit von unterschiedlichen Fischarten eine ganz entscheidende Rolle spielt. Deshalb ist es notwendig, dass wir dort genauso Daten erfassen.

Im Bereich der Aquakultur möchte ich sagen, dass das hier natürlich auch sehr entscheidend für die Versorgung der Bevölkerung mit Fisch und Fischprodukten ist. Europa ist der größte Importmarkt der Welt. Wir können nur ungefähr ein Drittel mit eigenem Aufkommen realisieren und unsere Bevölkerung, unsere Kunden, versorgen. Alles andere sind Importe. Deshalb legen wir auch in besonderer Weise auf den Bereich der Aquakultur, der Kreislaufwirtschaft ein großes Augenmerk. Aber dazu brauchen wir natürlich auch Daten.

Richtig, Herr Kommissar, Sie haben das angesprochen: Es ist notwendig, dass wir die Gemeinsame Fischereipolitik, die Grundverordnung, in der Zukunft noch exakter durchsetzen können. Der Internationale Rat für Meeresforschung braucht dann natürlich auch Daten. Die können sie sicher auch alleine mit ihren Forschungsschiffen erheben, aber nicht in solchem Umfang, wie wenn wir die drei Sektoren miteinbeziehen – das heißt, die Berufsfischerei, die quotierte Fänge bringt, aber auch unquotierte Fänge, die Freizeitfischerei, die auch letztendlich ihre Daten angeben muss, und bei der Aquakultur soll es in besonderer Weise der Marinebereich sein, das heißt, die Aquakultur, die in den Küstenbereichen stattfindet, dass wir dort die Daten haben, um auch die Rückkopplung zu bekommen, welche Auswirkung es tatsächlich auf das Ökosystem hat. Die Interaktion zwischen den einzelnen Spezies spielt dabei auch eine Rolle.

Insofern, muss ich sagen, haben wir gute Ergebnisse erzielt, haben uns als Parlament auch gegenüber dem Rat soweit durchgesetzt, dass die delegierten Rechtsakte klar definiert sind: Wer hat welche Aufgabe zu erledigen? Da ist eindeutig klar, dass die verpflichtende Datenerhebung für den Bereich der offenen See gilt und die Schwellenwerte dort festgelegt sind. Das wird als Durchführungsrechtsakt sozusagen gemeinsam zwischen Rat und Kommission entschieden, und die delegierten Rechtsakte bleiben sozusagen mit der Einspruchsmöglichkeit des Parlaments – alles, was die Grundverordnung betrifft.

Herzlichen Dank nochmal allen Beteiligten. Wir haben hier eine gute Basis für die Gemeinsame Fischereipolitik in der Zukunft.

  Ricardo Serrão Santos, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, quero também agradecer ao relator, o nosso colega Marco Affronte, assim como aos restantes relatores—sombra e aos representantes das instituições ao nível do trílogo. Penso que concluímos um bom regulamento.

Enquanto relator-sombra pelos Socialistas e Democratas para este diploma, saliento que os dados científicos das pescas têm sido essenciais para a gestão e decisão com base no conhecimento.

A revisão que aqui aprovamos abre novas possibilidades para a cooperação entre os Estados-Membros, tornando coerente a cooperação a nível regional. Sendo eu próprio oriundo de uma instituição científica que lida com dados de pesca, reforço a importância da coerência da informação recolhida.

Este novo regulamento dá também ênfase à possibilidade de cruzeiros científicos e não só à aquisição de dados biológicos à descarga da pesca comercial. Os cruzeiros científicos, independentes da pesca comercial, são fundamentais para completar uma visão holística dos recursos.

Outro aspeto muito relevante é a maior transparência no acesso aos dados resultantes dos programas abrangidos pelo regulamento. As instituições que tenham uma razão válida poderão solicitar os dados das pescas obtidos a partir dos sistemas de recolha financiados a nível europeu. Este diploma fomentará a transparência e, certamente, resultará em melhor conhecimento que permita sustentar melhor gestão.

Preocupa, no entanto, a falta de garantias na participação das autoridades regionais nas fases de planeamento e de recolha.

Sendo as entidades que mais de perto lidam com os problemas, em muitos casos, os governos regionais têm mesmo responsabilidades na gestão de recursos e podem, caso essa seja a interpretação do Estado-Membro, ficar fora do processo. Estarei atento e garantirei que ninguém fica excluído.

Por fim, quero ainda salientar a elegância com que foi resolvida a legitimidade do acompanhamento e da implementação do programa. Após um diálogo jurídico vivo e denso ao nível do trílogo, chegou-se a uma solução eficaz. A aproximação mista entre atos delegados e atos de execução legitima a especificidade de cada uma das instituições de governação europeias.

  Ruža Tomašić, u ime kluba ECR. – Gospođo predsjednice, zahvaljujem gospodinu Affronteu na konstruktivnom izvješću. Prikupljanje podataka i njihovo korištenje u svrhu donošenja boljih podataka od posebne je važnosti u sektoru ribarstva. Želimo li osigurati ribarima pravo na rad te katalizirati ekonomski rast i očuvanje poslova u primorskim krajevima, a s druge strane učinkovito zaštiti morske resurse, naravno da se moramo osloniti na relevantne podatke.

Kao zastupnica iz Hrvatske zabrinuta sam što još uvijek nemamo potpune podatke o stanju ribljih stokova u Jadranu. Dostupni se podaci iz različitih izvora dobrim dijelom međusobno isključuju pa je teško donijeti politike koje će predstavljati kvalitetan balans između interesa ribara i zaštite resursa.

Stoga apeliram na nadležne na svim razinama da ovo pitanje reguliramo sa što manje propisa, osiguramo jednostavno prikupljanje podataka koje neće predstavljati opterećenje ribarima i olakšamo razmjenu među nadležnim tijelima. Relevantni su podaci ključ dobrih politika u ribarstvu.

  António Marinho e Pinto, em nome do Grupo ALDE. – Senhora Presidente, começo por saudar também o relator e o excelente trabalho que fez e solidarizar-me com a perspetiva que incutiu no seu relatório, que é frisar a necessidade de dados científicos para podermos avaliar os impactos da pesca, não só ao nível da capacidade de reprodução dos stocks, no plano quantitativo, mas também e sobretudo ao nível da sustentabilidade ambiental dessa atividade económica, tão necessária ao desenvolvimento económico e tão necessária ao sustento de milhões de famílias em todo o mundo.

Gostaria de dizer que a sustentabilidade tem de incluir obrigatoriamente a questão ambiental. Não há sustentabilidade se não protegermos o ambiente e se não formos todos envolvidos nesse projeto e nesse trabalho de proteção da qualidade ambiental dos oceanos. Só assim as pescas serão sustentáveis, só assim as pescas poderão cumprir o seu objetivo económico.

Mas, por outro lado, quero também frisar que se deve criar um equilíbrio entre os interesses da pesca profissional e os interesses do turismo associados à pesca recreativa em determinadas regiões. Há situações em que os pescadores recreativos têm privilégios em relação aos pescadores profissionais – e isso não é admissível.

Por último, Sra. Presidente, Sr. Comissário, caros colegas, a política de recolha e consolidação dos dados para fazer uma boa gestão da política de pescas só é possível se houver um investimento, um aumento do investimento na investigação científica. São precisas mais verbas para a investigação científica nos oceanos, que possibilitem a recolha de dados fiáveis, que possam cumprir a sua missão informativa.

  João Ferreira, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhora Presidente, só uma gestão dos recursos haliêuticos, ancorada num sólido conhecimento científico, permitirá uma exploração racional e sustentável desses recursos.

A necessidade de recolher, gerir e utilizar os dados da pesca em quantidade e qualidade suficientes é indiscutível, como inquestionável é também a necessidade de tornar estes dados comparáveis e integráveis a nível nacional, regional e internacional.

Há uma dimensão da gestão dos recursos que está, obviamente, para além das fronteiras nacionais, o que exige uma genuína cooperação e empenhada concertação no plano internacional.

O que é, todavia, questionável é que estas necessidades sejam melhor asseguradas no quadro da visão centralizadora que continua a prevalecer na política comum das pescas da União Europeia. Uma visão que tem expressão concreta no enquadramento institucional previsto no Tratado de Lisboa, que confere competências exclusivas à União Europeia neste domínio, o que desde sempre mereceu o nosso desacordo. O tempo tem vindo a mostrar o carácter pernicioso desta visão.

Para além disso, a mesma União Europeia que, erradamente, dispõe de competência exclusiva na definição da política, atira para cima dos Estados uma parte substancial dos custos de financiamento dessa mesma política, não assumindo por inteiro, como devia, as responsabilidades ao nível do financiamento, por exemplo, da aquisição e gestão dos dados.

Queremos mais e melhores dados? Sim. Queremos maiores possibilidades de escrutínio e maior transparência sobre a sua utilização, mas não caucionamos uma visão de gestão dos recursos que nos parece essencialmente errada.

  Linnéa Engström, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I want to start by thanking the rapporteur, my colleague Marco Affronte. I, of course, welcome the report, the negotiating agreement and the work conducted by the team. The new rules on data collection are intended to align this framework with the requirements of the reformed common fisheries policy. One of the things of particular importance to the Greens is sustainable fishing, to keep stocks above levels that can reduce maximum sustainable yield (MSY). This is respecting the objectives of the CFP, as provided in Article 2(2) [of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013]. Reliable stock assessment, including FMSY, is essential to establish fisheries conservation measures, and to ensure that fishing is environmentally sustainable and economically profitable.

We need reliable, comprehensive and long-term data for the purpose of decisions on fisheries management and for the protection of ecosystems, including vulnerable species and habitats. In that respect, we stress the importance of the new framework for data collection, the obligation of the Member States on collection, storage, protection and provision of data, and cooperation within, and between, the Member States. Yesterday we discussed the increasingly vulnerable situation in the Arctic. This is a real example of where we need more science and more data to better understand the unique ecosystems that are now revealed – they have never been touched by mankind, and are being revealed now that the Arctic ice is melting.

  Mike Hookem, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Madam President, information is power. If you run the data you control what people think. Control thinking and you control people themselves and the choices they make. The European Union has long worked on this basis. The EU knows perfectly well that by centralising the data on fish stocks throughout Europe the UK can never escape the suffocating embrace of the common fisheries policy. If Great Grimsby, Hull, Scarborough, Whitby or any other fishing port in the UK is to have a future then we need our sovereignty back. No ifs, no buts; we need to take back full control of all our waters and the means to choose what data we collect. We decide what is monitored and when, and how, and if. Without the power to measure, analyse and utilise fishing data, the UK will still be unable to formulate its own fisheries policies and will remain under the hegemony of the CFP. This report is the Trojan horse, the cuckoo in the nest, the fifth column, the hidden enemy within. Sign up to this under the so-called Great Repeal Bill – which is no such thing – and the UK has lost half the battle to reclaim our own fisheries and waters before the negotiation has even begun. If that sounds theoretical, then just ask the artisanal, shore-based fishermen in my constituency who face losing their livelihoods following the recent sea bass ban. That ban originates in EU data and data control. Sovereignty shared is sovereignty lost.

  Diane James (NI). – Madam President, it is universally acknowledged that the European Union’s common fisheries policy has created enormous environmental and economic damage: discards, overfishing, plummeting fish stocks and thousands of jobs lost. We actually already have that information, and that has led to a damaging impact on communities and cultures.

This report – and, I emphasise, an uncosted proposal – outlines a big data response. What is actually required is a complete overhaul and revision of the existing European Union fisheries policies before this is even started. At the last plenary session here in Strasbourg, the EU cloud was approved. I spoke at that meeting and I highlighted that nearly EUR 5 billion was still identified as the shortfall for the funding. Here we have a big data project linked to the EU cloud, we have not even identified the monies to fund the EU cloud, and yet we are seemingly going to approve a big data project. It really is back to front policy.

  Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora presidenta, comisario, con datos de alta calidad, datos fiables, los científicos pueden dar consejos precisos, los operadores pueden administrar mejor su negocio y nosotros, los políticos, podemos tomar decisiones informadas y producir leyes justas. Todo el mundo gana.

El acuerdo alcanzado por los colegisladores prevé un marco mejorado y simplificado para reunir información amplia y fiable y para ponerla a disposición de todos los implicados a nivel regional y europeo. Las nuevas normas tienen por objeto garantizar que todos los datos pertinentes se recopilen siguiendo un enfoque de costo-beneficio y sin duplicación de esfuerzos. Incluye nuevos tipos de recolección de datos necesarios para la PPC, como los datos de ecosistemas o datos de acuicultura, y promueve soluciones regionales y, a su vez, personalizadas mediante el establecimiento de grupos regionales de coordinación.

Para la reforma de la PPC necesitamos datos, más que nunca, para medir el progresivo logro del rendimiento máximo sostenible, así como los efectos de la obligación de desembarque. Por tanto, este acuerdo es bienvenido.

Por supuesto, necesitamos ver cómo funcionará en su aplicación, porque nos preocupa cómo será en la práctica la coordinación regional, ya que el Reglamento no incluye una descripción precisa de la función de los grupos de coordinación regional ni un Reglamento muy claro. Tampoco está claro quiénes serán los usuarios finales, ya que se decidió no incluir ninguna definición al respecto. Y este es un tema delicado, ya que la confidencialidad de los datos es vital para los operadores. Incluso en las últimas reuniones de coordinación regional se ha puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de acotar de alguna manera este propio término, ya que no hacerlo supondrá una falta de racionalización de los recursos disponibles y, posiblemente, no cumplir con los objetivos que buscamos en este Reglamento.

En todo caso, bienvenido; muchas felicidades al ponente Affronte, a mi colega Kuhn y a todos los ponentes alternativos por un magnífico trabajo.

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

  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Just a small question: do you not think that this is a French and Spanish plot to keep control of British fishing waters after Brexit?

  Gabriel Mato (PPE), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Evidentemente, sabe la respuesta. De complot saben ustedes mucho más que nosotros.

  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D). – Señora presidenta. Buena respuesta, señor Mato, ante determinadas apreciaciones que no merecen otras cosas.

Quiero destacar en primer lugar el buen trabajo realizado por el ponente Affronte, por Ricardo Serrão y por todos los demás ponentes alternativos, porque creo que se ha conseguido un texto interesante para algo que, en nuestra apreciación primera, es muy técnico. Es algo técnico, sí, pero fundamental para tomar determinaciones.

En la Unión Europea, en la pesca, se están recogiendo datos del marco del 2000. Hubo una reforma en 2008 y ahora la política pesquera comunitaria requiere que haya una adaptación, especialmente para articular en esa recopilación todo el asesoramiento científico de apoyo, que es un elemento sustancial para conseguir un gran objetivo de la PPC, el rendimiento máximo sostenible.

Por lo tanto, necesitamos una recopilación de datos adecuada, una buena gestión de estos datos y su uso para conseguir esos grandes objetivos de la PPC que sin esto no sería posible —conseguir los objetivos del rendimiento máximo sostenible— o, por ejemplo también, toda la recopilación de datos que nos van a dar los planes de descarte, que van a proporcionar datos nuevos muy interesantes.

Termino diciendo: en el Mediterráneo hay un gran déficit de los datos que nos van a ayudar a tomar decisiones futuras.

  Remo Sernagiotto (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, una buona norma è quando concilia tutela e sviluppo. Per creare queste condizioni, vi è una grande necessità di raccogliere dati, di conoscere. Noi, come politici, come rappresentanti, non possiamo agire se non conosciamo, perché se una norma agisse solo sulla tutela o solo sullo sviluppo creerebbe una distonia totale rispetto alle volontà della politica.

Per questo motivo io penso che il regolamento in esame sia così importante – e ringrazio anche il collega Affronte e tutti quelli che ci hanno lavorato, il collega Kuhn – perché possiamo considerare la politica comune della pesca (PCP) una grande politica a nostra disposizione.

Non possiamo non tener conto dello sviluppo economico in Europa, soprattutto nei territori rivieraschi, laddove è possibile conciliare più sviluppi economici in tutela e una capacità di non pregiudicare l'armonia di una così importante economia come quella della pesca.

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, concordamos que é muito importante contar com dados científicos certos e de qualidade para uma boa gestão das pescas, mas consideramos que o novo quadro nunca deverá interferir com o desenvolvimento normal das atividades da pesca artesanal e costeira e não deverá ser mais gravoso em termos económicos e administrativos para as frotas.

Pedimos que a recolha e gestão dos dados tenham em conta as especificidades da frota e que os dados socioeconómicos e ambientais se tornem uma parte fundamental da informação recolhida.

Quanto aos dados socioeconómicos, pedimos que se destaque também o papel e a situação das mulheres nas pescas – das marinheiras, redeiras, mariscadoras e outras mulheres que trabalham neste âmbito.

Além disso, os limiares abaixo dos quais não será necessária a recolha de determinados dados ou a realização de campanhas a bordo deverão ser definidos também tendo em conta o tipo de frota e os seus impactos nos recursos.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Madam President, the EU framework for the collection and management of fisheries data has been in place since the year 2000. Under this framework, the Member States collect, manage and make available a wide range of biological, environmental, technical and social economic data on fishing, aquaculture and processing sectors needed for scientific advice.

The agreement we are discussing today includes an improved framework for gathering extensive and reliable information, and making it available at regional and European level. The improvement in data collection will enable the maximum sustainable yield to be evaluated more reliably and ensure long-term sustainability, as laid down in the basic regulation. The regulation will also update and simplify the current rules on data collection to take into account the new CFP reform, achieving maximum sustainable yield and lending obligation. The new rules will ensure that all the relevant data is collected following a cost-benefit approach and without duplication of effort, thus reducing the administrative burden. I am, therefore, in favour of this report.

  Renata Briano (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo dossier affronta un problema molto sentito, soprattutto nel Mediterraneo, un mare ricchissimo di risorse ma caratterizzato da una forte mancanza di dati che consentano di conoscere realmente lo stato di salute dei nostri stock.

La riforma del quadro per la raccolta dei dati è quindi fondamentale per raggiungere gli obiettivi della PCP e richiede lo sforzo degli Stati membri per raccogliere i dati necessari a valutare lo stato delle risorse biologiche marine sfruttate, il livello della pesca e l'impatto di quest'ultima sulle risorse biologiche e anche sugli ecosistemi marini.

La raccolta, la gestione e l'uso dei dati devono rispondere a criteri di precisione, affidabilità e tempestività. Nello stesso tempo è necessario evitare che gli stessi dati siano raccolti più volte per scopi diversi, perché ciò comporterebbe un inutile spreco di risorse. A tal proposito, accolgo con favore la proposta di organizzare una rete europea di dati scientifici per utilizzare le informazioni raccolte a seconda dell'accertamento che si vuole realizzare e in modo da poter anche scambiarle con i paesi terzi.

Il tema è molto complesso e allo stesso tempo strettamente connesso alla necessità di gestire le attività di pesca, tenendo conto del loro impatto sugli ecosistemi ed è per questo che andrebbe gestito secondo il principio della regionalizzazione. Inoltre, abbiamo ancora molto da scoprire sul mare e le sue risorse, le conoscenze scientifiche sono fondamentali per una gestione efficiente e lungimirante ma non bastano, occorrono dati, oltre che sul prelievo, anche sul consumo sul commercio e sulla ristorazione. Anche su questo c'è ancora molto da fare.

  Czesław Hoc (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Harmonizacja unijnych przepisów regulujących gromadzenie wszelkich danych dotyczących sektorów rybołówstwa, akwakultury i przetwórstwa ma kluczowe znaczenie dla wdrażania wspólnej polityki rybołówstwa, umożliwiając oparcie tej polityki na najlepszym możliwie doradztwie naukowym. Jednakże poważnie mnie niepokoi, a nawet irytuje fakt, że bardzo marginalnie, wręcz wcale, potraktowano problem danych w kwestii połowów przemysłowych, tzw. paszowych, na Morzu Bałtyckim.

Bałtyk jest stosunkowo płytkim morzem, zatem wielkie jednostki przemysłowe to pływające fabryki śmierci dla wszelkiego narybku i ryb stanowiących łańcuch pokarmowy dla dorsza. Są one odławiane na mączkę rybną i karmę. To rabunkowo prowadzona gospodarka, to braki w prawidłowym odżywianiu dorsza, a tym samym zakłócanie jego naturalnego procesu reprodukcji i wzrostu tego gatunku.

Bałtyk powoli umiera, rozpaczliwie woła o pomoc. Najwyższy czas na ratunek dorsza – ryby, która według Marka Kurlansky’ego zmieniła świat, a według Komisji Europejskiej może odejść w zapomnienie.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, that the EU collectively, and many Member States individually, have gained immensely from Ireland’s fishing grounds since our accession in 1973 to what was then the EEC, is indisputable. It is also indisputable that when the value to the EU, with the fish taken from Ireland’s fishing grounds, is taken into account, far from being a net beneficiary of funding since joining the EU, Ireland is in fact a net contributor (pardon the pun). The question is, though: to what extent, and exactly how much, has the EU gained from Irish fishing grounds since 1973? Through a series of written questions to the Commission I have been trying to establish that figure, and have failed. Why? The reason repeatedly given is that the EU does not have the data for individual Member States and, for that reason, will not even attempt to give me an estimate. As I said, that the EU has gained from our fishing grounds is indisputable. The fact that they refuse to even give an estimate of that value from all the data they do have is not acceptable. I repeat, this is a matter of major significance for Ireland, even more so now that the EU has lost the UK. Get that data and get me that number.

  José Blanco López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la recopilación, la gestión y el uso de los datos es fundamental para el desarrollo de una actividad pesquera eficiente y para el buen funcionamiento de la política pesquera común.

Para evaluar el impacto de la actividad de la pesca sobre los ecosistemas y las poblaciones pesqueras debemos disponer de datos completos, fiables y armonizados. La recopilación de datos debe adaptarse a las nuevas necesidades sociales con mejoras de la transparencia y con una utilización eficiente de los recursos. Debe facilitarse el acceso a los datos y se deben evitar duplicidades, fomentando la coordinación, aunando esfuerzos entre Estados y contribuyendo a la regionalización de la gestión de la pesca.

Debemos asimismo contemplar la variable de género en todo el proceso de recogida de datos, visibilizando el papel de las mujeres en el sector pesquero. Este informe ofrece avances en muchos de estos aspectos y, por lo tanto, lo considero positivo.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la raccolta dei dati è essenziale per l'attuazione della politica comune della pesca, perché consente di basarla su pareri oggettivi e scientifici. Oltre che per valutare lo stato degli stock ittici, la redditività dei vari segmenti del settore e l'impatto della pesca e dell'acquacoltura sull'ecosistema, i dati sono necessari per valutare le politiche dell'Unione europea quali, ad esempio, le misure di gestione della pesca e di mitigazione.

Importante è la creazione di banche dati regionali sovranazionali, mediante gruppi di coordinamento regionale, per avere dati aggregati e confrontabili. Nel mare Adriatico, ad esempio, si valuteranno complessivamente i dati di Italia, Slovenia e Croazia.

I dati saranno a disposizione di tutti – istituzioni, ricercatori, associazioni ambientaliste e chiunque sia interessato a studiare e a valutarli. Per la prima volta verranno inclusi nel quadro per la raccolta e la gestione dei dati anche i dati che provengono da altri settori che impattano sull'ecosistema marino, quali la pesca ricreativa e la l'acquacoltura.

Trattasi di un importante passo avanti che contribuirà a favorire non di poco lo sviluppo sostenibile della pesca, limitando così l'impatto sull'ecosistema marino.

„Catch the eye” eljárás

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η χρήση δεδομένων στον τομέα της αλιείας είναι απαραίτητη για την αξιολόγηση των πολιτικών της Ένωσης, καθώς βοηθάει στη διαχείριση της αλιείας και στη λήψη διορθωτικών χρηματοοικονομικών μέτρων υπέρ των περιοχών που εξαρτώνται από την αλιεία και την υδατοκαλλιέργεια. Σε μια περίοδο που ο πρωτογενής τομέας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δοκιμάζεται, η Ένωση πρέπει να λάβει μέτρα για την ανασυγκρότηση και ενίσχυσή του. Ειδικότερα οι παράκτιες και νησιωτικές περιοχές αντιμετωπίζουν σημαντικά προβλήματα εξαιτίας της οικονομικής ύφεσης, με αποτέλεσμα τη μείωση του πληθυσμού και τη φυγή των κατοίκων.

Σε χώρες όπως η Ελλάδα, που πλήττεται από τη λιτότητα και τα μνημόνια, οι αλιείς βιώνουν τις συνέπειες του αγροτικού μνημονίου, βλέποντας το εισόδημά τους να μειώνεται δραματικά. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να βοηθήσει στην ενίσχυση της απασχόλησης στις περιοχές αυτές και να αυξήσει τη χρηματοδότηση του αλιευτικού στόλου. Ιδίως, πρέπει να λάβει μέτρα υπέρ της στήριξης των ελλήνων αλιέων .

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, surađivao sam s institutima koji djeluju na Jadranskom moru, pogotovo s onim u Rovinju, ali i u Trstu, Splitu, u Anconi i moram naglasiti da sam potpuno svjestan koliko je važno prikupiti znanstvene podatke neovisno o tome što ponekad ti instituti imaju i pomalo oprečne podatke i oprečne procjene.

Znanstvena suradnja na osjetljivim morima kao što su mala zatvorena mora, a Jadransko more je takvo malo, zatvoreno more, u sklopu jednog većeg mora, Mediteranskog mora, koje isto tako na žalost nije dovoljno istraženo i nemamo dovoljno podataka što se cijelog Mediterana tiče te zato pozdravljam ovaj prijedlog i pozdravljam rezultate koje očekujemo. Predlažem da se k tome skupljaju i podaci o impaktu ribarstva i ribolova na turizam da vidimo što znači tradicijsko ribarstvo i da vidimo kakvo nam je zdravlje morskih organizama.

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to say thank you to the Parliament for prioritising the work on the Recast Regulation on Data Collection and, in particular, thank you to the rapporteur and his team for their work. I will make sure I give a full account of this discussion to Commissioner Vella.

We provided for transitional arrangements so that immediately after adoption and publication of the recast there is no legal vacuum. The current Multiannual Programme for Data Collection will remain applicable until replaced by a new one. There have been a couple of comments about data storage. I would just record that basic storage of data will remain at Member State level and Member States will remain responsible for ensuring that good quality data is available for end-users. The current multiannual programme was adopted last summer and it was already updated with many of the new requirements. So, there is no need to replace it urgently. The Member States’ work plans for data collection were approved last summer. Member States will already have started collecting data accordingly. When important modifications are needed, Member States will need to resubmit the work plans for approval in the normal way. Meanwhile, Member States have already started to transition from regional coordination meetings to regional coordination groups, ensuring more continuity and better involving the relevant end-users in data collection.

In summary, by the end of 2017 we expect the new legal framework for data collection to be operational for collecting all data needed for what I take to be our shared objective, the effective implementation and monitoring of the CFP. Thank you.

  Marco Affronte, relatore. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, solo un paio di considerazioni. Direi che, a parte qualche voce fuori dal coro, c'è un grande accordo su questa relazione, non solo sull'importanza dei dati scientifici – è stato ripetuto veramente tante volte – ma anche – e ringrazio chi si è espresso in questo senso – nel consenso sul lavoro che abbiamo fatto e su quello che siamo riusciti a ottenere.

Ringrazio anche la Commissione perché ha chiarito un punto che avrei chiarito io e cioè il fatto che i dati non vengono centralizzati ma rimangono a livello di Stati membri, anche se sono dell'idea che gli interventi che abbiamo ascoltato, soprattutto da parte dell'estrema destra, fossero di chi non ha in realtà letto il documento ma di chi ha fatto soltanto il suo intervento "classico".

Detto questo, ne approfitto per ringraziare chi ha lavorato con me su questo dossier: c'è stato un grande accordo dei relatori ombra di tutti i gruppi politici. Abbiamo lavorato molto bene, abbiamo cercato di fare le cose in maniera efficace ma anche velocemente, perché sappiamo che gli Stati membri hanno la necessità di poter partire con la raccolta nei tempi più brevi possibili. Ci siamo incagliati, senza aspettarcelo, per qualche mese con il Consiglio per il discorso dell'attribuzione dei poteri fra atti delegati e atti di esecuzione e, alla fine, come ha detto qualcuno, ne siamo usciti in maniera molto efficace ed elegante.

È evidente che, per avere delle buone politiche di pesca e arrivare all'obiettivo di una pesca sostenibile, sia dal punto ambientale che da quello socioeconomico, non possiamo prescindere da una profonda conoscenza delle risorse ittiche che andiamo a sfruttare e dalle conseguenze delle nostre decisioni e azioni sull'ambiente marino, sulle risorse e sul settori economico.

Per fare questo servono dei dati e l'entrata in vigore di questo regolamento è essenziale per muoverci in questa direzione.

  Elnök asszony. – A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra a viták végén kerül sor.

3. Разисквания относно случаи на нарушаване на правата на човека, на демокрацията и на правовата държава (разискване)

3.1. Зимбабве, случаят със свещеника Еван Маварире

  Elnök asszony. – A következő napirendi pont vita öt, Zimbabwével, Evan Mawarire lelkipásztor ügyével kapcsolatos állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványról1 (2017/2608(RSP)).

_______

1 Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

  Geoffrey Van Orden, author. – Madam President, Zimbabwe should be one of the most prosperous countries on the African continent. Instead, a third of its population is near starvation, relying on international food aid and brutally oppressed by a corrupt, kleptocratic regime. There is mass unemployment and hyperinflation. In fact, the country is bankrupt and its people in despair, and yet the grand architect of this misery, Robert Mugabe, continues in power.

I have been in this Parliament for 18 years and, throughout this time, have campaigned for effective action against Mugabe and for freedom for the Zimbabwean people. They desperately need our help. Today we are focusing on the plight of the latest victims in a long line of brave people who have dared to speak out against the Mugabe tyranny. We still do not know the fate of Itai Dzamara and we deplore the treatment of Pastor Evan Mawarire. The international community, including the EU, has been divided and ineffective in its measures against the Mugabe clique, but particular blame must go to those African governments that have not only turned a blind eye to Mugabe’s atrocious regime, but have lauded Mugabe himself. Shame on all that have allowed this appalling situation to drag on for so long.

  Soraya Post, författare. – Fru talman! Kära kollegor! Som människorättsaktivist har befrielsekampen i södra Afrika varit en ledstjärna. Robert Mugabe gick dock från frihetshjälte till tyrann, men motståndet lever i Zimbabwe.

Pastor Evan Mawarire hotades till livet av diktaturens torpeder och flydde till USA. Han hade dock modet att ta sig tillbaka för att utmana denna tyrann. Mawarire greps så fort han hade landet i Harare. Mugabes maktbas utmanas också inifrån. Veteraner från befrielsekampen, alltså presidentens gamla allierade, bojkottade i somras Mugabes tal i protest mot diktaturen, och Evan Mawarire är numera en fri man. Nu måste regimens blodiga hantlangare ställas inför rätta, och åtalet mot Mawarire måste läggas ner.

Vänner, låt oss i dag visa att Zimbabwes demokratiska krafter också har stöd från oss i EU. Vi fortsätter att tro på förändring.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey, autora. – Señora presidenta. Condenamos la violencia y la represión de manifestaciones pacíficas, cualquier tipo de intimidación, acoso, arrestos arbitrarios y violencia contra activistas pro derechos humanos, la oposición, ONG y periodistas que hoy suceden en Zimbabue. Creemos que todo país debe respetar e implementar las convenciones internacionales de derechos humanos, incluyendo la Declaración de 1998 de las Naciones Unidas sobre los Defensores de los Derechos Humanos.

Sin embargo, rechazamos cualquier operación externa y las estrategias de desestabilización, así como las injerencias en los asuntos internos de Zimbabue por meros fines geoestratégicos. Seamos realistas. Los problemas los sufre la gente. La pobreza, el desempleo y la malnutrición crónica son los principales problemas que afronta el país, y consideramos que estos problemas solo pueden ser resueltos mediante la implementación de un ambicioso plan de políticas públicas en los ámbitos del empleo, la educación, la sanidad y la agricultura, junto con la solidaridad y la cooperación internacional.

Además, Zimbabue es uno de los países más endeudados del mundo y ejemplifica, una vez más, que necesitamos abordar la deuda desde un enfoque basado en los derechos humanos y en su sostenibilidad a largo plazo, así como unos estándares justos que redefinan los mecanismos de préstamo. Sin todo ello, seguiremos siendo incoherentes, utilizando estas Resoluciones de urgencia a modo de palo y zanahoria en función de intereses económicos y desatendiendo los problemas de la gente.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I would prefer not to have to come in here and do this, but we are at the end of our tether at this stage. Potentially, up to 60 MEPs and MEPs’ assistants are not receiving their email, and their diaries are not working. We have attempted to resolve this through ITEC. ITEC does not know its elbow from its posterior, unfortunately. The administration has not contacted MEPs to tell them about the problem, and, wait for it – I hope you are looking for a bit of a laugh here – I had been told that I would be informed by email when my emails are back. Now when my emails are back, I will know because they will be back. I will not need an email to tell me.

It is a complete and utter mess. We do not know when speaking time is happening, we do not know when our appointments are happening, and this is happening to up to 50, 60 people in here. Yet every time we go down to ITEC, it is as if Pol Pot has taken over: it is year zero, and they know nothing about it. It is unacceptable. You have heard the phrase about being able to ‘run a piss-up in a brewery’? Well, you have failed. Can you sort it out? Can Mr Tajani sort it out? The 125 000 people who voted for me would like to know that I will know when my appointments are and when I have to turn up to work. It is fairly basic.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Elnök asszony. – Képviselő Úr, megértettem az első három mondatából az észrevételeit.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Madam President, may I just say what a pity it is that this very serious debate about a tragic matter and a country in Africa which has been ruined by the despoliation of this dictator Mugabe is interrupted by what can only be seen as relative trivia, and I would call for no more interruptions of that nature.

(Applause)

  Elnök asszony. – Nincs több hozzászólási lehetőség, a vitát nem tereljük el a témáról. Értettem, látom is képviselő úr jelentkezését, értettem is a kérését, továbbítani fogom, meg fogjuk vizsgálni, és vissza fogunk jelezni. Praktikusan nem e-mailben, hogy Ön ne tudja azt, hogy mi történik, hanem fölveszik Önnel személyesen a kapcsolatot, és kivizsgálják az ügyet. Az Elnökséghez továbbítom a kérését.

Visszatérünk a listára.

  Pavel Telička, author. – Madam President, one has to have a very strong stomach to interrupt a debate on the tragic situation in Zimbabwe with an administrative IT issue.

This is, and is not, a motion about the case of Pastor Evan Mawarire. Why is it about him? Because it is a tragic case. Why is it not just about him? Because this is yet another case out of hundreds of thousands in a country which should be flourishing, but which is sinking and sinking. We will surely have more debates about more motions for resolutions on Zimbabwe, on concrete cases, but what we really need is a serious debate. We need to implement the policy tools that we have at our disposal, limited as they are, vis—à—vis Zimbabwe and other African countries. Otherwise, we will have an inflation in the number of resolutions with no change. What we really need is a change for the better and an improvement. This is something that the EU has to do. If it is not capable of doing it, that it is a very negative sign.

  Bogdan Brunon Wenta, autor. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Skupię się tylko na faktach. Rząd prezydenta Mugabe wielokrotnie łamał zasady praworządności, swobody obywatelskie są ograniczane, a korupcja skutecznie hamuje rozwój tego państwa. Ponieważ swoboda wypowiedzi, prawo do zrzeszania się i zgromadzeń są zapisane w konstytucji Zimbabwe, to doniesienia związane z postępowaniem władz wobec pastora Mawarire oraz innych obrońców praw człowieka, między innymi Itai Dzamary, który zaginął w niewyjaśnionych okolicznościach, są bardzo niepokojące. Liczne protesty społeczne wzywające do poprawy sytuacji gospodarczej i poszanowania praw człowieka zostały brutalnie stłumione przez rząd, a pastorowi mimo uwolnienia przedstawiono politycznie umotywowane zarzuty. Poszanowanie praw człowieka to zasadniczy element współpracy AKP-Unia Europejska na podstawie umowy z Kotonu, której Zimbabwe jest sygnatariuszem. Dlatego władze tego kraju muszą zaprzestać represji wobec obrońców praw człowieka i przedstawicieli opozycji. To bardzo ważne, szczególnie w kontekście przyszłorocznych wyborów prezydenckich.

  Jiří Pospíšil, za skupinu PPE. – Paní předsedající, já se chci připojit a podpořit toto usnesení, připojuji se k práci svých kolegů, kteří navrhují toto usnesení, které kritizuje současný stav Zimbabwe. Celá ta dnešní debata byla vyvolána situací konkrétního ochránce lidských práv pastora Mawarireho. Ale je správné, že ta debata není pouze o této osobě, která je neoprávněně politicky stíhaná, ale i o celkové situaci lidských práv v Zimbabwe. Je třeba situaci a stav lidských práv, svobodu projevu, svobodu shromažďování a jiná ústavní práva, která jsou v Zimbabwe trvale potlačována, zde na plénu jasně popsat a odsoudit situaci v této zemi. Je třeba jasně říct, že pokud Zimbabwe chce peníze od EU, pak je třeba, aby dodržovalo lidská práva, aby respektovalo základní principy demokracie. Je třeba také kontrolovat, kam peníze z EU plynou a zda nejsou rozkrádány tamními veřejnými orgány.

  Josef Weidenholzer, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Simbabwe ist ein großartiges Land mit unvorstellbarem Potenzial. Seit vielen Jahren wird es jedoch von einem korrupten und autoritären Regime in Geiselhaft genommen und seiner Zukunftsperspektiven beraubt. Alle, die das thematisieren und die die Einhaltung der Menschenrechte einmahnen, werden zu Feinden des Staates gemacht, so wie Pastor Evan Mawarire und viele andere. Sie werden mit fadenscheinigen Argumenten mundtot gemacht.

Bald gibt es aber wieder Wahlen, die eine Chance für einen Neubeginn bieten. Es ist alles daran zu setzen, dass sie fair ablaufen. Die Europäische Union muss sich mit Wahlbeobachtern eindeutig positionieren. Vor allem braucht es im Vorfeld der Wahlen aber einen freien Zugang zu Informationen. Restriktionen für soziale Medien müssen aufgehoben werden. Radiolizenzen für private und Community- und Non—Profit—Organisationen müssen ermöglicht werden. Vor allem aber muss die Politisierung der Nahrungsmittelhilfe durch die Regierung abgestellt werden.

  Ignazio Corrao, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sfortunatamente, questa non è la prima risoluzione che facciamo sullo Zimbabwe: il caso dal pastore Mawarire non è purtroppo un caso isolato.

Le misure restrittive dell'Unione europea nei confronti del regime dello Zimbabwe sono state rinnovata nel febbraio 2017 per la durata di un anno, così come è stato mantenuto l'embargo sulle armi, mentre il congelamento dei beni e il divieto di viaggio continueranno a essere applicati nei confronti del presidente Mugabe.

Allo stesso tempo l'Unione europea, attraverso il programma indicativo nazionale per lo Zimbabwe, ha stanziato 234 milioni di EUR per il periodo 2014-2020. Credo che dobbiamo agire, facendo leva su questi strumenti a nostra esposizione se vogliamo vedere un miglioramento o qualche significativo progresso nell'ambito dei diritti umani, perché purtroppo dalle risoluzioni che abbiamo approvato in precedenza non ne abbiamo visto alcuno.

Evan Mawarire deve poter godere dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali e inalienabili così come qualsiasi altro cittadino dello Zimbabwe e lo stesso deve valere per tutti i prigionieri politici arrestati solo per aver espresso dissenso nei confronti di un governo, nei confronti del quale non si può far altro che dissentire.

  Mario Borghezio, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, appoggiamo anche noi questa risoluzione, come atto di sostegno alla lotta per la libertà e alla democrazia di questi leader africani assoggettati a regimi corrotti e sanguinari.

Ci sono però alcuni dubbi: l'Unione europea si impegna a monitorare che gli aiuti per il programma indicativo nazionale arrivino ai settori destinati. Questo regolarmente non avviene, né in Zimbabwe né negli altri paesi. L'Unione europea deve impegnarsi seriamente e concretamente a verificare che questi 234 milioni di EUR di aiuti vadano non ai corrotti ma alle popolazioni.

E poi ci dite qualcosa circa i risarcimenti dovuti agli agricoltori che sono stati espropriati con la violenza, con atti terribili, dalle forze militari che venivano dalla guerra d'indipendenza? E poi le dichiarazioni palesemente razziste di Mugabe contro i bianchi: perché non condanna alle nero su bianco?

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, from economic powerhouse to financial ruin, from the breadbasket of Africa to starvation, the Mugabe regime continues to do what it has sadly always done: run Zimbabwe into the ground. As far back as I can remember, Mugabe has acted in this way, retaining a veneer of democracy whilst acting in a despotic and undemocratic way. This persecution of political opponents is nothing new. The same was done to Morgan Tsvangirai over a number of years from 2000 to 2008, with persecution and violence against those Mugabe did not agree with. The rights of Pastor Evan Mawarire, who so far as I can see has done nothing wrong, are being trampled upon. We do not even know what is happening to Mr Itai Dzamara. We have seen assets of Mugabe frozen, yet at the same time a large amount of money is being sent to Zimbabwe in aid and we need to make absolutely sure that we know what we are doing, that we know why it is being done, and that we ensure that money is not going to the wrong places. I have grave concerns that may well be happening.

  Dominique Bilde (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, Robert Mugabe préside la République du Zimbabwe depuis près de 30 ans. Véritable autocrate, il est présente les caractéristiques des politiciens voyous qui dominent l’Afrique. Raciste anti-blanc revendiqué, M. Mugabe a transformé son pays en un enfer sur terre. Si la population ne jouit que de peu de droits individuels, ce n’est pourtant pas le pire des maux qui l’afflige. Famine, inflation et répression policière se succèdent à intervalles réguliers.

Dans ce contexte terrible, la censure des opposants est intolérable. Arrêté dès sa descente d’avion en février dernier, le pasteur Evan Mawarire a finalement été libéré sous caution. Il envisage de se présenter aux prochaines élections.

Robert Mugabe doit renoncer aux charges pour tentative de sabotage du gouvernement et incitation à la violence qui pèsent contre M. Mawarire. Plus généralement, l’Afrique ne pourra pas se développer si les institutions des États qui la composent n’évoluent pas.

„Catch the eye” eljárás

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, grupul nostru, Grupul PPE, a avut inițiativa de a discuta despre Zimbabwe la fix șase luni după ultima dezbatere despre această țară. Din păcate, ceea ce spuneam atunci nu face decât să se confirme în cazul pastorului Mawarire. În loc să răspundă preocupărilor cetățenilor prin reforme politice și economice, regimul Mugabe continuă să limiteze dreptul la liberă exprimare și să-i prigonească pe apărătorii drepturilor omului. Pastorul Mawarire nu a făcut decât să ceară guvernului reforme și respectarea drepturilor omului. Din această pricină, e urmărit penal și e pasibil de o pedeapsă cu închisoarea de până la douăzeci de ani. Aceste acuzații sunt evident motivate politic și cred că trebuie să luăm cu toții apărarea pastorului Mawarire.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, lo Zimbabwe sta attraversando una profonda crisi economica, con un altissimo tasso di disoccupazione e una corruzione diffusa ad ogni livello politico e amministrativo. Alcuni cittadini, sin dall'estate scorsa, hanno iniziato a rispondere con numerose dimostrazioni antigovernative.

In questo clima l'attivista per i diritti dei più diseredati, il pastore battista Evan Mawarire, considerato il Martin Luther King dello Zimbabwe, è diventato il simbolo della protesta, che chiede trasparenza nell'azione di governo e dignità per ogni cittadino dello Zimbabwe. Per la sua attività politica Mawarire è stato arrestato con l'accusa di cospirazione contro lo Stato. Il pastore è ora in libertà vigilata ma rischia una condanna fino a 20 anni. L'accusa di sovversione è stata definita dai suoi avvocati completamente inventata.

È chiaro che il processo al leader dell'opposizione in Zimbabwe risponde solo ad esigenze politiche del governo in carica. L'Unione europea e la comunità internazionale devono farsi parte attiva per consentire l'immediato rilascio di Evan Mawarire e per ripristinare l'agibilità democratica nel Paese.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, υποστηρίζω το ψήφισμα, το οποίο άλλωστε έχω συνυπογράψει. Ο πάστορας Evan Mawarire συνελήφθη από την αστυνομία της Ζιμπάμπουε και μάλιστα την ώρα που βρισκόταν στα δικαστήρια, προκειμένου να δικαστεί, διότι είχε, λέει, υψώσει τη σημαία της Ζιμπάμπουε χωρίς άδεια. Η ενέργεια αυτή θεωρείται ποινικό αδίκημα, διότι το σύμβολο αυτό χρησιμοποιήθηκε από αντικυβερνητικούς διαδηλωτές στις κινητοποιήσεις τους κατά του προέδρου της Ζιμπάμπουε.

Καταδικάζουμε λοιπόν τη σύλληψη του Mawarire, όπως επίσης και των δημοσιογράφων και των ακτιβιστών που επίσης έχουν συλληφθεί. Η Ζιμπάμπουε πρέπει να προχωρήσει σε βαθιές δημοκρατικές μεταρρυθμίσεις, να υπάρξουν εγγυήσεις για την ελευθερία σκέψης, έκφρασης, την ελευθερία των μέσων μαζικής ενημέρωσης, να υπάρξει ισότητα, ενίσχυση του κράτους δικαίου και σεβασμός των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, και φυσικά να σταματήσει η βία κατά των γυναικών και να ληφθούν μέτρα για την αντιμετώπιση του υποσιτισμού που πλήττει τη χώρα.

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for this resolution. The recent arrest of Pastor Mawarire is, unfortunately, another case that raises important concerns about what is going on in Zimbabwe. The EU, through its delegation in Zimbabwe, has been following the case closely. Together with representatives from the Member States, we attended Pastor Mawarire’s High Court bail application hearing on 8 February. We welcome the positive ruling at the High Court to grant bail, and we take careful note of the judge’s remarks about the weakness of the State’s case. The case has been raised with the government at senior level, and we will continue to follow developments closely.

The right of Pastor Mawarire to express his views and opinions in a peaceful manner is a fundamental freedom enshrined in Zimbabwe’s own Constitution. Human rights defenders, organisations and activists are playing a critical role in the promotion of human rights in Zimbabwe. It is essential that they are free to operate in an environment that protects fundamental human rights and freedoms, as set out in Zimbabwe’s Constitution. They deserve recognition and credit for their significant and persistent contribution. The EU is committed to fighting discrimination, to preserving the rights of individuals to enjoy the full range of human rights in Zimbabwe, and we are determined to continue supporting the work of civil society organisations and protecting human rights activists.

Zimbabwe is at a critical juncture, as a number of you have said. Continued political and economic reforms are essential to restore growth and achieve inclusive and sustainable development. Respect for the rule of law, human rights and the consolidation of democracy are also essential. The electoral commission should engage with all parties to agree on an electoral framework for the 2018 elections. Our overall objective remains to re-engage fully with a stable and democratic Zimbabwe. I would like to recall the EU’s continuing commitment to the people of Zimbabwe and emphasise that the EU remains amongst the most important donors to that country.

  Elnök asszony. – Öt állásfoglalási indítványt juttattak el hozzám.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra a viták végén kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (162. cikk)

  Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD), per iscritto. – L'arresto del pastore Evan Mawarire, vista l'evidente politicizzazione delle accuse a lui rivolte, appare come un utilizzo, da parte delle autorità dello Zimbabwe, del sistema di giustizia penale per colpire i difensori dei diritti umani. In Zimbabwe esprimere un parere in modo non-violento è un diritto costituzionale per tutti i cittadini ed è un obbligo delle autorità proteggerlo, tuttavia, da molti anni il popolo dello Zimbabwe è oppresso da un regime autoritario guidato dal presidente Mugabe, che rimane al potere mediante corruzione e violenza. È importante che l'UE avvii un dialogo politico con le autorità dello Zimbabwe, nel quadro dell'accordo di Cotonou, per dare sostegno alla popolazione locale.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFDD), raštu. – Zimbabvėje, vienoje iš skurdžiausių šalių pasaulyje, padėtis yra itin nestabili. Šalyje vyksta nuolatiniai žmogaus teisių pažeidimai, susidorojimai su opozicija. Pažymėtina, jog susirinkimų, asociacijos ir žodžio laisvės yra pagrindinės demokratijos sudedamosios dalys. Gerbti ir laikytis žmogaus teisių privalo visos valstybės. Zimbabvės valdžios institucijos turi dėti didesnes pastangas ir užkirsti kelią smurtinėms represijoms, politiniam smurtui, taip pat apribojimams ir bauginimams, taikomiems žmogaus teisių gynėjams. Baudžiamojo teisingumo sistema neturi būti piktnaudžiaujama. Žmogaus teisių gynėjams turi būti sudarytos palankios sąlygos vykdyti savo veiklą. Atsižvelgiant į esamą padėtį ir paramą vietos gyventojams, ES turėtų pradėti politinį dialogą su Zimbabvės valdžios institucijomis pagal Kotonu susitarimą.

3.2. Украински политически затворници в Русия и положението в Крим

  Elnök asszony. – A következő napirendi pont vita öt, ukrán politikai foglyokkal Oroszországban és a Krím helyzetével kapcsolatos állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványról1 (2017/2596(RSP)).

_______

1 Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

  Rebecca Harms, Verfasserin. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen aus der Werchowna Rada! Wer in den letzten Jahren die Krimtataren zu Hause auf der Halbinsel besucht hat, der weiß, was für diese Gruppe von ukrainischen Bürgern der erneute Verlust der Heimat und der Verlust aller ihrer Rechte bedeutet, der weiß, was es bedeutet, wenige Jahrzehnte nach der Rehabilitierung gegen die Verfolgung unter Stalin wieder im Zentrum von systematischer Kriminalisierung und Verfolgung zu stehen. Ich finde es gut, dass die Kollegen aus allen anderen Fraktionen sich mit uns allen verständigt haben, gegen die Annektierung der Krim, gegen die andauernde Besetzung der Krim diese Entschließung heute mit einem ganz breiten Konsens zu verabschieden. Es ist für die Ukrainer auf der Krim und es ist für die Ukrainer in ihrem Land ungeheuer wichtig, dass wir gegen das Unrecht, gegen den Bruch internationalen Rechts durch Russland solidarisch sind.

Als wir diese Entschließung erarbeitet haben, die sich ja ganz stark und mit guten Gründen auf die Krim bezieht, sind aber auch in den mit russischer Hilfe besetzten Gebieten von Luhansk und Donezk neue Tatsachen geschaffen worden. Nicht nur gilt inzwischen der Rubel als Zahlungsmittel in der Gegend von Luhansk, sondern inzwischen werden russische Pässe anerkannt und ukrainische Unternehmen werden verstaatlicht.

Liebe Kollegen aus der Rada! Ich möchte diese Debatte zum Anlass nehmen, nochmal zu sagen, dass die Sanktionen, die die Europäische Union gegen den Bruch des internationalen Rechts beschlossen hat, nicht in Frage gestellt werden dürfen. Mit diesen Sanktionen verteidigen wir Sicherheit und Ordnung auf diesem Kontinent. Wer die Sanktionen immer wieder in Frage stellt, der gefährdet nicht nur die Menschen, die in die Unrechtsmühlen der russischen Verfolgung auf der Krim oder im Osten der Ukraine geraten, der gefährdet auch die Zukunft von Sicherheit und Stabilität auf dem gesamten Kontinent.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga, author. – Madam President, we commemorate the sad anniversary of the illegal annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. We have to remember that the Crimean Tatars are the indigenous people who have been living there for centuries, intimidated by the imperial will of earlier Russian Tsars, then by Stalin, and now by Putin’s regime.

They were offered open annexation and a political deal, a puppet autonomy under Russian rule, for acceptance of the annexation. They are people of honour and therefore refused this deal. Then intimidation and mass violation of their human rights started, including the delegalisation of their political representation, the Mejlis, and the pronouncement that this respectable body had terrorist links. We have had the opportunity to listen to the families of people who perished under Russian rule. Mustafa Dehermendzhy was arrested for actions taken before the annexation. The same happened to other people.

  Soraya Post, författare. – Fru talman! Krig och diktatur är de mänskliga rättigheternas värsta fiender. Båda har gjort fasansfull comeback i Europa. Det kanske största hotet i dag heter Vladimir Putin. För första gången sedan andra världskriget har han möblerat om europeiska gränser med våld. Bakom dessa nya gränser har han satt de mänskliga rättigheterna på grillen.

62 ukrainska medborgare har olagligt åtalats i Ryssland av politiska skäl. 17 hålls olagligen i förvar i Ryska federationen och 15 på Krim. Hundratals hålls som gisslan i ockuperade östra Ukraina.

När ett självständigt land i Europa angrips med våld är det en attack mot oss allihop. När mänskliga rättigheter trampas på, måste alla demokrater stå upp. Låt oss i dag höja rösten, kära kollegor, så att vi hörs hela vägen ända fram till Kreml.

  Petras Auštrevičius, author. – Madam President, Commissioner, Ukrainian friends and colleagues, the Russian Federation is 26 times bigger by territory than our host country, France. That looks like more than enough living space, does it not? No, it does not, and Putin decides to occupy Crimea. No wonder. For Russian tsars and Bolsheviks, for Stalin, and now Putin, politics has always been about expansion and domination. To destroy the Europeanisation of neighbouring nations, to deport and suppress those who protest – this is the line of the Kremlin.

Next to the Kurils and Sakhalin in the East, the Kola Peninsula in the North, Kaliningrad in the West, Crimea – once an attractive summer resort – is being rapidly built as a military stronghold in the South. From 12 000 military personnel before occupation up to a figure of double that today, and 43 000 in the near future, this is the ‘Russian world’ in Crimea. A so-called ‘new world’ in Crimea is being built at the expense of the oppression of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainian citizens.

Colleagues, Russia is surely back to its imperial military posture and we must take it absolutely seriously. Abkhazia and Ossetia, Transnistria and Crimea are not coincidences; these are all parts of the Kremlin’s plan, just as Syria is today, and as Libya might be tomorrow.

  Elnök asszony. – Szeretném tájékoztatni mindazokat egyébként, akik a galérián helyet foglalnak, hogy ők tartózkodjanak mindenféle véleménynyilvánítástól, mert az eljárásunk szerint erre nincs lehetőség. És képviselők sérelmezték ezt – jogosan. Úgyhogy ők sem tetszésnyilvánítást nem tudnak tenni, sem semmiféle kommentárt nem tudnak fűzni ahhoz, ami itt az ülésteremben történik.

  Tunne Kelam, author. – Madam President, we are here today to express the voice of all 28 nations in Europe in support of Ukrainian political prisoners, and to demonstrate our solidarity with the Crimean Tatars. Let me recognise, in this connection, the NGO Open Dialog, whose project ‘LetMyPeopleGo’ is doing the most valuable work in providing information about political prisoners and defending them. Our resolution, which is to be adopted soon, is strong and clear, and voices an unprecedented unity amongst practically all political groups. However, it all comes down to concrete actions by the EU governments.

I think it is high time to give up on false illusions that one could have a deal with aggressors. We need not to just tiptoe on sanctions, but strike with all force on the secret bank accounts of those responsible, and deny them entry into the EU. Ukrainian friends, you should know that the representatives of the 28 European nations will never be silent – and we will never abandon you – until all prisoners are free and the occupation of your country is ended.

(Applause)

  Dariusz Rosati, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, March 2017 marks the third sad anniversary of the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula by the Russian Federation. While time has passed, the illegal occupation of Ukraine’s territory continues and the human rights situation in Crimea has significantly deteriorated. At least 39 people are being held in detention in Crimea on trumped—up charges, while the practice of the transfer of detainees to distant regions of Russia still continues. Moreover, systematic violations of human rights, the use of torture and degrading treatment of political prisoners have been recorded by various organisations such as the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission and Amnesty International.

Too much time has passed to continue as if nothing had happened. I urge the Commission to immediately address Russia with a demand that the political oppression on the Crimean peninsula be stopped. I call on the Council to consider further restrictive measures to be imposed on individuals responsible for gross human rights violations, including the freezing of assets in EU banks. We need to continue to show our solidarity with our Ukrainian friends in these difficult times.

  Marju Lauristin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues and Ukrainian friends, today we are gathering here at the time when the sad anniversary of the third year of occupation of Crimea falls. At the same time, Russian officials and Russian media are cynically celebrating the occupation of Crimea as a national victory. They even plan to shift the elections in Russia to celebrate the occupation of Crimea.

It is very important we show that all Europeans recognise that this is annexation, that it is illegal and that, on 16 December last year, the United Nations General Assembly officially condemned the occupation and called for it not to be recognised. For those who are not firm in support of this, we have to remind them that it is not the first time in history. From the history of the Baltic countries we know how important this politics of non-recognition is, and how important international support is for occupied countries. I call on us to be firm to support the organisations who are fighting for human rights ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, three years since Russia’s annexation of Crimea, it is important that we continue to demonstrate our resolve in stating that Crimea is, and remains, an integral part of Ukraine, and to stand in solidarity with those that are suffering under the military occupation. Maintaining this resolve, in which the rule of law and peaceful relations triumph against the ‘might is right’ dogma and spheres of influence espoused by Putin, is essential for the European Union.

Many will remember the visit of Mr Dzhemiliev, leader of the Crimean Tatars, to this House last year and the moving accounts he gave. The personal events of his life have been mirrored in the turbulent history of Crimea, and it is a tragedy that in 2017 we are seeing further destabilisation. For the second time in his life Dzhemiliev has been banned from entering his homeland, whilst for those able to remain from his community, economic conditions and the human rights situation have declined. Cases of disappearances and allegations of arbitrary arrest and torture are very concerning.

As we saw in the case of South Ossetia, annexation is assumed by the Kremlin to result in only a temporary cooling of relations with the West, only later to be forgotten. We cannot allow this to happen again with Crimea. To do so would be to embolden the plans of President Putin in his quest to reassert control in the former Soviet space by aggressive territorial expansion.

  Urmas Paet, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first and foremost, Russia must stop the aggression in Ukraine. It must live up to the Minsk Agreements and stop the annexation of Crimea. However, given the reality that Russia is the occupying power in Crimea, it has the responsibility to protect the people in Crimea. However, they are doing the opposite. They prosecute innocent people for political reasons, then they prosecute people protecting those innocent people, such as, for example, their lawyers. The human rights situation has deteriorated significantly, and this needs to stop.

Russia claimed that the people in Crimea wanted to be freed from Ukraine and that they wanted to join with Russia. If Russian occupation in Crimea is a blessing to the people there, then why do you need to prosecute and harass the Tatars, Ukrainians and even Russians themselves there? The harassment, prosecutions and human rights violations must stop, and all those responsible must be brought to justice.

  Jiří Maštálka, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Paní předsedající, téměř 10 000 zabitých, více než 22 000 raněných a obrovské množství běženců, z toho 2,3 milionu do Ruska. To je dosavadní bilance ozbrojeného konfliktu na Ukrajině. A konce zatím nedohlédnout. Je samozřejmě správné projevit zájem o individuální osudy lidí, kteří se stali politickými vězni. I já plně podporuji, abychom plně kritizovali věznění za politické názory nebo činy, které nejsou v rozporu s demokratickými zákony. Při zájmu o osud jedinců však nesmíme zapomínat na utrpení milionů. Jejich bolest je možná anonymní, nelze ji přisoudit mediálně líbivé příběhy, ale je podstatná. Proč například důrazně nepožadujeme vyšetření upálení nevinných v Oděse? Takový postup se mi jeví jako trestuhodně nebezpečný a zbabělý. Naším úkolem je pomáhat nalézt cestu k ukončení války na Ukrajině a ne přilévat olej do ohně tím, že se postavíme pouze na jednu stranu utrpení.

IN THE CHAIR: RYSZARD CZARNECKI
Vice-President

  Heidi Hautala, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, on the third anniversary of the illegal annexation of Crimea, the Russian Federation is celebrating reunification. However, with our resolution, we must be determined to shed light on what is really happening in Crimea. It is tragic to see the lawlessness and the repression of civil, political and human rights in Crimea, including the situation of the political prisoners, some of whom have been transferred to remote regions of the Russian Federation.

We also have to give our full support and sympathy to the Tatars, the original indigenous people of Crimea. We very much appreciated the visit of their speaker, Mr Dzhemiliev, who was here a few months ago. We have to condemn the prohibition and ban of the Tatar Parliament, and we have to make sure that civil, political and human rights are returned to everyone on the peninsula. However, the situation will of course not change as long as the Russian Federation stays as an occupying power. We have to recognise the full sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, and we have to continue the policy of non-recognition.

  Marcus Pretzell, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Es völlig unbestritten, dass in diesem Konflikt Völkerrecht und Menschenrecht von allen Seiten gebrochen worden ist. Aber, Frau Harms, Sie haben mit dazu beigetragen. Unter anderem ist es das Assoziierungsabkommen gewesen, das eine ohnehin aufgeheizte politische Stimmung weiter angeheizt hat. Sie schrecken selbst davor nicht zurück, Neonationalisten wie die Kampfpilotin Nadija Sawtschenko zu loben, wenn es Ihrem Kampf – ja, Frau Harms, Sie sind keine Freundin der Ukraine, Sie kämpfen Ihren Kampf gegen Russland, und das ist etwas völlig anderes.

Am Montag sind die Russland-Sanktionen, die jetzt nur noch verschämt „restriktive Maßnahmen gegen Aktionen, die die territoriale Integrität, Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit der Ukraine bedrohen“, bis September 2017 verlängert worden. Sie werden auch damit keinen Frieden schaffen, sondern Sie verhindern damit Verhandlungen, die die Ukraine mit Russland wird führen müssen. Die Europäische Union ist dabei keine Hilfe.

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

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE), blue-card question. – The Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine has been decided by the sovereign Parliament of Ukraine several times and voted through by several governments of Ukraine. As with many other association agreements with our neighbours, this was not imposed by the European Union. My question is: does my colleague think it is up to Russia to decide with whom a sovereign nation like Ukraine should trade, have agreements, or have relations? Is it for Russia to decide how its neighbouring countries should conduct relations with the rest of Europe and the world?

  Marcus Pretzell (ENF), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. Frau Kollegin! Sie wissen ganz genau, dass mehr passiert ist, als dass das ukrainische Parlament das angenommen hat. Normalerweise werfen Sie uns ja vor, wir zögen uns auf Formalismus zurück. Sie wissen ganz genau, dass vorher mit NGOs und mit sehr viel europäischem Geld massiv Stimmung gemacht worden ist, um genau das zu erreichen. Und Sie haben Druck ausgeübt, um die Ukraine auf einen Anti-Russlandkurs zu zwingen. Und ja, das Parlament hat dieses Spiel am Ende mitgemacht, das ist richtig. Das war – das muss und kann man jetzt wohl sagen – ein Fehler.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός ( NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι εγκληματική ενέργεια, όταν χώρα εισβάλλει με τις ένοπλες δυνάμεις της στο έδαφος μιας άλλης, προβαίνει σε εκδιώξεις, καταστροφές θρησκευτικών τόπων λατρείας, κατασχέσεις περιουσιών και παραβιάζει κάθε έννοια ανθρωπίνου δικαιώματος. Αναφέρομαι στην Τουρκία, που το 1974 κατέλαβε το 1/3 του εδάφους της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας και συνεχίζει ανενόχλητα να εγκληματεί κατά κράτους μέλους της Ένωσης, μη αναγνωρίζοντας την υπόστασή του. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θεωρεί αδικαιολόγητα ότι η ειρηνική προσάρτηση της Κριμαίας αποτελεί περίπτωση παράνομης εισβολής και κατηγορεί, επιβάλλει κυρώσεις και καταδικαστικές πολιτικές στη Ρωσία. Στην Τουρκία αντιθέτως χαρίζει δισεκατομμύρια, υπόσχεται ένταξη και ανέχεται τη δικτατορική συμπεριφορά του Ερντογάν. Αυτό είναι υποκρισία και δείχνει ότι η Ένωση δεν ενδιαφέρεται για τους πολίτες της και τοποθετεί τα γεωπολιτικά γεωστρατηγικά της συμφέροντα πάνω απ’ την ανθρώπινη αξιοπρέπεια και τη δικαιοσύνη.

Τέλος, να επισημάνω ότι είναι απαράδεκτο σε εκθέσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου να ζητάμε από το Συμβούλιο να ασκεί πιέσεις στο Διεθνές Δικαστήριο. Η διάκριση των εξουσιών είναι συνταγματικά κατοχυρωμένη και κάθε προσπάθεια χειραφέτησης της δικαιοσύνης παραπέμπει σε δημοκρατίες τύπου Στάλιν.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE). – Mr President, this resolution will give a glimmer of hope to the hundreds of Ukrainian citizens who are being illegally detained and held hostage by Russia. It should remind Putin that no—one is forgotten and nothing is forgotten. Russia’s war against Ukraine is not forgotten. The illegal annexation of Crimea is not forgotten. The fate of innocent victims is not forgotten. There should be no normalisation of any relations with Russia without the release of these political prisoners. Let us make this clear to Putin and his political and business partners in Europe. It is very important that Russia should be legally defined as an occupying power under the Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians in occupied territories. I strongly believe that Russian leaders should be held accountable for gross and systematic violations of human rights in occupied territories.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök úr, Európa nem nézheti tétlenül, hogy ezeket a hazafiakat az agresszor saját joghatása alá vonja, bebörtönzi, megkínozza. De ezen túlmenően szerintem az Európai Uniónak és a főképviselőnek általában is sokkal tevékenyebb, határozottabb és a helyi lakosság számára láthatóbb szerepet kellene vállalnia Ukrajna békéjének helyreállításában, Putyin agresszív terjeszkedésének visszafordításában. S ezen erőfeszítéseinket pedig abban a tudatban kell folytatnunk, hogy az agresszort nem lehet engedékenységgel megfékezni. A Krím illegális megszállása, militarizálása, az ottani ukrán hazafiak sorsával kapcsolatos kegyetlen és cinikus orosz magatartás is arra figyelmeztet bennünket, hogy az EU csak határozottan és teljes egységben tudhat eredményesen szembeszállni a putyini provokációkkal.

Ha egy tagállami kormány pedig ezt az egységet önös politikai érdekekből aláássa, Putyinnak udvarol és céljait kiszolgálja, egész Európa konkrét, közvetlen biztonsági kockázatnak teszi ki.

  Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Tientallen Oekraïense burgers zitten vandaag in Russische gevangenissen voor misdrijven die ze nooit hebben begaan. Ze zijn gijzelaars van de niet-verklaarde Russische oorlog tegen Oekraïne. Ze worden op een arbitraire manier gearresteerd omdat ze artikels schrijven bijvoorbeeld of omdat ze opstappen in een betoging of gewoon omdat ze Krim-Tataar zijn. Ze worden vervolgens gefolterd om een bekentenis af te leggen voor zaken die ze nooit hebben gedaan.

Wat zit er achter die Russische werkwijze? Wel, onze burgers moeten weten dat de reden heel doorzichtig is. Het Kremlin wil zijn burgers doen geloven dat ze in groot gevaar zijn en dat een sterk gezag hen moet beschermen. Het versterkt de riedel en de leugen van de Russische staatsmedia dat Oekraïne de staatsvijand nummer 1 is. De agressor wordt dan plots slachtoffer.

De Krim werd drie jaar geleden illegaal geannexeerd en ondanks alle internationale veroordelingen blijft Rusland de Krim bezetten. Onze les moet zijn: wie respect wil afdwingen voor het internationaal recht moet ook vasthouden aan de sancties tegen hen die dat recht met de voeten treden. Wie het echt meent met de mensenrechten moet de sancties verscherpen tegen hen die deze rechten flagrant blijven schenden.

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, honourable Ukrainian friends, I very much welcome that the European Parliament is today strongly condemning Russia’s occupation of Crimea and its disastrous consequences for ordinary citizens, three years after the illegal annexation of the peninsula. Crimea is just a few hours away by plane and still it has become a human rights black hole. Neither the Council of Europe nor the United Nations have access to the peninsula and they cannot monitor the situation there. Discriminatory policies are imposed on Crimean Tatars, fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech and association, are constantly violated, and Europe is looking away. It is shameful, and it is also shameful to listen to our colleagues who support the Russian oppression. The EU must make it perfectly clear to Russia that the occupation of Crimea will never be accepted or recognised, that the respect of human rights in Crimea is not on the table for negotiation.

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, la situation est idéologique et la raison ne l’emporte pas.

Je voudrais rappeler le contexte historique. En février 2014, les puissances occidentales avaient signé un document pour une transition démocratique, les événements de Maïdan ont été un véritable coup d’État et il y a eu interruption de l’état de droit. C’est un fait juridique.

Face à cela, la Russie a occupé la Crimée qui avait été donnée – il faut le dire – par un décret en 1954 par Khrouchtchev et il y a eu référendum sur la libre autodétermination. Nous sommes face à une situation juridique compliquée parce qu’effectivement, nous avons d’un côté ce que nous avons signé, qui ne s’est pas réalisé, et donc une rupture de l’état de droit et une autre situation de rupture. Je tiens seulement à signaler à propos de l’occupation en Crimée, où il y a eu une véritable autodétermination, que la situation des droits de l’homme n’est pas pire aujourd’hui qu’hier et que donc nous devons raison garder.

(L’orateur accepte de répondre à une question «carton bleu» (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Vážený pane kolego, pokud by všichni uvažovali tak jako Vy a chovali se podle toho, co Vy nám zde povídáte, tak bych já jako občanka České republiky tady nemohla nikdy být, protože by ještě existovala Československá socialistická republika a existovala by zde Varšavská smlouva. Já se Vás chci zeptat: Uznáváte právo občanů jít do ulic a demonstrovat za svá svobodná práva?

  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF), réponse "carton bleu". – Madame, je tiens d’abord à vous dire – et personne ne pourra le contester, puisqu’il y a des témoins – que les différents mouvements d’opposition au système communiste se sont réunis chez moi, avant la chute du mur, et que j’ai donc été un acteur important dans tout ce qui concerne cette action anti-communiste. C’est l’histoire, ce sont des faits. Personne ne peut le contester, ceux qui étaient présents peuvent en témoigner. C’est la première chose que je tiens à dire.

Pour vous répondre, je tiens aussi à dire que mon pays, la France, le Sénat, l’Assemblée nationale, ont pris des positions qui sont celles que j’expose actuellement. Vous devez avoir le respect de la politique nationale.

  Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dnes už je nemoderní nacpat lidi do dobytčáků a deportovat je. Tyto metody si dovolil Josef Stalin, když deportoval Čečence, Inguše, Krymské Tatary. Dnes se ve světě používají mnohem subtilnější metody než násilné stěhování celých národů. Národ není třeba stěhovat, stačí sofistikovaně vytvořit atmosféru strachu a lidé se vystěhují sami. Tuto metodu používá vůči Krymským Tatarům dnešní Rusko, které Krymský poloostrov už třetím rokem nezákonně okupuje. Velmi účinným prostředkem jsou únosy, vraždy, zneužívání antiteroristických zákonů, zneužívání psychiatrických léčeben, ranní vykopávání dveří těžce pracujících rodin Krymských Tatarů. Je naší povinností postavit se na stranu těžce zkoušeného národa Krymských Tatarů. Ukrajinští občané nezákonně zadržovaní v Rusku a na okupovaných územích musí být co nejrychleji a bezpodmínečně propuštěni.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, Crimea has now been occupied by Russia for three years. Unfortunately, many of our expectations have been confirmed. Crimea is a concern to humanitarian and human rights organisations, civil liberties and freedoms have been curtailed, repressions against ethnic Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians have been growing, forced imposition of Russian citizenship has become systematic, and the number of political prisoners is on the rise.

We need to be concerned. Crimea is Europe’s traumatic spot. We need to be concerned about the ongoing situation there, about Russia’s responsibility for abuse of human rights in Crimea and, not least, about political prisoners being placed in Russian penal colonies because of their denial of the occupation. We should make sure that Crimea will not become a black hole in Europe which will traumatise generations to come.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěla především poděkovat autorům této rezoluce, která mluví jasným hlasem a jasnými slovy říká, jaká je situace na Krymu a jaká je naše reakce. Evropský parlament podporuje jednotu a územní celistvost Ukrajiny. V rámci mezinárodně uznávaných hranic odsuzuje nezákonnou anexi Krymu Ruskem a podporuje sankce, které jsou účinné. Odsuzujeme pronásledování a šikanu oponentů a perzekuci Krymských Tatarů. Žádáme jejich propuštění. Krymští Tataři, kteří jsou pronásledováni, jsou obyčejnými lidmi, umělci, učiteli, drobnými živnostníky a mnozí z nich byli odsouzeni k výkonu trestu a posláni do vězeňských táborů. Co považuji za velmi důležitý signál je to, že se jedná o společné stanovisko pěti politických frakcí napříč zeměmi, napříč politickými frakcemi vyjma extrémistů. Je to jasný signál Rusku a také jasná podpora Ukrajině.

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to thank Open Dialogue Foundation for the work they continue to do to expose the Russian State’s systematic abuse of human rights, and also the international campaign Let My People Go, which deserves more support and recognition.

I would especially like to raise the case of Ukrainian film—maker Oleg Sentsov, who was a rising star in the international film scene before his unlawful arrest. I would also like to thank Belarus Free Theatre for their production ‘Burning Doors’, which tells his story. True and meaningful peace can only come about through intercultural dialogue and cultural diplomacy. That is why artists and creators have such an important role to play in developing better democracies. The Russian Government must immediately release Sentsov and all prisoners it holds illegally, investigate reports of torture and give reparations to victims.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elfogadhatatlan helyzetet idézett elő Oroszország a Krím-félszigeten a krími tatár közösség elleni szisztematikus támadásokkal, a kisebbségi közösség alapvető jogainak súlyos megsértésével, a Medzslisz betiltásával és az ukrán iskolák bezárásával. Annál is inkább érthetetlen ez az orosz politika, mivel Ukrajnán éppen az ottani orosz kisebbség elleni jogsértéseket, az orosz anyanyelvű kisebbség nyelvi jogainak semmibe vételét kérték számon. Most azt látjuk, hogy egy nagy ország számára csak a sajátjai a fontosak és ugyanazokat az alapelveket, amelyek betartását számon kéri másokon, saját magára már nem tartja érvényesnek és kötelezőnek. Fontos, hogy az Európai Unió ne kövesse el ugyanezt a hibát és következetesen álljon ki az emberi jogok, köztük a kisebbségek jogainak érvényesüléséért.

Kérjük számon Oroszországon és Ukrajnán is ezeket a jogsértéseket, de saját tagállamaikban se hagyjuk szó nélkül. Másképp könnyen hiteltelenné válunk, és ezért nem lesz súlya a kritikáinknak.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, more than 60 Ukrainian citizens have been illegally prosecuted for political reasons. The Russian Federation, as an occupying power, has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the entire population and respect for the human, cultural and religious rights of the indigenous Tatars and all other minorities in Crimea. Moreover, Russia should immediately cease its prosecution practices and effectively investigate all cases of human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, torture and ill-treatment of detainees.

Mykola Semena, who is facing charges of separatism, is yet more proof of the ongoing repression and terrible deterioration of free expression and free media. Finally, I would like to underline that Russian courts are not competent to judge acts committed outside the internationally-recognised territory of Russia. Crimea is a region that will always be part of Ukraine.

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, em primeiro lugar, quero cumprimentar os nossos amigos ucranianos aqui presentes. Não é a primeira vez que, nesta Casa, condenamos a anexação ilegal da Crimeia e de Sebastopol pela Rússia e o recurso sistemático a perseguições, sequestros, torturas, prisões arbitrárias e execuções extrajudiciais para reduzir a península ao silêncio e à submissão.

Por motivos políticos, estão neste preciso momento detidos 45 cidadãos ucranianos em condições indignas e desumanas. É a eles, aos tártaros, que residem há séculos na Crimeia e a todos os ucranianos que há três anos lutam pela integridade territorial do seu país, que, uma vez mais, precisamos de enviar um claro sinal político do apoio que passa, não apenas pela condenação destas violações sistemáticas dos direitos humanos, mas também pela plena aplicação do Acordo de Associação com a União Europeia e a entrada em vigor da liberalização imediata dos regimes de vistos.

Não podemos deixar que estes passos urgentes estejam reféns dos calendários eleitorais de diversos Estados-Membros, nalguns dos quais surgem movimentos e partidos a quem aqueles que lutam corajosamente pelos valores de Maidan podem dar lições acerca do que é ser-se verdadeiramente europeu. Sr. Presidente, je suis ukranien, hoje e sempre.

  President. – I see that Mr Notis Marias is absent, which is a pity.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I would like to thank Honourable Members for this resolution. As has been underlined, on Saturday we will mark the third anniversary of the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia. The EU is following with great concern the deterioration of the human rights situation on the peninsula. Let us be clear: arrests and arbitrary detentions, ill-treatment, abusive use of anti-extremism legislation and violations of due process represent grave human rights violations. These target especially the Crimean Tatars and people who reject the illegal annexation.

The EU calls for a thorough investigation of these cases and the bringing to justice of those responsible. Increasingly frequent attacks on the vital work conducted by human rights defenders, such as human rights lawyers Emil Kurbedinov and Nikolay Polozov, represent worrying developments. Forced psychiatric examinations of the Deputy Chairman of the Mejlis, Ilmi Umerov, Emir Hussein Kuku, Eider Saledinov and Rustam Ismailov, are clear violations of international human rights standards.

The EU continues to call for full, free and unhindered access of international human rights mechanisms to the peninsula. The EU stands ready to work with the UN and other international organisations to implement Resolution 71/205 on the situation of human rights in Crimea and Sevastopol, adopted by the General Assembly last December. The EU follows the situation closely and has repeatedly urged Russia to release all illegally held Ukrainian citizens, whether held in Russia or in the illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula. Representatives from EU delegations and Member States’ embassies in Moscow have been present in court hearings and are in contact with the lawyers.

The EU also raises individual cases – such as those of Oleg Senstov, Olexander Kolchenko, Stanislav Klich and Mykola Karpyuk – in bilateral meetings with Russian representatives, as well as in public statements, including in international fora such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Human rights must be respected fully in the illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula. The right to legal counsel and access to consular officers needs to be fully respected. Access to healthcare needs to be ensured. In this regard we also follow with concern the case of journalist Mykola Semena.

Finally, let me restate that the European Union remains committed to implement fully its policy of non-recognition of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol. We fully support the sovereignty, the independence and the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

  Andrea Bocskor (PPE), írásban. – Üdvözlöm az elkészült sürgősségi határozatot,mely az Oroszország által vegzált ukrán politikai foglyok és a krími tatárok védelmében, valamint a Krím félsziget jogtalan annektálása ellen fogalmazódott meg. Az EU egyik feladata, hogy a szomszédságában létrejött háborús helyzetet ne hagyja befagyott konfliktussá válni, és az ország mielőbbi stabilizálódását segítse elő. Ukrajna kinyilvánította európai integrációs törekvését, s ezért nem szabad magára hagyni abban a nehéz helyzetben, amiben van. Az EU felelőssége is, hogy Ukrajna végig tudja vinni a reformfolyamatot, és az orosz befolyástól független, a szovjet hagyományok koloncától megszabadult demokratikus jogállammá váljon. Az emberi jogok védelme és az őshonos kisebbségek védelme is az EU feladata kell legyen!

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – As an MEP from Estonia, I personally know what Soviet or Russian occupation means and feels like. Believe me, it is not fun at all.

After 50 years of occupation, Estonia managed to regain independence and, through hard work, fortunately managed to join the European Union and NATO in 2004. Unfortunately, Ukraine did not share the same fate. Ukraine was duped, with the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, by a promise that if it got rid of its nuclear arsenal, the Russian Federation would honour its sovereignty. The UK and the USA promised to safeguard this pact.

In 2017, Ukraine is in a state of war with Russia, the UK and the USA did not safeguard the pact, the Crimean peninsula is occupied, Russia has arrested a vast number of Ukrainian political prisoners, Russia is restricting access to Crimea for the OSCE, the UN and the Council of Europe, and the Crimean Tatars are being oppressed. We in Europe need to understand that Russia will stop only when it is stopped.

Europe is strong, Europe is capable and Europe has the power to stop any repetition of Stalinist or Nazi German purges.

3.3. Филипините, случаят със сенаторката Лейла М. де Лима

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad siedmioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie Filipin – sprawa senator Leili M. De Limy

  Anders Primdahl Vistisen, stiller. – Hr. formand! Dagens debat om situationen i Filippinerne går på to ben: På den ene side er der ikke nogen tvivl om, at ethvert land har ret til at forsvare sig mod kriminalitet og narkobander. På den anden side er der heller ikke nogen tvivl om, at vi i Den Europæiske Union forventer, at et demokrati som Filippinerne fører kampen mod kriminalitet på en proportional måde, der overholder internationale retsgarantier.

Derfor er det bekymrende, at vi på den ene side ser det filippinske politi bruge, hvad der udefra set er meget overdrevne magtmidler i kampen mod narkokriminalitet. I den forbindelse er det vigtigt, at der er et fuldt demokratisk tilsyn med, om de magtmidler går for vidt, ligesom arrestationen og retssagen mod senator Lima også går meget vidt, og vi bør gøre alt, hvad vi kan, for at garantere, at retssagen er fair, og at senatoren har alle retsgarantier intakte, når retssagen kommer for en domstol.

  Barbara Lochbihler, Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident! Bereits im September des vergangenen Jahres verwiesen wir in einer Entschließung zu den Philippinen auf die sich verschlechternde Menschenrechtslage. Präsident Dutertes tödlicher Kampf gegen die Drogen, seit seiner Amtseinführung vor weniger als einem Jahr, hat geschätzten 7 500 Menschen das Leben gekostet. Wir rufen die philippinische Regierung dazu auf, dieses Töten unverzüglich auszusetzen. Es muss dafür gesorgt werden, dass die Polizei und auch das nun neuerlich eingesetzte Militär in ihren Operationen international rechtliche Standards einhalten. Und auch heute bleibt die Forderung bestehen, nicht nur außergerichtliche Hinrichtungen, sondern auch Folter und das Verschwindenlassen von Personen umgehend unabhängig zu untersuchen und Verantwortliche vor zivile Gerichte zu stellen. Kritiker der Politik Präsident Dutertes müssen vor willkürlichen Verhaftungen und Verurteilungen sicher sein können.

2007 haben die Philippinen – in einem wichtigen Schritt für das Land und die Region – die Todesstrafe abgeschafft. Nun ist der Gesetzentwurf für eine Wiedereinführung der Todesstrafe gerade erst vom Repräsentantenhaus genehmigt worden. Ich appelliere an die philippinische Regierung, dringend davon abzusehen, die Todesstrafe wieder einzuführen, nicht zuletzt, weil sie nachweislich keine größere abschreckende Wirkung hat als andere Strafen.

Enden möchte ich mit dem Aufruf, die Senatorin Leila de Lima unverzüglich freizulassen, alle Anklagepunkte gegen sie fallen zu lassen und ihre Sicherheit auch in Haft zu gewährleisten.

  Ignazio Corrao, autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non è passato molto tempo dall'ultima risoluzione sull'attuale allarmante situazione nelle Filippine e non è stato fatto, purtroppo, alcun tipo di progresso.

La guerra alla droga dal presidente Duterte ha causato più di 7 500 vittime tra la popolazione civile. Il governo ha agito impunemente e indiscriminatamente, uccidendo praticamente chiunque. Tra le vittime, infatti, non si contano solo trafficanti di droga ma anche bambini e persone innocenti.

Gli effetti di questa campagna spietata stanno distruggendo intere famiglie: da guerra alla droga essa si è trasformata in una guerra civile vera e propria, con l'unica differenza che il popolo assiste inerme e terrorizzato a questa strage e non ha nessun modo di reagire. Adesso, con la scusa della guerra alla droga, il governo sta anche cercando di mettere a tacere i critici e gli oppositori del regime. Da ultimo, la vicenda della senatrice Leila de Lima, che aveva apertamente dichiarato tramite parole e fatti il suo dissenso circa la politica repressiva e criminale portata avanti dal presidente sin dall'epoca in cui ancora non lo era e faceva il sindaco della città di Davao.

Mi aspetto una reazione forte, questa volta, da parte dell'Unione europea, perché non possiamo davvero permetterci di continuare ad assistere a questo sterminio.

  Soraya Post, författare. – Herr talman! Kolleger, president Duterte i Filippinerna har klivit fram som en ledande förbrytare mot mänskliga rättigheter. Narkotikamissbrukare förnedras offentligt. Utomrättsliga avrättningar har blivit vardag, och det är inte bara kriminella som röjs ur vägen. Nyligen så mördades miljöaktivisten Mia Mascariñas-Green i bilen framför sina tre barn.

Dutertes krig mot narkotika är i själva verket ett krig mot demokratin, och nu har han vänt sina vapen mot en medlem av oppositionen. Senator Leila M. de Lima har, som en av få politiker i Filippinerna, vågat resa motstånd mot Dutertes brutalitet. Nu är hon själv åtalad för narkotikabrott. Bevisen är uppenbart fabricerade.

Herr Duterte, detta vansinne måste få ett slut. Jag vill uppmana till att genast släppa senator Leila M. de Lima fri.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, auteure. – Monsieur le Président, effectivement, la situation ne cesse de se détériorer aux Philippines. La guerre contre la drogue lancée par le président Duterte, depuis son arrivée au pouvoir en juin 2016, a fait plus de 7 000 morts, surtout dans les quartiers pauvres, tant par les forces de police que par des milices armées. M. Duterte veut appliquer, au nom de l’État, les méthodes qui furent les siennes lorsqu’il était maire de Davao et que Mme de Lima a justement dénoncées. Successivement présidente de la commission nationale des droits de l’homme, ministre de la justice, présidente de la commission Justice et droits de l’homme du Sénat, Mme de Lima dénonce sans relâche la corruption et les exécutions extrajudiciaires. Elle vient d’être arrêtée, sans doute sur la base d’un dossier fabriqué de toutes pièces.

Défenseurs des droits de l’homme, journalistes, notamment, sont a minima l’objet de menaces d’intimidation. Le président Duterte a même ouvertement menacé de mort certains d’entre eux. Alors oui, il est temps d’agir. Oui, il faut que Mme de Lima soit libérée, protégée, qu’elle ait, a minima, droit à un procès équitable, comme il y a lieu de dénoncer le projet de rétablissement de la peine de mort. L’Union a les moyens de le faire. Il est temps qu’elle le fasse, notamment en utilisant les préférences SPG+.

  Dita Charanzová, author. – Mr President, it is very disappointing to stand here discussing the human rights situation in the Philippines again so soon. Just six months ago, we passed a resolution to express our serious concern at the violent crackdown by President Duterte on the users and sellers of narcotics. Today, this policy continues to claim the lives of thousands through extrajudicial killings, with more than 60% of deaths carried out by unknown assassins and under complete impunity. Senator Leila De Lima has been a strong voice, raising legitimate concerns over the legality, humanity and actual effectiveness of such a brutal policy. De Lima is now being punished for simply condemning Duterte’s war on drugs and attempting to legally investigate killings, in accordance with the rule of law. Freedom of speech and political opposition are critical to the functioning of any democracy. The government must therefore drop its charges against Leila De Lima and guarantee her protection from any further harassment.

Moreover, I call on the government of the Philippines to put an immediate end to the wave of extrajudicial executions taking place, and to condemn and investigate the actions of vigilante groups carrying out these killings. The illegal drug trade in the Philippines is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, but encouraging and condoning murder is not a solution. No matter how serious an issue may be, no government can permit violations of human rights and the rule of law to achieve an outcome. While condemning these actions, the EU should also seek to assist the government to uphold its human rights obligations.

  Tomáš Zdechovský, Autor. – Pane předsedající, případ opoziční senátorky Leily De Lima je alarmujícím příkladem potlačování práv občanů Filipín. Podle Evropské lidové strany je naprosto nepřípustné, aby bojovnice za lidská práva, která upozorňovala na negativní důsledky protidrogové kampaně prezidenta Duterteho, byla sama zatčena za obchodování s drogami. To považuji za absolutně nepřípustné. K tomuto zatčení totiž došlo na základě vymyšlených obvinění a svědčí to o zhoršující politické a společenské situaci na Filipínách. Právo na život je navíc ve stále větším ohrožení vzhledem k nedávno schválenému zákonu, který umožňuje trest smrti za závažné zločiny v souvislosti s drogami. Evropská unie musí zasáhnout a důrazně apelovat na filipínské autority, aby propustily paní De Lima a aby přestaly falešně obviňovat občany, kteří oprávněně kritizují praktiky místní vlády.

  Krzysztof Hetman, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ulega wątpliwości, iż narkotyki stanowią zagrożenie dla społeczeństwa, zaś walka z nimi jest ważna i potrzebna. Niestety jednak na Filipinach działania w słusznym ogólnym celu przybrały bardzo złą formę ich realizacji. Po pierwsze, zarzuty nielegalnego handlu narkotykami postawione senator De Limie są całkowicie sfabrykowane i mogą stanowić nie element walki z handlem narkotykami, lecz walki politycznej. Po drugie, wysoce niepokojąca jest forma, jaką przybrała wojna z narkotykami, którą wypowiedział prezydent Duterte. W ciągu zaledwie kilku miesięcy ponad siedem tysięcy osób zginęło z rąk policji lub samozwańczych grup dokonujących samosądu w ramach walki z narkotykami. Uważam zatem, że Unia Europejska powinna użyć wszystkich dostępnych jej instrumentów, by wpłynąć na władze Filipin, by zaprzestały tych wysoce niedemokratycznych praktyk i przestrzegały praw człowieka.

  David Martin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, since coming to power almost nine months ago, President Duterte has proved himself an impulsive and brutal leader. This resolution focuses on the politically motivated arrest of an outspoken critic of the President, but her situation is only a small part of the escalating instability and the climate of fear in the Philippines, motivated by the President’s policies.

Senator De Lima’s arrest signals that the President is willing to take personal political feuds to the highest level. It also raises serious concerns for other opposition politicians and activists in the country. Let us be clear about this: this is not a war on drugs. This is a war on the urban poor; this is a war, as my colleague said, on democracy; and this is a war on human rights. Drugs are being used as the justification, but they are not the motivation.

We must work with all our partners and all those who support due process and democracy in the Philippines to convince Mr Duterte’s government to stop the re-establishment of the death penalty, to review the minimum age of criminal liability, and to end these extrajudicial killings and political persecution. The Philippines is an important player in the region. It needs stability and democracy, and we should be supporting it in that. I was proud, two years ago, to back the re-granting of GSP+ to the Philippines, but frankly, if the human rights situation in the country does not improve, we should take the logical course, which is to say: GSP+ is granted on condition of accepting certain human rights and other labour rights, and if these are not respected, GSP+ has to be removed.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da quando Duterte ha assunto la carica di presidente, il 30 giugno 2016, è iniziata la sua guerra alla droga e ci sono state ben 7 000 uccisioni da parte della polizia o da parte di vigilantes paramilitari. Una campagna brutale, che continuerà fino al 2022, in cui sono veramente colpiti gli utilizzatori di droga o i pesci piccoli mentre i baroni del narcotraffico rimangono intoccabili.

La nuova vittima è la senatrice de Lima, una senatrice che da sempre si occupa di giustizia e di diritti umani – è la presidente della commissione in materia – che è stata arrestata con accuse proprio legate alla droga. Guarda caso la stessa senatrice era proprio l'autrice di un'indagine sull'uccisione extragiudiziale di più di un migliaio di persona a Davao, città di cui Duterte è stato a lungo sindaco. Con il più classico dei metodi è stato rimosso un personaggio scomodo dalla scena politica e il peggio deve ancora arrivare.

Il 7 marzo la House of Representatives ha approvato una legge per ripristinare la pena di morte per gravi crimini di droga e non ci sono dubbi che passerà. Alle provocazioni di un presidente che si è paragonato a Hitler, che ha mostrato il dito medio all'UE e che istiga all'uccisione degli utilizzatori di droghe e che scherza su stupro e omicidio, dobbiamo rispondere con fermezza. Quindi dobbiamo immediatamente sospendere le preferenze GS+ per il paese e dobbiamo pretendere che la senatrice de Lima sia liberata e protetta perché è innocente.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, en septembre 2016, nous nous inquiétions déjà de la situation aux Philippines et du comportement du président Rodrigo Duterte dans sa mission d’éradication du fléau de la drogue dans son pays.

Si nous pouvons comprendre et partager sa volonté de lutter contre la drogue, même si parfois on peut la considérer comme un prétexte, nous ne pouvons cependant admettre et nous devons dénoncer la manière employée par le président, qui a déjà causé la mort de plus de 7 000 personnes. Cet acharnement le conduit à se rendre coupable du pire. L’arrestation de son opposante, la sénatrice Leila De Lima, montre à quel point il est prêt à tout pour arriver à ses fins.

Il est primordial que nous mettions tout en œuvre afin que cette dernière puisse être libérée et qu’elle ne soit plus sous le coup des graves accusations qui lui sont reprochées, probablement le fruit d’un dossier monté de toutes pièces, comme l’a rappelé ma collègue Mme Vergiat.

Je m’inquiète également particulièrement du souhait du président de voir la réinstauration de la peine de mort. Celle-ci avait été abolie en 1987, pour être réinstaurée en 1994, puis abolie à nouveau en 2006. Le président Duterte souhaite la réinstaurer dans un premier temps pour les crimes liés au trafic de drogue, dit-il, mais son projet final est de l’étendre à d’autres crimes par la suite.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já se chci přihlásit k vystoupením svých kolegů, kteří jasně upozornili na to, jak se na Filipínách vede boj proti drogám mimo zákonné prostředky, mimo zákon. Jako člověk, který se zabývá otázkou trestu smrti ve světě, velmi nerad a se znepokojením sleduji, jak narůstá množství poprav po celém světě, a proto také chci zde odsoudit rozhodnutí filipínského parlamentu, Sněmovny reprezentantů, který se již vyslovil pro opětovné zavedení trestu smrti. Považuji toto rozhodnutí za velkou chybu filipínského parlamentu, považuji to za špatné rozhodnutí, za krok zpět, opět uvést do praxe tento nehumánní, krutý trest. Zapadá to bohužel do špatné trestněprávní politiky tamního prezidenta. Evropská unie bojuje proti trestu smrti všude ve světě, a proto bychom měli toto rozhodnutí parlamentu odsoudit a jasně vyzvat filipínský parlament, aby své rozhodnutí přehodnotil.

  Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, effectivement, il est de notoriété publique que la sénatrice De Lima mène un combat acharné pour la protection des droits de l’homme. Le président Rodrigo Duterte en a fait les frais à plusieurs reprises, puisqu’il a été maintes fois dans le viseur de la sénatrice pour d’éventuelles violations des droits de l’homme.

Il semblerait aujourd’hui qu’il tente par tous les moyens de discréditer la sénatrice. Il y a peu de temps d’ailleurs, il a affirmé qu’il la détruirait publiquement. En outre, dans la situation actuelle, l’utilisation de témoignages de criminels toujours emprisonnés comme principal fondement pour de telles accusations est fortement contestable. Ces manœuvres indignes doivent être fermement condamnées. La justice doit défendre les valeurs qui sont les nôtres et celles de la sénatrice ont droit à notre respect absolu, aux Philippines comme ailleurs dans le monde.

C’est donc un procès équitable qui est nécessaire en faveur de la sénatrice. Quels que soient les sujets, la force, fût-elle celle des gouvernements, ne peut se substituer en aucun cas à la justice dans une démocratie.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα θέματα της αντιμετώπισης της εγκληματικότητας και φυσικά του χτυπήματος της μάστιγας των ναρκωτικών είναι προφανές ότι ανήκουν στις αρμοδιότητες των κρατών μελών και τα κράτη αυτά καθ’ αυτά είναι αρμόδια για να αντιμετωπίσουν το θέμα. Όμως φυσικά η δίωξη πρέπει να τηρεί το κράτος δικαίου και την αρχή της αναλογικότητας. Οπωσδήποτε αυτό που βλέπουμε στις Φιλιππίνες είναι ότι το χτύπημα της μάστιγας των ναρκωτικών αξιοποιείται ως ένα άλλοθι για ξεκαθάρισμα λογαριασμών της ηγεσίας των Φιλιππίνων απέναντι στους πολιτικούς της αντιπάλους, κι αυτό είναι το βασικό στοιχείο το οποίο συζητούμε σήμερα. Ένα άλλο θέμα, για το οποίο δεν άκουσα τίποτε, είναι τι θα γίνει με τα εργασιακά δικαιώματα στις Φιλιππίνες, όπου υπάρχουν χιλιάδες παιδιά τα οποία δουλεύουν, υπάρχει έλλειψη τήρησης των εργασιακών δικαιωμάτων, και όλα αυτά γίνονται προκειμένου οι διάφορες πολυεθνικές να κερδίζουν από την εκμετάλλευση του λαού των Φιλιππίνων.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, ar dtús, amárach Lá Fhéile Pádraig, lá náisiúnta na nGael. Dá bhrí sin, ba mhaith liom lá ceiliúrtha maith agus sona a ghuí ar gach uile dhuine a bhfuil bá aige lenár dtír. Maidir leis an ábhar seo, tá sé de cheart ag gach uile thír troid i gcoinne drugaí mídhleathacha agus na dtiarnaí drugaí a bhíonn á reáchtáil. Ach is léir go bhfuil an tUachtarán Duterte ag dul thar fóir ar fad. Maraíodh níos mó ná 7 míle duine (dúnmharfóirí anaithnide ba chúis le 60% díobh) agus caithfimid a bheith amhrasach faoi seo agus é a cháineadh. Freisin, tá sé á úsáid chun teacht anuas ar an lucht freasúra mar a dúradh faoin Seanadóir Leila De Lima. Níl sé seo ceart agus caithfimid brú a chur ar na Filipínigh gan dul mar seo maidir leis an lucht freasúra. Caithfimid brú a chur orthu deireadh a chur le pionós an bháis agus cothrom na Féinne a thabairt don lucht freasúra. Go raibh maith agat, a Uachtaráin.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, drug-related crimes are an evil scourge on society, preying on the weak and causing untold misery and suffering. They should, of course, be treated with appropriate gravity; but there are legal, legitimate means of fighting a war on drugs, and there are illegal, illegitimate ones. What Duterte is doing now, through extrajudicial killings, is absolutely wrong, and we must surely all condemn it. How can the world trust that government to give a fair trial to Senator De Lima when it tramples upon due process and judicial proceedings? In western societies we often take for granted fundamental freedoms like the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus and the right to a fair trial. These are sadly being eroded by the Duterte regime. There is a huge difference between bringing true criminals to justice and what amounts to vigilante mob rule.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, cred și sper că toți vrem să combatem consumul de droguri. Dar nu așa. Războiul cu droguri în Filipine este dus cu mijloace extrajudiciare. A folosi consumul presupus de droguri pentru a ucide mi se pare inuman. Cazul senatoarei Leila se încadrează clar în campania brutală dusă împotriva celor care critică sistemul din Filipine. Filipine este un exemplu negativ din punctul de vedere al uciderii extrajudiciare și noi trebuie să sprijinim aplicarea drepturilor omului. Trebuie să facem tot ce putem ca Parlament European pentru eliberarea doamnei senatoare și pentru combaterea oricărui atac la drepturile omului.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for this resolution that draws attention to the arrest of Senator De Lima, former Secretary of Justice, former Chair of the Human Rights Commission to the Philippines and, as has been underlined, one of the most outspoken critics of the so-called war on drugs.

The EU has called on the Philippines to respect its obligations under international and domestic law, in particular to ensure the respect for the rule of law and human rights. This includes the right to due process, the independence of the judiciary, and a fair trial for all citizens. The proceedings in the case of Senator De Lima will be followed closely by the public, both in the Philippines and internationally. The EU will continue to underline the importance of the freedom of expression and opinion.

As regards the wider human rights situation in the Philippines, the EU and Member States, in various meetings both in Brussels and Manila, have conveyed their significant concerns on the legality of the killings in the so-called war on drugs. We have underlined the need for effective investigations of all killings, due process and access to remedies in this respect, and our concerns on the proposal to reintroduce the death penalty and on the proposal to lower the minimum age for criminal responsibility. We have called for the protection of human rights defenders, and underlined the importance of the freedom of expression and the freedom of opinion. The EU set out these concerns in its statement to the UN Human Rights Council earlier this week. The EU and Member States will remain engaged with the Philippines on all of these issues.

At the same time, as has been recognised, we will also continue to assist the Philippine Government in their efforts on the peace process, the economy and poverty reduction. Further to a request by the Department of Health, the EU is prepared to continue to provide assistance in support of a holistic approach to drugs policy. Under the Multiannual Indicative Programme, the strengthening of the rule of law through legal and judicial reform is one of two key sectors. In particular, the EU Governance in Justice Programme includes activities related to criminal justice and contributes to strengthening the capacity of the Human Rights Commission of the Philippines.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), písemně. – V rámci diskuse o porušování lidských práv ve světě, což máme na programu každého plenárního zasedání, jsme se dnes zabývali Filipínami, konkrétně případem senátorky Leily M. De Lima z opoziční Liberální strany. Je obviněna z trestných činů, které souvisí s drogami. Podle různých nevládních organizací včetně Amnesty International panují vážné obavy z toho, že celý případ je kompletně vykonstruovaný, že důkazy byly zfalšovány jen pro to, aby byla postupně likvidována opozice vůči vládě. V rezoluci vyzýváme k zajištění bezpečnosti paní senátorky ve vazbě, k jejímu okamžitému propuštění a ke spravedlivému vyšetření celého případu.

(Posiedzenie zostało zamknięte o godz. 11.35 i wznowione o godz. 12.00)

Președinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAŞCU
Vicepreședinte

4. Приоритети на ЕС с оглед на сесиите на Съвета на ООН по правата на човека (внесени предложения за резолюция): вж. протокола

5. Съобщение на председателството

  António Marinho e Pinto (ALDE). – Senhor Presidente, caros colegas, passam hoje 39 anos sobre a data em que o político italiano Aldo Moro foi raptado, em Roma, por um grupo de extrema-esquerda, denominado Brigadas Vermelhas. Moro acabaria assassinado a sangue-frio pelos seus raptores cerca de dois meses depois, mais concretamente em 9 de maio de 1978.

A morte de Aldo Moro deveu-se à confluência de dois fatores: o fanatismo sanguinário dos seus raptores e a intransigência desumana do Governo italiano, que se recusou a atender os pedidos ingentes da família de Aldo Moro e do próprio Aldo Moro para que libertasse dirigentes das Brigadas Vermelhas que estavam presos.

A questão que quero hoje, aqui, no Parlamento Europeu, partilhar convosco, meus caros colegas, é se valeu a pena essa intransigência do Governo italiano. Todos já fizemos o julgamento jurídico ou judicial, político e moral dos autores materiais do crime, mas os assassinos de Aldo Moro foram julgados, condenados e acabaram restituídos à liberdade. Estão, hoje, todos, em liberdade, mas ninguém restituiu uma vida a Aldo Moro.

Por isso, quando se vislumbram no horizonte europeu novos fanatismos e outras intransigências, a pergunta que vos deixo é: valeu a pena o sacrifício de Aldo Moro?

  Preşedintele. – Mulțumim foarte mult. Mai există o solicitare, dar rugămintea mea ar fi să putem trece la vot, să nu deschidem o dezbatere pe această chestiune. A fost foarte bine că colegul nostru ne-a reamintit acest moment și noi luăm notă de el, dar v-as ruga în continuare să trecem la celelalte chestiuni de pe ordinea de zi.

  Olaf Stuger (ENF). – Vanochtend heeft de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken van Turkije gereageerd op de verkiezingsuitslag in Nederland. En hij heeft de volgende oproep gedaan, en ik citeer “Turkije wil na de verkiezingsuitslag in Nederland snel een heilige oorlog in Europa”, ik herhaal “een heilige oorlog in Europa”. Daar roept de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken van Turkije toe op. Ik wil graag van u weten hoe u hierop gaat reageren.

  Preşedintele. – Eu sunt convins că această declarație a fost notată de autoritățile europene și sunt convins, de asemenea, că va primi răspunsul pe care îl merită.

  Preşedintele. – În această dimineață, Conferința președinților a aprobat o cerere din partea Comisiei de anchetă privind spălarea de bani, evitarea sarcinilor fiscale și evaziunea fiscală pentru o prelungire a mandatului cu trei luni. Prelungirea este necesară pentru a permite comisiei să își pună în aplicare pe deplin și în mod adecvat mandatul, astfel cum a fost adoptat de Parlament la data de 8 iunie 2016, ținând cont de numărul documentelor care mai trebuie examinate, al analizelor comandate și al părților implicate care urmează să fie audiate. Există obiecții la prelungirea mandatului cu încă trei luni de zile? Nu. În felul acesta, considerăm prelungirea mandatului ca aprobată.

6. Време за гласуване

  Președintele. – Următorul punct pe ordinea de zi este votarea.

(Pentru rezultate și alte detalii ale voturilor: a se vedea procesul-verbal)

6.1. Зимбабве, случаят със свещеника Еван Маварире (RC-B8-0191/2017, B8-0191/2017, B8-0194/2017, B8-0196/2017, B8-0200/2017, B8-0224/2017) (гласуване)

6.2. Украински политически затворници в Русия и положението в Крим (RC-B8-0190/2017, B8-0190/2017, B8-0192/2017, B8-0195/2017, B8-0198/2017, B8-0221/2017) (гласуване)

6.3. Филипините, случаят със сенаторката Лейла М. де Лима (RC-B8-0193/2017, B8-0193/2017, B8-0197/2017, B8-0199/2017, B8-0222/2017, B8-0223/2017, B8-0225/2017, B8-0226/2017) (гласуване)

6.4. Приоритети на ЕС с оглед на сесиите на Съвета на ООН по правата на човека (RC-B8-0183/2017, B8-0183/2017, B8-0184/2017, B8-0185/2017, B8-0186/2017, B8-0187/2017, B8-0188/2017, B8-0189/2017) (гласуване)

6.5. Надлежна проверка на веригата на доставки на полезни изкопаеми и метали с произход от засегнати от конфликти и високорискови зони (A8-0141/2015 - Iuliu Winkler) (гласуване)

6.6. Рамка на Съюза за събиране, управление и използване на данни в сектор „Рибарство“ (A8-0150/2016 - Marco Affronte) (гласуване)

6.7. Конституционни, правни и институционални последици от общата политика за сигурност и отбрана: възможности, предлагани от Договора от Лисабон (A8-0042/2017 - Esteban González Pons, Michael Gahler) (гласуване)

6.8. Интегрирана политика на Европейския съюз за Арктика (A8-0032/2017 - Urmas Paet, Sirpa Pietikäinen) (гласуване)

- Înainte de votare:

  David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, 14(2) RCV calls for an EU ban on drilling in ‘icy’ waters. Well, that is the sloppiest piece of legislation or proposed legislation that I have ever heard. How can you talk about ‘icy’ waters? I had my APA look it up, and all he could find was ice in whisky, or ice in Signore Tajani’s martini. How can this describe drilling? It is ridiculous. It is ludicrous.

  President. – Mr Coburn, as far as I know, only the scotch is on the rocks, whisky is not, but apart from that I am sure that this debate has already taken place. I am sure that if there were some discussions, they have taken place there. So under the circumstances, I would suggest that we move on with the vote.

6.9. Доклад от 2016 г. относно Черна гора (A8-0050/2017 - Charles Tannock) (гласуване)

6.10. Електронната демокрация в ЕС: потенциал и предизвикателства (A8-0041/2017 - Ramón Jáuregui Atondo) (гласуване)

  Președintele. – Votarea a luat sfârșit.

7. Обяснение на вот

7.1. Приоритети на ЕС с оглед на сесиите на Съвета на ООН по правата на човека (RC-B8-0183/2017, B8-0183/2017, B8-0184/2017, B8-0185/2017, B8-0186/2017, B8-0187/2017, B8-0188/2017, B8-0189/2017)

Explicații orale privind votul

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Mr President, I would like to ask Mr Verhofstadt, who is celebrating the very good result in the Netherlands, to go out and, rather than celebrating here, celebrate outside.

Gospodine predsjedniče, htio bih prije svega jasno reći da danas u svijetu još uvijek imamo, gotovo svugdje, pa i u Europskoj uniji, nažalost, kršenja ljudskih prava. Naravno da Ujedinjeni narodi upravo o tome trebaju itekako ozbiljno povesti računa, pogotovo u onim dijelovima svijeta gdje su kršenja ljudskih prava gotovo genocid ili su zaista genocid, kao što to čini na primjer Islamska država.

Međutim, sloboda medija, slobode udruživanja, ravnopravnost žena i muškaraca, prava djece, prava raznih jezičnih i vjerskih manjina ugroženi su gotovo svugdje u svijetu, pa i u nekim europskim zemljama. Pogotovo za one zemlje koje nisu članice europske unije znamo da nije sve idealno. U tom kontekstu želim izraziti svoju snažnu podršku i zato sam vrlo jasno glasao za ovaj izvještaj.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, καταψήφισα την έκθεση. Η διγλωσσία της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής σε σχέση με την προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι καταφανής. Στην Ελλάδα η τρόικα και τα μνημόνια έχουν οδηγήσει 3.885.000 Έλληνες να ζουν κάτω από τα όρια της φτώχειας, ενώ οι στρατιές των ανέργων αποτελούν ντροπή για το αποκαλούμενο ευρωπαϊκό κοινωνικό μοντέλο. Η δημοκρατία, το κράτος δικαίου και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα παραβιάζονται στην Ελλάδα, όπως έχω αναφέρει επανειλημμένα. Η αποτυχημένη συνταγή του μνημονίου, που εφαρμόζεται εδώ και 7 χρόνια στην Ελλάδα, οδήγησε το 40% του πληθυσμού να ζει κάτω από τα όρια της φτώχειας, γέμισε τη χώρα με στρατιές ανέργων, που φτάνουν το 1,5 εκατομμύριο. Σαν να μην έφταναν αυτά, η τρόικα συνεχίζει το «business as usual», με την ελληνική κυβέρνηση να έχει χάσει την μπάλα σε επίπεδο διαπραγμάτευσης, να έχει σαλπίσει ισπανική υποχώρηση, με αποτέλεσμα να παρθούν νέα σκληρά μέτρα, που θα επιφέρουν διάλυση της ελληνικής οικονομίας. Η κατάσταση αυτή πρέπει να σταματήσει επιτέλους. Ο ελληνικός λαός δεν ανέχεται πλέον τα μνημόνια, γι’ αυτό τον λόγο καταψήφισα την έκθεση.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, I would like mainly to refer to gender equality and women’s rights, which are fundamental human rights. We must, therefore, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, condemning the global gag rule and calling on the Commission and Member States to counter its impact by increasing SSRI HR funding and launching an international fund to enhance women’s economic empowerment, by overcoming barriers in the labour market, and by giving women an equal share in all levels of decision-making.

Moreover, we must involve social partners and women’s organisations in decision—making, address the needs of the most marginalised women, and highlight women as important economic agents whose participation in the labour market can stimulate the economy. Finally, we should support the establishment of an ILO convention to address gender-based violence in the workplace. I fully support this report and I believe we must translate these commitments into expenditure and make them more visible as soon as possible.

7.2. Надлежна проверка на веригата на доставки на полезни изкопаеми и метали с произход от засегнати от конфликти и високорискови зони (A8-0141/2015 - Iuliu Winkler)

Explicații orale privind votul

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu, která upravuje návrh nařízení, který v zásadě obsahuje jakousi formu autocertifikace nebo autoregulace dovozců nerostných surovin ze zemí, kde probíhají občanské války nebo je tam výrazně poškozováno životní prostředí. Já si myslím, že ten systém je velmi dobrý, protože je za prvé postaven na dobrovolnosti, není to žádná byrokratická zátěž, která omezuje samotné dovozce, a je postaven na principu, že dovozci jako firmy, které často sídlí v EU, by měli mít zájem nejen na zisku, ale i na morálce svého působení, a proto je velmi dobré to, že nařízení obsahuje tzv. seznam zodpovědných dovozců, kteří tak budou moci jasně říci, že jsou obsaženi na tomto seznamu a že tedy jejich podnikání nenese jenom aspekty ekonomické, ale i aspekty morální.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, thanks to our efforts, we have made sure that products sold in the EU do not fuel armed militias or foster human rights violations in conflict areas. We have also responded to public and consumer pressure. Consumers want to be sure that the everyday items they buy are not fuelling armed conflict and human rights abuses. Through tough negotiations and with the support of European civil society, we have ensured that the vast majority of minerals and metals imported in the EU will be covered by the regulation, cutting off a vital source of income for warlords whilst not imposing additional burdens on new small businesses.

Although this agreement is a huge step forward, there is still a long way to go to fully clean up global supply chains. We must remain committed to raising global standards and must monitor implementation efficiently to make sure it contributes to the goal of breaking the link between armed conflict and the trade in minerals and to avoid potential circumventions of the regulation.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, along with my group, I welcomed this report as it calls for mandatory due diligence checks on suppliers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold, otherwise known as conflict minerals. All industry initiatives now have to comply fully with international OECD due diligence guidelines. This sends out a clear message from the European Union that we wish to eliminate the strong interrelationship between trade and conflict that has defined this industry for far too long now.

In the long term, regulations such as this prevent armed revolts or human rights violations being financed by the illegal revenue from mineral extraction and trade. The rapporteur’s aim was to create an efficient and workable regulation which also affords due consideration for smaller SMEs. I am confident that we have reached an agreeable solution in this regard. Looking forward, cooperation in this area will thus bolster the market in responsibly traded minerals, while serving the interests of communities and people caught in war and conflict.

7.3. Рамка на Съюза за събиране, управление и използване на данни в сектор „Рибарство“ (A8-0150/2016 - Marco Affronte)

Explicații orale privind votul

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, the Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy is a very important subject. I welcome this proposal, which introduces significant changes to the process and updates the framework for gathering and managing fisheries data in the European Union. The new rules will align this framework with the requirements of the reformed CFP and simplify the existing system.

It is important to give particular importance to the collection and transmission of data so that fisheries management can be based on the best available scientific knowledge. Moreover, it is vital that clear, reliable and accurate data be collected on fleets and their fishing activities, environmental impact and discards, in line with proper standardised statistical principles. Therefore, I welcome the proposal to amend this procedure for establishing the EU multiannual programme and its content, the functioning of the Regional Co-ordination Groups and the procedure for making data available to end-users.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I support this proposal, sharing the rapporteur’s belief that the 2013 reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) needs to be matched by adaptations in the supporting scientific advice and therefore the data needed for it. The proposed changes comply with what is necessary and appropriate for the achievement of the basic objective of improving data quality, access and availability in the fisheries sector. Quality data collection is essential for the proper implementation of the CFP. From an Irish perspective, fishing has always been economically and socially important to us as an isolated nation. With the CFP, crucial for the prevention of over-fishing and marine pollution, it is therefore important that we improve upon the functioning of the system in place. This agreement will ensure the simplification of the current data collection system, avoiding duplication and improving the framework for gathering quality data.

7.4. Конституционни, правни и институционални последици от общата политика за сигурност и отбрана: възможности, предлагани от Договора от Лисабон (A8-0042/2017 - Esteban González Pons, Michael Gahler)

Explicații orale privind votul

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, Lisabonski ugovor omogućava nam ono što je danas očito najvažnije: imati moć, imati snagu, imati vojnu snagu, imati jak sigurnosno-obavještajni sustav. To je ono što danas Europskoj uniji treba ako želi biti kredibilni partner, ako želi biti kredibilna u svjetskim razmjerima.

Evidentno je na mnogim žarištima, pogotovo bliskoistočnim, da samo oni koji imaju vojnu snagu mogu i odigrati neku ozbiljnu ulogu. A što se dešava nama, nama koji nemamo vojnu snagu? Mi imamo krizu, mi imamo migrantsku krizu zbog toga i ne možemo djelovati, ne možemo kvalitetno djelovati.

Zato, iskoristimo mogućnosti Lisabonskog ugovora, stvorimo jaku sigurnosnu i obavještajnu uniju kako bi našim građanima, jednostavno rečeno, mogli ponuditi više sigurnosti i više ozbiljnosti za sve one napore koje svi zajedno ulažemo i u ovoj dvorani.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η πολιτική άμυνας ασφάλειας αλλά και η εξωτερική πολιτική είναι αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα κάθε κράτους μέλους, όπως ορίζεται και στη Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας, κι αυτό πρέπει να γίνεται σεβαστό από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Στη συγκεκριμένη έκθεση αναγράφονται μεγάλα ποσά για την αύξηση αμυντικών δαπανών από τα κράτη μέλη. Η αύξηση κατά τουλάχιστον 2% του ΑΕΠ για αμυντικές δαπάνες, δηλαδή περίπου 100 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ περισσότερα ως το 2020, είναι ένα σημαντικό ποσό που θα μπορούσε να αξιοποιηθεί για την αύξηση θέσεων εργασίας στην Ένωση. Η τοποθέτηση τέτοιων υπέρογκων ποσών για την ενίσχυση των ευρωπαϊκών στρατιωτικών επεμβάσεων σκοπεύει κυρίως στην αύξηση των κερδών της βιομηχανίας εξοπλισμών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του στρατιωτικού βιομηχανικού συμπλέγματος, και όχι στην ουσία του πράγματος, δηλαδή στην προστασία των πολιτών. Για τους λόγους αυτούς και για όσους άλλους ανέφερα στη χθεσινή μου ομιλία, καταψήφισα τη συγκεκριμένη έκθεση.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu podpořil, už jsem se k ní vyjadřoval na plénu, je tam celá řada pozitivních věcí, jako je posílení peněz na obranu, je tam snaha posílit spolupráci v obranné oblasti, myslím tím i EU. Ale chci tady říci, a proto jsem se přihlásil k vysvětlení hlasování, že tam jsou určité části, ke kterým jsem relativně skeptický a ve kterých vnímám určité možné napětí vůči NATO, které já považuji za klíčovou obrannou alianci v rámci evropského kontinentu a euroatlantické vazby. Zkrátka a dobře, měli bychom ještě dále debatovat o tom, nakolik chceme vytvořit evropské ozbrojené síly, jak případně budou vypadat a nakolik vůči NATO budou kompatibilní nebo nakolik by vůči NATO byly konkurencí. Kdyby to mělo být to druhé, konkurence vůči NATO, tak bych s tím měl velký problém a těžko bych v budoucnu mohl tento projekt v této části podpořit.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, as we near the anniversary of the horrific terror attacks in Brussels, my thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of such awful terror. We in Northern Ireland are no strangers to the legacy of the pain and loss left by ruthless terrorist gangs. Our message to you is clear: we must never allow those who perpetrated terror to rewrite the narrative of the past. It is wrong that those who now serve in this Chamber should try to glorify their deadly deeds and rewrite the narrative of the past, yet not be held accountable. This will not prevent new generations of young people from being radicalised, a point that I stressed to Commissioner King earlier this week. I also made it clear that Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole remains committed to working with the European Union to secure a safe and prosperous future for all our people. This should be a key priority in the Brexit negotiations.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu, protože obecně podporuju vytvoření obranné unie, a přiznám se, že mi ani nevadí z tohoto důvodu také výrazné posílení právě této rozpočtové kapitoly. Myslím si, že Unie by se měla zaměřit na obrannou politiku, na bezpečnostní politiku, protože to je přesně to, co očekávají občané od Unie, že bude zabezpečovat jejich elementární bezpečí. A podle mého názoru nejde o rozmělnění spolupráce s NATO. Já jsem přesvědčen, že ty výzvy, kterým čelí Evropa, ať je to hybridní válka, kterou vede Rusko, nebo ať je to masový pohyb lidí, to jsou přesně výzvy, které se tzv. hodí na vytvoření skutečně silné a dominantní obranné a bezpečnostní politiky Unie. Je nezbytné, aby koordinace těchto politik právě zabezpečovala i ve vztahu k členským státům Unie.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, je vote contre ce texte parce qu’il se donne pour objectif de savoir comment contourner l’obligation de passer à un traité dont tous les Européens seraient saisis, avant d’entrer dans cette absurdité d’Europe de la guerre que vous êtes en train de préparer.

Je m’alarme de la vision binaire que contient ce texte qui oppose, pour des raisons inconnues, une zone dite «asiatique» à une zone «euroatlantique». Je m’inquiète du fait que vous ayez déjà mis en place un état-major militaire, d’autant plus que le rapport prétend nous préparer à des conflits de haute intensité, c’est-à-dire à la guerre, ni plus ni moins. De la même manière, il appelle à un renforcement des réseaux de l’OTAN.

Je crois que vous êtes totalement à côté de ce que devrait être le projet européen qui est un projet pour la paix. Vous devriez vous demander comment l’Europe peut être plus efficace pour la paix dans le monde, plutôt que de vous demander de quelle manière elle va contribuer à la généralisation des guerres et au déclenchement, partout, d’hostilités que l’Europe doit à tout prix empêcher.

7.5. Доклад от 2016 г. относно Черна гора (A8-0050/2017 - Charles Tannock)

Explicații orale privind votul

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, Crna Gora prednjači među zemljama zapadnog Balkana u svojim integracijama prema Europskoj uniji i NATO-u. Međutim, taj napredak i proces integracije se ozbiljno ometa od strane Rusije. Vidjeli smo rusko miješanje u unutarnju politiku tijekom zadnjih izbora. Vidjeli smo neprikladnu podršku opoziciji tijekom protesta, a tvrdi se da Rusija ima i veze s ljudima koji su pokušali napraviti atentat na vodstvo Crne Gore.

Europska unija mora poslati jasnu poruku da su političke igre Rusije na zapadnom Balkanu nedozvoljive. Utjecaj i manipulacije Rusije moraju biti zaustavljeni. Ne smijemo biti pasivni promatrači toga jer ćemo platiti puno veću cijenu kad bude prekasno da se to popravi. Otvorenost ove Europske unije prema novim članicama s Balkana i podrška tom procesu je najbolji način da se Balkan smiri i Rusija udalji od Balkana.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu, protože podporuji přibližování zemí západního Balkánu a konkrétně Černé Hory k EU a podporuji do budoucna jejich vstup do EU. Jsem velmi rád, že ta zpráva, o které jsme hlasovali, odsuzuje snahy Ruska vměšovat se do vnitrostátních situací těchto zemí na Balkáně. Konkrétně řeší otázku právě Černé Hory. Domnívám se, že poté, co Černá Hora vstoupila do NATO a dál se přibližuje EU, tak ten tlak ze strany Ruska může dále narůstat a my na to budeme muset být schopni reagovat. V té zprávě je také obsažena celá řada věcí, se kterými souhlasím, jsou tam analyzovány jednotlivé kapitoly přibližování Černé Hory k EU. Já zvláště vítám otázky týkající se justice v Černé Hoře, kde je velmi podrobně popsáno, co je třeba zlepšit, aby se do budoucna Černá Hora stala právním státem a měla tak stejné parametry justice, jako mají členské státy EU.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, podržao sam ovaj izvještaj zato što sam sto posto uvjeren u to da je upravo približavanje i ulazak Crne Gore u Europsku uniju jednoga dana, ne predaleko od današnjeg dana, nešto što će doprinijeti stabilizaciji na zapadnom Balkanu.

Crna gora igra jednu vrlo pozitivnu ulogu. Proeuropsko vodstvo koje danas vodi Crnu Goru govori i o tome kako želi promijeniti svoju državu, želi reformirati Crnu Goru.

Vidimo da su mnoga poglavlja otvorena. Očekujemo otvaranje novih poglavlja. Očekujemo da će se vlada zaista uhvatiti u koštac sa svim onim što je bitno za građane Crne Gore i vjerujem da će upravo činjenica da ta mala država na zapadnom Balkanu dobro surađuje sa svojim susjedima doprinijeti da i oni, njeni susjedi, crnogorski susjedi, budu korak bliže Europskoj uniji u trenutku kada ona bude prva članica sa zapadnog Balkana, nova članica Europske unije.

7.6. Електронната демокрация в ЕС: потенциал и предизвикателства (A8-0041/2017 - Ramón Jáuregui Atondo)

Explicații orale privind votul

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, e-democracy offers the promise of enhanced democratic participation by e-consultations, but e-petitions etc. come with their own challenges. Firstly, democracy favours the younger generations, with older people often being less technically savvy, and their interests must be protected. Secondly, systems like e-petitions are prone to abuse, with algorithms being deployed to up the voting numbers, resulting in inappropriate outcomes. Thirdly, e-democracy can slow down the decision-making process by triggering debates in parliaments. Finally, e-democracy comes with the threat of hacking, identity theft and data leaks. Unless all four of these areas are solved and resolutions found I will not be able to support e-democracy in this Parliament.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, υπερψήφισα την έκθεση. Η συμμετοχή των πολιτών και της κοινωνίας των πολιτών στα κοινά είναι καίριας σημασίας για την εύρυθμη λειτουργία της δημοκρατίας και για τη νομιμότητα, καθώς επίσης και για τη λογοδοσία των εθνικών και ενωσιακών συστημάτων εκπροσώπησης. Βέβαια η στάση των ευρωπαϊκών θεσμών απέναντι στην οικονομική κρίση αλλά και στην προσφυγική κρίση κλονίζει την εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στους θεσμούς αυτούς, ενώ η ηλεκτρονική δημοκρατία, η οποία θα έπρεπε να στηρίξει τις αρχές της δημοκρατίας μέσω της τεχνολογίας πληροφοριών και διακυβέρνησης, δεν έχει καταφέρει μέχρι στιγμής να μειώσει την έλλειψη εμπιστοσύνης των πολιτών.

Για να αποκατασταθεί η εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στους ευρωπαϊκούς θεσμούς, πρέπει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να επαναπροσδιορίσει τους στόχους της, να δώσει έμφαση στην ουσιαστική επίλυση της μεταναστευτικής κρίσης. Επίσης, για το προσφυγικό να εφαρμόσει άμεσα τις μετεγκαταστάσεις απ’ την Ελλάδα προς άλλες χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Επίσης, να αντιμετωπίσει τα υψηλά ποσοστά ανεργίας που υπάρχουν στην Ελλάδα και στα κράτη του Νότου. Παράλληλα, η ηλεκτρονική δημοκρατία θα πρέπει να ενισχύσει την εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στους ευρωπαϊκούς θεσμούς.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr! Az e-demokrácia különböző formáinak és eszközeinek használata a jövőben fontos helyet fog kivívni magának társadalmainkban. Az internetes konzultációk és a különböző petíciók már ma is jelzik azokat a fontos ügyeket, amelyek a társadalom egy bizonyos szegmense számára kiemelkedő fontossággal bírnak. Ennek ellenére a jelentéssel összhangban fontos hangsúlyoznunk a digitális szakadék meglétét és azt a tényt, hogy mindegyik tagállamban vannak olyan társadalmi csoportok, amelyek vagy internet-hozzáféréssel vagy a használatához szükséges technikai készségekkel nem rendelkeznek. Ki kell emelnünk, hogy bármennyire is népszerűtlen a politika, a közös ügyeink rendezésére szóló felhatalmazást még mindig általános választásokon, a képviseleti elv alapján hozzuk meg. Ezért  a digitális térben sok esetben külön odafigyelést igényel az átláthatóság érvényesítése, hogy a közérdek meghatározása ne kerüljön veszélybe és ne a digitális készséggel rendelkező, hangosabb érdekérvényesítő csoport véleménye tűnjön fel a közvélemény véleményeként.

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Скъпи посетители на Европейския парламент, услугите от пакета „Електронна демокрация“ дават достъп до по-бързо стартиране на бизнес, по-бързо преминаване на обучение и също са важен елемент от инфраструктурата за ефективна обмяна на добри практики. Прилагането обаче изисква ресурси в развитието на цифрова инфраструктура и на човешки капитал като преподаватели и обучаващите се.

Трябва да се инвестира и в развитието на умения в борбата с интернет измамите, фалшивите новини и други форми на злоупотреба и манипулация на съдържание. Смятам, че Европейския съюз трябва да зададе тона за борба срещу тези глобални предизвикателства. В епохата на дигиталното общество, електронното правителство и администрация трябва да бъдат достъпни за всички, без, разбира се, да пренебрегват съображенията за сигурност на защита на личните данни.

При все това смятам, че не трябва да бъдат пренебрегвани и гражданите, които имат или ограничен достъп до електронни услуги, или невъзможност за работа с тях. Електронните услуги трябва да са достъпни, но не изключваща форма на достъп до информация. Гражданите, независимо от своята възраст и компютърна грамотност, са граждани и имат права, и те трябва да бъдат зачитани.

  Preşedintele. – Perioada consacrată explicațiilor privind voturile s-a încheiat.

8. Поправки на вот и намерения за гласуване: вж. протокола

(Ședința, suspendată la ora 12.55, a fost reluată la ora 15.00)

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND
Vizepräsident

9. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж. протокола

10. Позиция на Съвета на първо четене: вж. протокола

11. Запитвания (разискване)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen große Anfragen.

Meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben in dieser Woche zwei neue Instrumente, zum einen die topical debate und zum anderen die großen Anfragen. Ich durfte gestern schon die erste aktuelle Debatte leiten, die mit der neuen Geschäftsordnung eingeführt wurde. Ich freue mich, jetzt auch die erste große Anfrage leiten zu dürfen.

Es beginnt der Verfasser dieser großen Anfrage, Herr Kollege Coburn, für zwei Minuten.

  David Coburn, author. – Mr President, I think this is a good innovation – more like Prime Minister’s Question Time in the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, so perhaps the centre of the European democracy is following the Mother of Parliaments.

Cooperation between human traffickers and NGOs engaged in search and rescue in the Mediterranean.

On 15 December 2016, the Financial Times, which I am sure you all know, published several excerpts from leaked Frontex reports that suggest a high level of cooperation between smugglers and NGOs:

- ‘…criminal networks were smuggling migrants directly on an NGO vessel’;

- ‘…clear indications before departure on the precise direction to be followed in order to reach the NGO boats’

- ‘…people rescued by NGO vessels were often “not willing to cooperate with debriefing experts at all, with some claiming that they were warned not to cooperate with Italian law enforcement or Frontex”.’

This period has also witnessed a surge in NGO activity in the region and a sharp drop in rescues in response to distress signals. Frontex suggested the latter is due to ‘NGOs cooperating closer to Libyan territorial waters’ or even the lights used by rescue boats, which the agency said acted ‘as a beam for the migrants’.

Does the Commission believe that such actions constitute cooperation with the smugglers, and if not, could it define what would?

Does it believe that such actions constitute collusion, and if not would it define what would?

Does the EU provide any financial assistance to NGOs engaged in search and rescue in the Mediterranean?

Is Frontex hiding anything we should all know about, since we are paying them? I think this place should know more.

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank you for the opportunity afforded by those questions to clarify one or two issues.

First, as has been reiterated in the EU action plan against migrant smuggling, the duty to render assistance to persons or vessels in distress at sea is an obligation under international law. This is a binding obligation on states, who are obliged to ask ship masters of private, commercial or military vessels to render assistance. The ship masters vessels of nongovernmental organisations are bound by the same duties as ship masters of state vessels.

Second, it does not help to make, if I may say so, general assumptions on the role of all civil society organisations. These organisations are mostly active in support of governments and international organisations. At the same time, rules must be respected, and close coordination between all involved in search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean is obviously key to ensuring the safety of all concerned, migrants and crews alike.

Coordination of the rescue efforts is ensured primarily by the state responsible for the region where an incident is taking place. Any assisting vessel, be it private owned or state controlled, must therefore follow the instructions of the responsible Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre. So to take this example, in the case of search and rescue in the central Mediterranean region, coordination must take place with the Italian authorities.

Third, when it comes to criminalisation of migrant smuggling, we need to be clear about the existing legal framework. According to existing EU legislation, facilitation of unauthorised entry is the act of intentionally assisting a person who is not a national of a Member State to enter or transit across the territory of a Member State in breach of that Member State’s immigration laws. National authorities are the competent body to judge this. They are also competent to assess whether the conduct of any NGO, or indeed other legal or natural person, rescuing people in a specific case could amount to a form of collusion or cooperation with migrant smuggling networks.

So far the Commission has not received any official information from any Member States about investigations or prosecutions of NGOs involved in search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean for having participated in migrant smuggling.

Finally I would like to emphasise that the Commission does not provide any financial assistance to NGOs engaged in search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean. EU funding through the International Security Fund can support search and rescue operations at sea which arise during maritime border surveillance operations. These are the exclusive responsibility of public authorities, hence search and rescue operations carried out by third parties, such as NGOs, are not eligible under the Internal Security Fund for EU funding.

  Jiří Pospíšil, za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal Vaši odpověď na otázky, které zde byly vzneseny. Osobně mě ty odpovědi úplně neuspokojily, byly hodně obecné. Já se domnívám, že pokud zde v médiích zazněly některé výroky nebo úniky informací z Frontexu, pak by Komise toto měla více prověřit a více se zabývat tím, nakolik tedy se jedná o relevantní informace této agentury nebo jsou to pouze nějaké vytržené teze z kontextu a jsou v zásadě nepravdivé, jsou pouze špatně účelově seskládané.

Já jsem příznivcem neziskového sektoru, považuji jejich činnost za důležitou. Na druhou stranu, kdyby zde bylo podezření, že některé neziskovky, ať už třeba nevědomě, pomáhají pašerákům, tak je to velmi závažná informace a nemělo by skončit pouze u takovéhoto obecného prohlášení. Takže moc prosím, bylo by dobré se tímto více zabývat, vyslechnout zástupce Frontexu a případně o tom informovat Parlament v nějaké podrobnější podobě.

Já jsem přesvědčen, že tyto problémy, které jsou zde popisovány a také jsou popisovány v médiích, jsou dané tím, že se nám stále nedaří to, o čem často hovoříme, vytvořit na území severní Afriky nějaké utečenecké tábory, kde by tito lidé mohli být dočasně shromažďováni a odkud by mohlo být řešeno jejich případné azylové řízení ve vztahu k jednotlivým zemím EU. Dokud se toto nepodaří, pak hrozí, že do budoucna počet uprchlíků z Afriky bude narůstat a hrozí také to, že tragédie na moři, bohužel, výrazně klesat nebudou.

Takže, podle mého názoru, ta dnešní debata je pouze útržkem celého problému a měla by se více Evropská komise zaměřit na to, zda je možné v budoucnosti na území Afriky vytvořit tábory, kam by potencionální žadatelé o azyl byli umístěni a odtud by pak o azyl žádali.

  Νότης Μαριάς, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας ECR. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το θέμα που συζητούμε είναι ιδιαίτερα σοβαρό. Έχω επισκεφθεί τα νησιά του Αιγαίου και έχω μια πλήρη εικόνα του τι συμβαίνει. Έχω επισκεφθεί τέσσερις φορές τη Σάμο, δύο φορές τη Λέσβο, μία φορά την Ειδομένη και μία φορά τη Χίο. Επομένως έχω εικόνα του τι γίνεται, και αυτή τη στιγμή στα νησιά του Αιγαίου έχουν εγκλωβιστεί αρκετές χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες, αλλά κυρίως παράνομοι μετανάστες· αυτό είναι το βασικό στοιχείο. Αυτό είναι το κυρίαρχο στοιχείο σήμερα στα νησιά του Αιγαίου και πρέπει να αρχίσουν, κύριε Επίτροπε, οι επαναπροωθήσεις. Δεν μπορεί να παραμένει αυτή η κατάσταση.

Δεύτερον, από την πρώτη στιγμή έχω καταγγείλει επίσημα ότι ΜΚΟ είναι κράτος εν κράτει. Κάνουν ό,τι θέλουν και σε επίπεδο Ελλάδας. Δεν έχουν κανένα έλεγχο, δεν έχουν ούτε έλεγχο από την Επιτροπή. Στη Χίο έχουν δημιουργήσει ένα αυτοσχέδιο χώρο φιλοξενίας μέσα στον αρχαιολογικό χώρο. Αν αυτό το είχε κάνει κάποιος έλληνας πολίτης θα είχε συλληφθεί. Αυτό που έχει σημασία είναι τι γίνονται τα κονδύλια. Εκεί είναι το κλειδί! 195 εκατομμύρια ευρώ έχουν δοθεί κονδύλια από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση στις ΜΚΟ και κάνουν πάρτι. Ξεπάγιασαν οι πρόσφυγες στη Μόρια, στη Ριτσώνα. Υπάρχει ζήτημα με το φαγητό το οποίο δίνουν, τις προμήθειες που κάνουνε, με ποιους όρους τις κάνουν, ή τα ποσά που δίνουν στους δήθεν εθελοντές, τα οποία είναι απίθανα. Κανένας έλεγχος! Αυτά που σας λέω τα έχω ξαναπεί εδώ. Έχω κάνει παρέμβαση και έχω ζητήσει, κύριε Πρόεδρε, να επέμβει η OLAF, να γίνει επιτέλους έλεγχος. Tο είχα πει στον κύριο Στυλιανίδη –εκεί καθόταν–, ότι θα υπάρξει πρόβλημα.

Eπομένως νομίζω ότι πρέπει πρώτα απ’ όλα να πάνε τα κονδύλια στην τοπική αυτοδιοίκηση, όπου υπάρχει έλεγχος, όπου υπάρχει δυνατότητα να ξέρουμε τι κάνουμε. Και επιπλέον, κύριε Επίτροπε, σας απευθύνω πρόσκληση: στις 27 Μαρτίου θα έρθουν εκπρόσωποι από τα νησιά του Αιγαίου στις Βρυξέλλες σε μια εκδήλωση όπου θα σας πουν τι συμβαίνει. Χρειάζεται λοιπόν σημαντική παρέμβαση, διότι δεν μπορεί να συνεχίζει το θέμα αυτό. Το κλειδί είναι τα κονδύλια που παίρνουν οι ΜΚΟ· το πάρτι το οποίο γίνεται. Κόψτε αυτό το πάρτι και θα δείτε ότι δεν θα υπάρχει πρόβλημα.

  Ivan Jakovčić, u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, mada želim uvijek biti jako oprezan kada političke rasprave vodimo na temelju novinskih članaka, koliko god Financial Times bila i ozbiljna novina, u što ne sumnjam, ali malo sumnjam ponekad u naše prijatelje iz EFDD-a jer i oni znaju koristiti razne argumente, a pogotovo, moram reći, neka iskustva s nevladinim organizacijama koje su bile odlične, ali ima i mnogo nevladinih organizacija s kojima sam zaista imao vrlo loša iskustva.

Ovdje želim ipak dodati nešto što smatram iznimno važnim, a to je da je sam Frontex rekao kako su kriminalne mreže krijumčarile imigrante izravno brodom nevladinih organizacija. To se može provjeriti, gospodine povjereniče. Može se provjeriti koje su to nevladine organizacije. Frontex je nama dužan reći informaciju, Vama je dužan reći informaciju. Prema tome, to se može provjeriti.

Također, nevjerojatno je da migranti uopće nisu bili spremni na suradnju s osobama koje su bile zadužene za ispitivanje, a neki su čak govorili o tome da ne žele surađivati s talijanskom policijom, odnosno s Frontexom.

To su ozbiljne optužbe. To su ozbiljne, ali provjerive optužbe. Ja Vas u tom kontekstu pozivam da zaista pokušamo stati na kraj ovim pričama, da znamo točno ono što se dešavalo i da napokon imamo jednu ukupnu strategiju prema svemu onome što se dešava na Mediteranu jer inače, znamo da je prekasno, nemojmo da bude baš do kraja kasno.

  Julia Reid, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, this important debate this afternoon on the links between human traffickers and NGOs would not have been possible if it were not for the EFDD group taking this initiative. This is an important topic and needs to be addressed, and not simply brushed under the carpet.

In December last year, the Financial Times published excerpts from a leaked Frontex report that suggested there was a high level of cooperation between people smugglers and NGOs. The leaked report claimed criminal networks have been assisting migrants by giving clear indications on which direction they need to take to reach the NGO boats. Unforgivably, there have also been reported cases where migrants have been smuggled directly onto NGO vessels, so it is alleged.

It is not just criminal gangs and NGOs who are benefiting from this crisis, but also Islamic extremism. Current migration policies adopted by the EU and Chancellor Merkel have enabled terrorist organisations such as ISIS to smuggle their supporters into Europe, which has enabled them to carry out a number of attacks. Opening up Europe’s doors indiscriminately has put at risk not only the lives of migrants who make the treacherous journey, but also the lives of ordinary Europeans who now face the threat of terrorism on a daily basis.

UKIP have said from the very start of this crisis that we need to have a tough but fair policy on this crisis to stop innocent lives being lost at sea and to stop the profiteering of criminal gangs and ISIS. To date, the UK government has committed over GBP 2.3 billion to helping refugees in Syria and the region, the second largest donor, and since its inception, almost 4 500 Syrians have entered the UK under the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme. Perhaps the EU would do better to follow the UK’s example rather than have desperate people paying vast sums of money to smugglers who only view them as a disposable commodity.

  Georg Mayer, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte diese Thematik „Migrationskrise“ hier noch einmal nutzen, um vielleicht das Thema Türkei in den Fokus meines Interesses zu stellen, nachdem wir in den letzten Tagen immanent von diesen Provokationen begleitet wurden. Das ist schon erschreckend, was man da so hört – speziell von Seiten der Türken –, und ich denke, dieser Deal mit der Türkei ist das Papier nicht wert, auf dem er geschrieben ist – und das wissen sie jetzt auch. Heftig wird es dann, wenn man sich heute die neueste Aussage vom türkischen Außenminister anhört, der nämlich sagt: Es wird Religionskriege geben. Er wird dafür sorgen, dass wir Religionskriege erleben.

Natürlich ist es nicht klug, auf jede Provokation eines türkischen Politikers mit einer Gegenprovokation zu reagieren. Aber so ganz mutlos, wie man das auf Seiten der Europäischen Union oder auch der Mitgliedstaaten erlebt, sollte es dennoch nicht sein. Denn man wird, das kann ich Ihnen sagen, nur Respekt von Seiten der Türkei bekommen, wenn man auch irgendwann sagt: bis hierher und nicht weiter.

Das sind aber – und das ist das besonders Erschreckende – die Partner, die von Seiten der Sozialisten und der Konservativen hier in die Union geholt werden. Die Mitgliedsverhandlungen sind nur auf Eis gelegt; das würde heißen: Wir haben Ihre Partner, die Sie so gern hätten, dann auch hier im Haus sitzen.

Wenn der türkische Außenminister von Religionskriegen redet, dann ist das schon sehr beachtlich, und ich denke, wir sollten hellhörig werden. Denn wir wissen, dass dank verfehlter Politik von Merkel und Co. Millionen von Migranten nach Europa reingekommen sind, von denen wir keine Daten haben, keine Namen wissen und nicht wissen, wer diese Personen sind. Meist Männer – U-Boote also.

Die Auswüchse dieser Politik sieht man ganz gut, wenn man hier ins Parlament kommt. Wir werden bewacht von Soldaten, das Haus wird verschanzt, wir bunkern uns ein. Und das ist das Ergebnis dieser Politik. Es ist kein offenes Haus mehr, wie es ein Parlament sein sollte. Das erinnert mich schon sehr an Max Frisch: Das Stück „Biedermann und die Brandstifter“ – für die, die es kennen. Biedermann ist ein Bürger, der zwei Brandstifter zu sich ins Haus einlädt, diese versorgt, obwohl sie ganz klar erkennen lassen, sie wollen brandstiften; Spätestens – und das sage ich Ihnen – nach den nächsten Anschlägen – und die werden bestimmt kommen – werden wir dank der verfehlten Politik von Rot und Schwarz auch hier im Haus wahrscheinlich Panzer vor diesem Parlament stehen haben.

Der Präsident. – Herr Kollege Mayer! Ich habe davon abgesehen, Ihnen das Wort zu entziehen, weil Sie ganz unverhohlen eine ernsthafte Frage einer Fraktion hier dazu benützt haben, ohne Punkt und Komma Ihren Wortbeitrag dazu zu benützen, zu einem ganz anderen Themenkreis Ihre Auffassungen abzugeben. Ich bin hier neutral; ich könnte das wesentlich anders ausdrücken. Das ist nicht in Ordnung und wird auch dem Respekt gegenüber dem Fragesteller nicht gerecht.

  Georg Mayer (ENF). – Herr Präsident! Das ist ja nun ein neuer Punkt in der Geschäftsordnung. Ich habe mich ja sehr wohl auf die Thematik Migration bezogen, und dazu gehört natürlich auch die Abmachung mit der Türkei. Insofern denke ich, dass ich den Bogen nicht überspannt habe, sondern ich habe mich auf die Türkei bezogen, auf den Flüchtlingsdeal und die derzeitigen Vorgänge, wie sie mit der Türkei und mit allen Mitgliedstaaten in Europa ablaufen.

  Der Präsident. – Ich will das nicht weiter kommentieren. Jedenfalls stellt das Abkommen mit der Türkei kein Abkommen mit einer NGO dar.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, an article published by the Financial Times on 15 December 2016 contained several excerpts from leaked Frontex reports and claimed a high level of cooperation between smugglers and NGOs. The newspaper has since retracted claims that Frontex had accused NGOs of collusion with smugglers. No doubt about it, but this is a very troubling accusation in an already distressing human rights situation. Rescue missions are conducted with great valour, bravery and spirit on the part of those people involved in them, whether they are the European Border and Coast Guard, Frontex, Member States or non-governmental organisations.

In this regard, I would like to sincerely sympathise with the families of Captain Dara Fitzpatrick and the crew of the Irish coastguard helicopter that tragically crashed this week, illustrating the point.

The European response to various crises has been adopted in the spirit of solidarity and cooperation on which the European Union was founded. I would hope that this approach will continue to guide our action in this area and that we will move forward. I would like to highly commend all those who work in the sector. 5 000 people died at sea last year. From an Irish point of view I am disappointed with such claims, given the European and my own government’s commitment to relieving the humanitarian crisis as it has developed in recent years.

In September 2015, as a direct response to this humanitarian crisis, the Irish Refugee Protection Programme was established. In a gesture towards the most vulnerable individuals of this migration crisis, Ireland pledged to accept the quota asked of it by the EU. I wish to take this opportunity to stress our deep commitment to delivering our decision to accept these refugees and asylum seekers. At present, more than 12 500 refugees have been rescued from Mediterranean waters by Irish naval forces. We have dispatched countless naval service vessels and our commitment to continue doing so still remains undisputed.

However, suggestions of collusion between human traffickers and NGOs provide yet another obstacle to the roll-out of Europe-wide rescue and resettlement efforts. It is thus paramount that no cloud should hang over the human rights agencies and NGOs which are entrusted in these areas.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Mr President, I think we can all understand to some extent and sympathise immensely with the problems that the Mediterranean area has faced, not just in recent months but over a considerable period of time. There is no doubt we can all agree and condemn those involved in human trafficking and the smugglers, and it is a serious question why some of this has been allowed to continue by some of the nation states that are involved within this area.

Well, I think Professor Marias hit the nail on the head when he said you have to identify and distinguish between the refugees and the illegal immigrants. I think we would do well to listen to what he says because he is coming very close to what has not been taken up by many and has been misrepresented by others. So we would do well to listen.

As someone with my past and the situations I have been through, I have learned that you need to deal with the facts. Newspapers do not refuse publicity and they do not always tell us everything that is there.

  Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, predstavnik Komisije je rekao da Komisija nema izvješće država članica o tome da postoji takva vrsta suradnje. S druge strane, Financial Times daje vrlo precizne citate izvješća Frontexa o kojem bi predstavnik Komisije trebao imati neka saznanja. Očito se nešto problematično događa. To je primjer kako se politika može deformirati i kako se s potpuno suprotnih stajališta, interesa i motiva našao zajednički interes. I kada bi netko postavio hipotetsko pitanje: ako je ta suradnja spasila tisuće ljudskih života, tko može biti protiv takve suradnje makar je ona zapravo deformacija i nije politika? Ovo pitanje pokazuje da Europska unija ne može imati odgovor na masovni priljev izbjeglica ukoliko ne primjenjuje silu, ili u najmanju ruku nehumano ponašanje.

Pravo rješenje nošenja s velikim pritiskom izbjeglica je naravno djelovanje na onim prostorima gdje nastaju krize – humanitarno, gospodarsko i sigurnosno. Europska unija ni u jednom od tih područja nema cjelovito upravljanje krizama i zato ćemo biti suočeni s ovakvim krizama još dugo vremena uključujući i moralne dileme koje te krize i ovakve situacije otvaraju.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, htio bih ipak naglasiti važnost onih organizacija koje su žrtvovale sebe da bi pomogle ljudima koji su mogli umrijeti, koji su mogli poginuti. Nedvojbeno je da su mnoge organizacije nevladinoga društva itekako pomogle najunesrećenijima jer oni koji žele doći u Europu, velika, velika većina, nisu kriminalci nego su jednostavno ljudi koji ne znaju više što će i kako u životu i žele doći u Europu koja im izgleda kao jedna predivna bajka. Ali tu je dodatni problem, problem krijumčarenja i problem dolazaka migranata neće nestati. Dapače, bit će stalno prisutan, možda i sve veći.

Zato naš angažman mora biti trajan oko svega, a poštovanom, dragom austrijskom prijatelju, neću to reći na mojem materinjem jeziku, njemačkom, nego ću mu samo reći da je odgovor na svoju diskusiju dobio noćas na izborima u Nizozemskoj. To je odgovor na ono što ste Vi govorili, dragi gospodine Mayer.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, there are a number of serious points that have been raised. We take them seriously. I will discuss them with responsible colleagues and indeed with the heads of relevant agencies.

Can I just repeat that saving lives at sea is a priority and indeed an obligation under international law, and that remains the case, including during the current migration crisis. I would like to associate myself with the comments made by Mr Kelly about the devotion of those involved in saving lives at sea, some of whom pay a very high price for that work. I, on behalf of the Commission, condemn unreservedly those involved in human trafficking and those who seek to profit from migration smuggling.

Successfully addressing the migration crisis is going to depend on the active cooperation of all of us, all parts of state authorities and civil society including NGOs. In the end, as I said earlier, national authorities are competent to assess if the conduct of an NGO constitutes a criminal offence based on the applicable national, EU and international law.

Just to be clear on funding, as was asked, the Commission does not provide funding to NGOs or other non-governmental actors to carry out search and rescue activities.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Beatrix von Storch (EFDD), schriftlich. – Es ist enttäuschend, dass die Kommission unsere große Anfrage nicht nur nicht fristgerecht beantwortet hat, sondern von einer Antwort gänzlich abgesehen hat. Die große Anfrage ist ein bedeutendes Minderheiteninstrument, insbesondere für die Oppositionsfraktionen, die sich dem generellen Konsens hier im Haus verweigern. Die Kommission zeigt weiterhin keinerlei Verantwortlichkeit gegenüber dem EU-Parlament. Sie versteht sich als frei schwebend agierende Regierung. Sie wirkt wie ein in unsere Zeit gebeamter absolutistischer Fürst. Wir haben jedoch das Zeitalter des Absolutismus überwunden. Regierungen sind den Parlamenten Rede und Antwort schuldig. Doch die Kommission kümmert das nicht. Sie macht ihr Ding, unbeeindruckt vom Tun hier im Parlament. Das zeigt sich im Umgang mit der großen Anfrage, und das zeigt sich in der lustlosen, teilweise frech-inhaltsleeren Beantwortung unserer Anfragen zur schriftlichen Beantwortung. Und ich sage Ihnen, Herr Kommissar, wenn Sie so weitermachen, dann wird dies auch das Ende der Kommission sein, wie wir sie heute haben. Denn kein Souverän lässt sich so ein selbstherrliches Treiben auf Dauer gefallen. Sie wissen, wovon ich rede, denn Ihr Land – Großbritannien – ist bereits aus diesem von Eliten beherrschten Club namens EU ausgetreten.

12. Решения относно някои документи: вж. протокола

13. Внасяне на документи: вж. протокола

14. Петиции: вж. протокола

15. Предаване на текстове, приети на настоящото заседание: вж. протокола

16. График на следващите заседания: вж. протокола

17. Прекъсване на сесията

Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die Sitzungsperiode des Europäischen Parlaments für unterbrochen.