European Parliament resolution on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (2006/2200(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0032 A6-0020/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2005 on the presumed use of European countries for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners by the CIA(1),

–   having regard to its decision of 18 January 2006 setting up a Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2006 on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, adopted midway through the work of the Temporary Committee(3),

–   having regard to the delegations which the Temporary Committee sent to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, Romania, Poland and Portugal,

–   having regard to the hearings, numbering no fewer than 130, held by the Temporary Committee in the course of its meetings, delegation missions and confidential interviews,

–   having regard to all the written contributions received by the Temporary Committee or to which it has had access, particularly the confidential documents forwarded to it, notably by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) and the German Government, or which it has obtained from various sources,

–   having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2006 on the progress made in the EU towards the Area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) (Articles 2 and 39 of the EU Treaty)(4), notably its paragraph 3,

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2006 on the situation of prisoners at Guantánamo(5),

–   having regard to Rule 175 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (A6-0020/2007),

A.   whereas, in its resolution of 6 July 2006, Parliament decided that the Temporary Committee would 'continue its work for the remainder of its established twelve-month term, without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 175 of its Rules of Procedure on the possibility of extending the term',

B.   whereas, in adopting its resolution of 22 November 1990 on the Gladio affair(6), Parliament drew attention, more than 16 years ago, to the existence of clandestine operations involving intelligence services and military organisations without adequate democratic control,

C.   whereas the Member States cannot circumvent the requirements imposed on them by Community and international law by allowing other countries' intelligence services, which are subject to less stringent legal provisions, to operate on their territory; whereas, in addition, the operations of intelligence services are consistent with fundamental rights only if adequate arrangements exist for monitoring them,

D.   whereas the principle of the inviolability of human dignity is enshrined in international human rights law, notably in the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the preamble to and Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and whereas that principle is guaranteed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; whereas that principle is reiterated in most Member States' constitutions, as well as in Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union(7) and whereas that principle should not be undermined, even for the purposes of security, in times of peace or war,

E.   whereas the principle of inviolability of human dignity underlies every other fundamental right guaranteed by international, European and national human rights instruments, in particular the right to life, the right to freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to liberty and security, the right to protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial,

F.   whereas extraordinary rendition and secret detention involve numerous violations of human rights, in particular violations of the right to liberty and security, the freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to an effective remedy, and, in extreme cases, the right to life; whereas, in some cases, where rendition leads to secret detention, it constitutes enforced disappearance,

G.   whereas the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is possible and the obligation to protect against, investigate and sanction torture is an obligation owed by all states (erga omnes), as provided by Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the related case law, Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and national constitutions and laws of the Member States; whereas specific conventions and protocols on torture and monitoring mechanisms adopted at the European and international level demonstrate the importance attached to this inviolable norm by the international community; whereas the use of diplomatic assurances is incompatible with this obligation,

H.   whereas in democracies in which the respect for the rules of law is inherent, the fight against terrorism cannot be won by sacrificing or limiting the very principles that terrorism seeks to destroy, notably, the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms must never be compromised; whereas terrorism can and must be fought by legal means and must be defeated while respecting international and national law,

I.   whereas it is necessary to create efficient legal instruments to combat terrorism within the framework of both international and national law,

J.   whereas the United States (US) Government's strategy to combat terrorism has made use of pervasive instruments to monitor sensitive data relating to European citizens, such as the Passenger Names Record (PNR) agreement, and to monitor bank details through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (Swift) network,

K.   whereas this report is not intended to be an attack on the secretive nature of the secret services, but rather is intended to denounce the unlawfulness of those secret activities which, in the circumstances under investigation, led to the infringement of national and international law in the absence of appropriate democratic control,

L.   whereas on 6 September 2006, US President George W. Bush confirmed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was operating a secret detention programme outside the United States,

M.   whereas President George W. Bush said that the vital information derived from the extraordinary rendition and secret detention programme had been shared with other countries and that the programme would continue, which raises the strong possibility that some European countries may have received, knowingly or unknowingly, information obtained under torture,

N.   whereas the Temporary Committee has obtained, from a confidential source, records of the informal transatlantic meeting of European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) foreign ministers, including US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on 7 December 2005, confirming that Member States had knowledge of the programme of extraordinary rendition, while all official interlocutors of the Temporary Committee provided inaccurate information about this matter,

O.   whereas the Temporary Committee has obtained, from a confidential source, records of meetings of the Council's Working Party on Public International Law (COJUR) and Transatlantic Relations Working Party (COTRA) with senior representatives of the US Department of State during the first half of 2006 (notably on 8 February and 3 May 2006), while it was provided by the Council Presidency only with a summarised version of these documents; whereas the documents sent by the Council to Parliament concerning those meetings in answer to Parliament's specific request, were incomplete summaries of the proceedings with essential parts missing,

P.   whereas the fact that those meetings took place was kept from Parliament and absolute secrecy was maintained in relation to their proceedings,

Q.   whereas, in the present resolution, 'European countries' should be understood as meaning Member States and candidate and associate countries, as outlined in the mandate of the Temporary Committee adopted on 18 January 2006,

1.  Recalls that terrorism represents one of the main threats to the security of the European Union and that it must be fought with lawful and coordinated efforts by all European governments, in close collaboration with international partners and notably with the United States, along the lines of the strategy defined at United Nations (UN) level; underlines that the fight against terrorism must be fought on the basis of, and in order to protect, our common values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms; furthermore stresses that all the work carried out by the Temporary Committee is intended to make a contribution towards the development of clear and focused measures in the fight against terrorism, which are commonly accepted and respect national and international law;

2.  Considers that after 11 September 2001, the so-called 'war on terror' - in its excesses - has produced a serious and dangerous erosion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as noted by the outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan;

3.  Is convinced that the rights of the individual and full respect for human rights contribute to security; considers it necessary that in the relationship between the need for security and the rights of individuals, human rights must always be fully respected, ensuring that suspected terrorists are tried and sentenced while due process is observed;

4.  Emphasises that the positive obligation to respect, protect and promote human rights is binding, regardless of the legal status of the individual concerned, and that any discrimination among nationals of, residents in or any other person entitled to protection from, or otherwise under the jurisdiction of, the Member States must be avoided;

5.  Recalls that the purpose of this resolution, based on the report of the Temporary Committee, is to determine responsibility for the facts that it has been able to examine on the one hand and to consider ways of preventing any repetition of the abuses and violations perpetrated in connection with measures against terrorism on the other;

6.  Notes the statement made by US President George W. Bush on 6 September 2006, according to whom "a small number of suspected terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and questioned outside the United States, in a separate programme operated by the CIA", that many of the persons who had been detained there, had subsequently been transferred to Guantánamo and that it is strongly suspected that other prisoners are still held in secret places of detention; notes the report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of 2 January 2007 mentioning 26 testimonies of mistreatment in Guantánamo since 11 September 2001;

7.  Deplores, in this context, the inability of the Council - due to the opposition of certain Member States - to adopt conclusions in response to that statement at the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 15 September 2006, and requests that the Council adopt them urgently in order to dissipate any doubt as to the Member State governments' cooperation with and connivance in the extraordinary rendition and secret prisons programme in the past, present and future;

8.  Calls on the Council and the Member States to issue a clear and forceful declaration calling on the US Government to put an end to the practice of extraordinary arrests and renditions, in line with the position of Parliament;

9.  Deplores the fact that the governments of European countries did not feel the need to ask the US Government for clarifications regarding the existence of secret prisons outside US territory;

10.  Notes the statements by the legal adviser to the US State Department at his meeting on 3 May 2006 with representatives of the Member States meeting within the Council, according to which, in carrying out the extraordinary rendition programme, whose existence he confirmed, the sovereignty of the countries concerned had always been fully respected; notes that his remark was subsequently confirmed at his meeting with the Temporary Committee delegation which visited Washington;

11.  Thanks the former CIA agents who agreed to cooperate with the Temporary Committee, particularly at certain confidential meetings at which they confirmed that the extraordinary rendition programme had already begun during the 1990s;

12.  Welcomes the announcement by the new majority established by the elections to the US Senate that it will investigate the CIA's extraordinary rendition programme; notes that this is further confirmation of the relevance of the work of the Temporary Committee;

13.  Denounces the lack of cooperation of many Member States, and of the Council of the European Union towards the Temporary Committee; stresses that the behaviour of Member States, and in particular the Council and its Presidencies, has fallen far below the standard that Parliament is entitled to expect;

14.  Believes that the serious lack of concrete answers to the questions raised by victims, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the media and parliamentarians has only served to strengthen the validity of already well-documented allegations;

15.  Stresses the serious and rigorous work undertaken by the judicial authorities of Italy, Germany and Spain and Portugal concerning the allegations that fall within the remit of the Temporary Committee, and invites the judicial authorities in other Member States to act similarly on the basis of the substantial information made available by the Temporary Committee;

16.  Encourages the national parliaments of European countries to continue or launch thorough investigations, in the manner that they consider most appropriate and efficient, into these allegations, including by setting up parliamentary committees of inquiry;

17.  Pays tribute to the world press, in particular the US journalists who were the first to disclose the abuses and breaches of human rights related to extraordinary rendition, thus demonstrating the great democratic tradition of the US press; also recognises the efforts and good work undertaken by several NGOs in relation to these matters, in particular Statewatch, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch;

18.  Recognises that some information in the report from the Temporary Committee, including the existence of secret CIA prisons, comes from official or unofficial US sources, demonstrating the vitality and self-policing inherent in the US democracy;

19.  Expresses its profound gratitude to all victims who had the courage to share their very traumatic experiences with the Temporary Committee;

20.  Calls on all European countries to refrain from taking any action against officials, former officials, journalists or others who, by providing testimony or other information, either to the Temporary Committee or to other investigating bodies, have helped shed light on the system of extraordinary rendition, illegal detention and the transportation of terrorism suspects;

21.  Reiterates its call on the Council, as expressed in its resolution of 6 July 2006, to adopt a common position ruling out the acceptance of mere diplomatic assurances from third countries as a basis for any legal extradition provision, where there are substantial grounds for believing that individuals would be in danger of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment;

Cooperation with EU institutions and international organisations

22.  Deplores the failure by the Council and its Presidency to comply with their obligations to keep Parliament fully informed of the main aspects and basic choices of the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and of work carried out in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters pursuant to Articles 21 and 39 of the Treaty on European Union;

23.  Stresses, in this context, that it is wholly unacceptable that the Council should first have concealed and then, at Parliament's request, only supplied piecemeal information on the regular discussions held with senior officials of the US Government, asserting that this was the only available version; furthermore denounces the fact that the Council also referred to the request by the government of a third country that the information remain confidential;

24.  Points out that these shortcomings of the Council implicate all Member State governments since they have collective responsibility as members of the Council;

25.  Is outraged by the proposal which was to have been made by the then Council Presidency to set up a joint framework with the US Government on standards for the rendition of terrorism suspects, as confirmed by those who took part in the meeting of the COJUR and the COTRA with senior representatives of the US Department of State in Brussels on 3 May 2006;

26.  Calls for the disclosure of the results of the discussions conducted with the United States, according to EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator Gijs de Vries, on the definitions of "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition";

27.  Takes note of the fact that the Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, reaffirmed that Member States must ensure that any measures they take to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law; expresses its concern about the omissions in the statements made to the Temporary Committee by the Council and its Secretary-General, regarding the Council's discussions and knowledge of the methods used by the United States in its campaign against terrorism; deplores the fact that he was unable to supplement the evidence already in the possession of the Temporary Committee; asks the Council to disclose all facts and discussions about matters within the remit of the Temporary Committee and to promote a European foreign policy and an international anti-terrorism strategy that respect human rights and fundamental freedoms;

28.  Questions the real substance of the post of EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator occupied by Gijs de Vries, since he was unable to give satisfactory answers to the questions raised by the Temporary Committee; is of the opinion that a revision and strengthening of his competence and power, as well as the increased transparency and monitoring of his activities by Parliament must be undertaken in the near future, so as to enhance the European dimension of the fight against terrorism;

29.  Deplores the refusal by the Director of the European Police Office (Europol), Max-Peter Ratzel, to appear before the Temporary Committee, particularly because it has emerged that liaison officers, in particular for the US intelligence services, were seconded to Europol requests that the Director provide Parliament with comprehensive information concerning the role of those liaison officers, their tasks, the data to which they had access and the conditions of such access;

30.  Thanks Commission Vice-President Franco Frattini for his cooperation with the work of the Temporary Committee and encourages the Commission to step up its work in the context of the continuing efforts to ascertain the truth and prevent any repetition of the facts analysed by the Temporary Committee;

31.  Welcomes, in particular, the commitment shown by Vice-President Frattini to launching a Euro-Atlantic cooperation framework in the fight against international terrorism, with harmonised rules on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

32.  Thanks Eurocontrol, and notably its Director, for its excellent cooperation and for the very useful information which it shared with the Temporary Committee;

33.  Appreciates the close cooperation which the Temporary Committee has maintained with the Council of Europe, particularly its Parliamentary Assembly and Secretary-General, and encourages its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, and its Chairman, Senator Dick Marty, to continue their work; stresses the convergence of the findings of the two committees to date; endorses the recommendations made to the Committee of Ministers by the Secretary-General, Terry Davis;

34.  Expresses its deep concern about the refusals of the former and current Secretaries-General of NATO, Lord Robertson and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, to appear before the Temporary Committee or with that organisation's rejection of its request for access to the decision taken by the North Atlantic Council on 4 October 2001 concerning the implementation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty following the attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001; reiterates its request to make the decision public and at least to provide information on its contents, its past and current implementation, whether it still remains into force and whether CIA flights have operated within its framework;

35.  Thanks the special rapporteurs of the United Nations, Manfred Nowak (on torture) and Martin Scheinin (on the promotion and protection of human rights in connection with counter-terrorism measures) for their contributions to the work of the Temporary Committee, while regretting that it was not possible for the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, to meet the Temporary Committee; thanks the European Network of Experts on Human Rights and notably its Co-ordinator, Olivier De Schutter, for their contribution to the works of the Temporary Committee;

Information analysed by the Temporary Committee
Extraordinary rendition and the misuse of airspace and airports

36.  Recalls that the programme of extraordinary rendition is an extra-judicial practice which contravenes established international human rights standards and whereby an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism is illegally abducted, arrested and/or transferred into the custody of US officials and/or transported to another country for interrogation which, in the majority of cases, involves incommunicado detention and torture;

37.  Deplores the fact that the families of the victims are kept in complete ignorance of the fate of their relatives;

38.  Underlines, notwithstanding an intended confusion created by some US representatives in private and public speeches, that extraordinary rendition is a wholly different practice from one that has been used by some European countries, in very exceptional circumstances only, namely the detention or reception into custody in third countries of individuals formally accused of very serious crimes, in order to transfer them to European soil to face criminal charges before a court with all the legal guarantees of a judicial system;

39.  Condemns extraordinary rendition as an illegal instrument used by the United States in the fight against terrorism; condemns, further, the condoning and concealing of the practice, on several occasions, by the secret services and governmental authorities of certain European countries;

40.  Condemns any participation in the interrogation of individuals who are victims of extraordinary rendition, because it represents a deplorable legitimisation of that type of illegal procedure, even where those participating in the interrogation do not bear direct responsibility for the kidnapping, detention, torture or ill-treatment of the victims;

41.  Considers that the practice of extraordinary rendition has been shown to be counterproductive in the fight against terrorism and that extraordinary rendition in fact damages and undermines regular police and judicial procedures against terrorism suspects;

42.  Stresses that at least 1 245 flights operated by the CIA flew into European airspace or stopped over at European airports between the end of 2001 and the end of 2005, to which should be added an unspecified number of military flights for the same purpose; recalls that, on one hand, there may have been more CIA flights than those confirmed by the investigations carried out by the Temporary Committee, while, on the other, not all those flights have been used for extraordinary rendition;

43.  Regrets that European countries have been relinquishing their control over their airspace and airports by turning a blind eye or admitting flights operated by the CIA which, on some occasions, were being used for extraordinary rendition or the illegal transportation of detainees, and recalls their positive obligations arising out of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, as reiterated by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission);

44.  Is concerned, in particular, that the blanket overflight and stopover clearances granted to CIA-operated aircraft may have been based, inter alia, on the NATO agreement on the implementation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, adopted on 4 October 2001;

45.  Notes that the US Supreme Court ruling which calls for the closure of the Guantánamo prison states that the majority of detainees at the Cuban base came from Afghanistan and must therefore have transited through Europe;

46.  Recalls that Article 1 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) establishes the principle that contracting States have complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory, and accordingly does not imply any exclusion from the States' full responsibility for the observance of human rights within their territory, including the airspace above it;

47.  Emphasises that the CIA has been using civil aviation rules to bypass the legal obligations for state aircraft, including those operated by the military and the police, as provided in the Chicago Convention; recalls that Article 4 of the Chicago Convention provides that: "Each contracting State agrees not to use civil aviation for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of this Convention";

48.  Confirms, in view of the additional information received during the second part of the proceedings of the Temporary Committee, that it is unlikely that certain European governments were unaware of the extraordinary rendition activities taking place in their territory;

49.  Stresses that the Temporary Committee's working documents Nos 7 and 8(8) provide additional information about the extraordinary renditions analysed by the committee, as well as of the companies linked to the CIA, the aircraft used by the CIA and the European countries in which CIA aircraft made stopovers;

Italy

50.  Deplores the fact that the representatives of the current and former Italian Governments who are or were responsible for the Italian secret services declined the invitation to appear before the Temporary Committee;

51.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition by the CIA of the Egyptian cleric Abu Omar, who had been granted asylum in Italy and who was abducted in Milan on 17 February 2003, transferred from Milan to the NATO military base of Aviano by car, and then flown, via the NATO military base of Ramstein in Germany, to Egypt, where he was held incommunicado and tortured;

52.  Condemns the active role played by a carabinieri marshal and certain officials of the Italian military security and intelligence services (SISMI) in the abduction of Abu Omar, as shown by the judicial investigation and the evidence collated by Milan's Public Prosecutor Armando Spataro;

53.  Concludes, and deplores the fact, that General Nicolò Pollari, former Director of SISMI, concealed the truth while appearing before the Temporary Committee on 6 March 2006, when he stated that Italian agents had played no part in any CIA kidnapping and that SISMI was not aware of the plan to kidnap Abu Omar;

54.  Considers it very likely, in view of the involvement of SISMI, that the Italian Government of the day was aware of the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar from within its territory;

55.  Thanks Public Prosecutor Spataro for his testimony to the Temporary Committee, applauds the efficient and independent investigations he carried out in order to shed light on the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar and fully endorses his conclusions and the decision of the GUP (Giudice dell'Udienza Preliminare) to bring to judgment 26 US citizens, CIA agents, 7 senior SISMI officials, a carabiniere from Raggruppamento Operativo Speciale (ROS, Special operations group), and the assistant editor of the 'Libero' daily newspaper; welcomes the opening of the proceedings at the Milan Court;

56.  Regrets that the abduction of Abu Omar jeopardised Public Prosecutor Spataro's investigation into the terrorist network to which Abu Omar was connected; recalls that had Abu Omar not been illegally seized and transported to another country, he would have faced a regular and fair trial in Italy;

57.  Takes note that the testimony provided by General Pollari is inconsistent with a number of documents found on SISMI premises and confiscated by Milan prosecutors; considers that such documents show that SISMI was regularly informed by the CIA about the detention of Abu Omar in Egypt;

58.  Deeply regrets that the SISMI board systematically misled, among others, Milan prosecutors, with the aim of jeopardising the investigation into the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar; is extremely concerned about the fact that the SISMI board appeared to be working to a parallel agenda, and about the lack of appropriate internal and governmental controls; requests the Italian Government to remedy the situation urgently by establishing enhanced parliamentary and governmental controls;

59.  Condemns the fact that Italian journalists investigating the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar were illegally pursued, their telephone conversations were tapped and their computers were confiscated; stresses that testimonies from those journalists have been of the utmost benefit to the work of the Temporary Committee;

60.  Criticises the length of time that it took for the Italian Government to decide to remove from office and replace General Pollari;

61.  Regrets that the documents on US-Italian cooperation in the fight against terrorism, which would have assisted the investigation into the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar, were classified by the former Italian Government and that the current government has confirmed the classified status of these documents;

62.  Urges the Italian Minister of Justice to process, as soon as possible, the requests for extradition of the 26 US citizens referred to, for the purpose of standing trial in Italy;

63.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of Italian citizen Abou Elkassim Britel, who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2002 by the Pakistani police and interrogated by US and Pakistani officials, and subsequently rendered to the Moroccan authorities and imprisoned in the detention facility 'Temara', where he remains detained; emphasises that the criminal investigations in Italy against Abou Elkassim Britel were closed with no charges having been brought;

64.  Regrets that, according to the documentation provided to the Temporary Committee by Abou Elkassim Britel's lawyer, the Italian Ministry of Internal Affairs was in 'constant cooperation' with foreign secret services concerning the case of Abou Elkassim Britel, following his arrest in Pakistan;

65.  Urges the Italian Government to take concrete steps in order to obtain the immediate release of Abou Elkassim Britel and ensure that any judicial proceedings against Abu Omar can be prosecuted in the Court of Milan;

66.  Deeply regrets that Italian territory was used by the CIA to make a stopover during the flight that was used to carry out the extraordinary rendition of Maher Arar, who gave testimony to the Temporary Committee, from the United States to Syria, via Rome;

67.  Notes the 46 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Italian airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees;

The United Kingdom

68.  Welcomes the meeting in London with the UK Minister for Europe and the fact that the UK Government supplied documents and explanations; notes that the UK authorities could not answer all the questions raised by the Temporary Committee delegation to London;

69.  Takes note of the declarations made by UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Margaret Beckett, in a written response to a parliamentary question whereby she admitted that the UK Government had been aware of a secret CIA prison network before US President George W. Bush acknowledged its existence in September 2006; asks the UK Government to state whether it has raised the issue with the US authorities and whether, and, if so, when, it informed or discussed the issue with other European governments;

70.  Thanks the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Renditions (APPG), comprising members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, for its work and for providing the Temporary Committee delegation to London with a number of highly valuable documents;

71.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, an Iraqi citizen and resident in the United Kingdom, and Jamil El-Banna, a Jordanian citizen and resident in the United Kingdom, who were arrested by Gambian authorities in Gambia in November 2002, turned over to US agents, and flown to Afghanistan and then to Guantánamo, where they remain detained in the absence of a trial or any form of judicial assistance;

72.  Points out that the telegrams from the UK security service MI5 to an unspecified foreign government, which were released to the Chairman of the APPG, Andrew Tyrie, suggest that the abduction of Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil El-Banna was facilitated by partly erroneous information supplied by MI5;

73.  Criticises the unwillingness of the UK Government to provide consular assistance to Bisher Al-Rawi and Jamil El-Banna on the grounds that they are not UK citizens;

74.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition, on two occasions, of Binyam Mohammed, Ethiopian citizen and resident in the United Kingdom; points out that Binyam Mohammed has been held in at least two secret detention facilities, in addition to military prisons;

75.  Is deeply disturbed by the testimony of Binyam Mohammed's lawyer, who gave an account of the most horrific torture endured by his client to the official delegation of the Temporary Committee to the United Kingdom;

76.  Emphasises that the former UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Jack Straw, conceded in December 2005 that UK intelligence officials met Binyam Mohammed when he was arrested in Pakistan; points out in this respect that some of the questions put by the Moroccan officials to Binyam Mohammed appear to have been inspired by information supplied by the United Kingdom;

77.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of UK citizen Martin Mubanga, who met the official delegation of the Temporary Committee to the United Kingdom, and who was arrested in Zambia in March 2002 and subsequently flown to Guantánamo; regrets the fact that Martin Mubanga was interrogated by UK officials at Guantánamo, where he was detained and tortured for four years without trial or any form of judicial assistance and then released without charge;

78.  Takes note of the testimony to the Temporary Committee by Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, on the exchange of intelligence obtained under torture and the legal opinion of Michael Wood, former legal advisor to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

79.  Expresses its concern about Michael Wood's legal opinion, according to which receiving or possessing information extracted under torture, insofar as there is no direct participation in the torture, is not per se prohibited by the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; expresses its condemnation of any attempt to obtain information by means of torture, regardless of who is involved;

80.  Notes the 170 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at UK airports, and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers at UK airports of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Omar and Maher Arar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zari;

Germany

81.  Acknowledges the good cooperation on the part of the German Government by providing restricted documents to the Chairman and the rapporteur of the Temporary Committee; regrets, on the other hand, that no representative of the German Government was able to appear before the Temporary Committee;

82.  Welcomes the excellent work of the German parliamentary inquiry committee and expresses its full support for the continuation of that committee's work;

83.  Thanks Munich Public Prosecutor Martin Hofmann for his testimony to the Temporary Committee and applauds all ongoing judicial inquiries in Germany; notes and welcomes the fact that the Munich Court has issued warrants for the arrest of 13 suspected CIA agents in connection with the illegal abduction and wrongful imprisonment of Khaled el-Masri, and expects the German Government to take all necessary steps to obtain their extradition from the United States;

84.  Thanks the German Parliament inquiry committee for having examined the case of Khaled El-Masri; takes note that, to date, the committee's inquiries have shown that there was no involvement of the German authorities in the illegal abduction; looks forward to the final conclusions by the German Parliament inquiry committee into this matter;

85.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of Murat Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen resident in Germany, who gave testimony to the Temporary Committee and who was arrested in Pakistan in November 2001, transferred to the US units across the border in Afghanistan by the Pakistani police on no legal basis and with no judicial assistance, and finally flown to Guantánamo at the end of January 2002, whence he was released on 24 August 2006 without charge, having been tortured in all the locations where he had been held;

86.  Points out that, according to information given by Murat Kurnaz's lawyer and information provided by the German authorities, there was a prospect of the release of Murat Kurnaz from Guantánamo in 2002 but this was not accepted by the German authorities; notes that on many occasions since 2002, Murat Kurnaz's lawyer was told by the German Government that it was impossible to open negotiations with the US Government on his release because Murat Kurnaz was a Turkish citizen; notes that according to information available to the Temporary Committee as early as at the end of October 2002, Murat Kurnaz posed no terrorist threat; expects a full clarification of all relevant actions or failures to act on the part of the German authorities by the German Parliament inquiry committee and welcomes the fact that those inquiries have already begun;

87.  Regrets the fact that Murat Kurnaz was interrogated twice, in 2002 and in 2004, by German officials at Guantánamo, where he was detained subject to neither a formal charge nor a trial and without judicial assistance; regrets the fact that German officials denied him any assistance and were interested only in questioning him;

88.  Fully supports the investigation launched by the public prosecutor in Potsdam, transferred to the Public Prosecutor in Tübingen/Karlsruhe on 25 October 2006, into unknown perpetrators in order to establish whether Murat Kurnaz was ill-treated in Afghanistan by German soldiers belonging to the Kommando Spezialkräfte (KSK), the German army's special operational forces, before being sent to Guantánamo;

89.  Notes that during his interrogation, Murat Kurnaz was confronted with details from his personal life; notes that this gives rise to the suspicion that, even before his departure from Germany, he was the subject of surveillance of a closeness which can normally be undertaken only by domestic intelligence services;

90.  Appreciates the German Government's initiative in January 2006 which led to the release of Murat Kurnaz;

91.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of the German citizen Mohammed Zammar, who was arrested without formal charge on 8 December 2001 at Casablanca airport in Morocco and detained and tortured in Morocco and Syria;

92.  Notes that, according to a confidential institutional source, on 26 November 2001 the German Federal Criminal Police Office provided details of Mohammed Zammar's whereabouts to the FBI, and that this facilitated Mohammed Zammar's arrest;

93.  Points out that, subsequently to a meeting between the officials of the German Federal Chancellery and Syrian intelligence officials in July 2002, German prosecutors dropped charges against several Syrian citizens in Germany while the Syrian authorities allowed German officials to interrogate Mohammed Zammar in the Syrian prison Far' Falastin, which has been confirmed by a confidential institutional source; regrets that Mohammed Zammar was interrogated by German agents in that prison;

94.  Calls on the German Bundestag's First Committee of Inquiry, in the context of the forthcoming expansion of its remit, to investigate the case which recently came to light involving the illegal rendition of the Egyptian citizen and long-term resident in Germany, Abdel-Halim Khafagy; Abdel-Halim Khafagy was probably arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina in September 2001 on suspicion of being a terrorist and abducted to a prison on the US 'Eagle Base' military base in Tuzla, where he was severely mistreated and detained under inhumane conditions;

95.  Is deeply concerned at information contained in an unclassified document made available to the Temporary Committee which shows that the illegal rendition of at least six Algerians from Tuzla via Incirlik to Guantánamo was planned at the US European Command (USEUCOM) military base near Stuttgart; calls on the German Bundestag to investigate without delay whether those alleged renditions involved breaches of the Forces Status Agreement or other agreements or treaties concluded with US military forces on German territory, whether further illegal renditions were planned by USEUCOM and whether German liaison officers were involved in any way;

96.  Notes the 336 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at German airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Germany of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary renditions of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Omar and Maher Arar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zari; is particularly concerned that one of the flights referred to was destined for Guantánamo; strongly encourages the German authorities further to investigate that flight;

97.  Notes the allegations concerning the temporary detention and mistreatment of suspected terrorists at the US military prison in Mannheim-Blumenau, welcomes the investigations opened by the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office and hopes that the German Bundestag and/or the competent committee of inquiry will investigate this case more closely;

Sweden

98.  Takes note of the position of the Swedish Government, expressed in the letter transmitted to the Temporary Committee by its Foreign Minister Carl Bildt; regrets that no representative of the government was able to appear before the Temporary Committee in order to hold an exchange of views on its position;

99.  Condemns the fact that Sweden's expulsion in December 2001 of Mohammed El-Zari and Ahmed Agiza, Egyptian citizens who were seeking asylum in Sweden, was based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian Government alone, which did not provide effective safeguards against torture; also acknowledges that the Swedish Government hindered the men from exercising their rights in accordance with the provisions of the ECHR, by not informing their lawyers until they had arrived in Cairo; deplores the fact that the Swedish authorities accepted an US offer to place at their disposal an aircraft that benefited from special overflight authorisation in order to transport the two men to Egypt;

100.  Deplores the fact that the Swedish security police lost control over the enforcement of the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El-Zari to Egypt, outside the rule of law, by remaining passive during the degrading treatment of the men by US agents at Bromma airport;

101.  Underlines that the decision to expel the men was taken at the highest executive level, from which no appeal was possible;

102.  Fully endorses the UN Human Rights Committee's decision of 6 November 2006 in which it found that Sweden had breached the absolute ban on torture; similarly endorses a separate ruling by the UN Committee against Torture of 20 May 2005, which concluded that Sweden had violated the UN Convention against Torture and stated that "procurement of diplomatic assurances (from Egypt), which, moreover, provided no mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest risk";

103.  Thanks the Swedish Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman, Mats Melin, for his testimony to the Temporary Committee and applauds his investigation which concluded that the Swedish security service and airport police "were remarkably submissive to the American officials" and "lost control of the enforcement", resulting in the ill-treatment of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El-Zari, including physical abuse and other humiliation, at the airport immediately before they were transported to Cairo;

Austria

104.  Notes the written explanations given on behalf of the Austrian Government but regrets that the Austrian Government did not consider it appropriate to appear before the Temporary Committee in order to hold an exchange of views about its position;

105.  Notes that, according to these written explanations, the men referred to in the paragraphs that follow, Masaad Omer Behari and Gamal Menshawi, were resident in Austria, did not have Austrian citizenship, and their freedom of movement was unrestricted; notes that the two men left Austria voluntarily and without undergoing checks by the Austrian authorities, and that they were arrested by foreign agencies, outside Austrian territory and outside the area of influence of the Austrian authorities, with no Austrian involvement; notes that, accordingly, these are clearly not cases of rendition of persons to foreign authorities;

106.  Recalls, nonetheless, that under the ECHR, State parties have jurisdiction as concerns residents within their territory, and, consequently, a duty to protect them and to inquire into any human rights violations against them;

107.  Condemns the fact that Masaad Omer Behari, a Sudanese citizen and resident in Austria since 1989, who gave testimony to the Temporary Committee, was abducted at Amman airport on 12 January 2003 on his way back to Vienna from Sudan;

108.  Deplores the fact that Masaad Omer Behari was later illegally secretly detained in a prison close to Amman run by the Jordan General Intelligence Department, in the absence of a trial or legal assistance, and that he was tortured and ill-treated there until 8 April 2003, when he was released without charge;

109.  Condemns the abduction of Egyptian citizen and resident in Austria, Gamal Menshawi, who was arrested on his way to Mecca at Amman airport in February 2003, and later brought to Egypt where he was secretly detained until 2005 in the absence of a trial or legal assistance;

110.  Regrets that, having considered the above paragraphs, neither a special nor a parliamentary inquiry was undertaken in Austria into the possible involvement of the Austrian authorities in the two cases referred to; urges the Austrian Parliament to start appropriate inquiries as soon as possible;

Spain

111.  Welcomes the declaration of good cooperation with the Temporary Committee of the Spanish Government, in particular, the testimony given to the Temporary Committee by its Minister for Foreign Affairs; regrets, nevertheless, that the Spanish Government ultimately did not authorise the Director of the Spanish Intelligence Services to appear before the Temporary Committee, several months after having been requested to do so;

112.  Thanks the Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza and Prosecutor Vicente González Mota of the Audiencia Nacional for their testimony to the Temporary Committee and applauds their investigations into the use of Spanish airports for the transit of CIA aircraft within the context of the programme of extraordinary rendition; encourages the prosecutors to investigate further the stopovers of the aircraft involved in the extraordinary rendition of Khaled El-Masri; takes note of the decision by the Spanish authorities, at the request of the Judge of the Audiencia Nacional, to declassify secret documents held by the intelligence services concerning the use by CIA-operated aircraft of Spanish airports;

113.  Applauds the investigative journalism of Diario de Mallorca, which played an important role in revealing the transit of CIA aircrafts through the Balearic Island airports and the identification of their crews;

114.  Recalls the words of Chief Prosecutor Zaragoza that "there was no obstacle, objection or trouble from the side of the Spanish Government in the investigations by the Audiencia Nacional";

115.  Calls on the Spanish authorities to take all necessary steps to allow Spanish citizen Mustafa Setmariam Nasarwho, abducted in Syria in October 2005 and rendered to US agents, to face a fair trial before competent judicial authorities;

116.  Notes the 68 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Spanish airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Spain of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA in other countries for the extraordinary rendition of Ahmed Agiza, Mohammed El-Zari, Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Omar and Maher Arar, according to the legal investigations under way in Spain and Italy; is particularly concerned that, of the above flights, three originated from or were destined for Guantánamo; strongly encourages the Spanish prosecutors further to investigate those flights;

Portugal

117.  Welcomes the meeting in Lisbon with the Portuguese Minister of Foreign Affairs and the fact that the Portuguese Government supplied documents and explanations; regrets that the Portuguese authorities could not answer all the questions raised by the Temporary Committee delegation to Portugal;

118.  Welcomes the judicial inquiry into the possible use of Portuguese territory for the transfer of prisoners suspected of terrorism and subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, opened on 5 February 2007, by the competent authorities in Portugal;

119.  Notes, in particular, the case of Abdurahman Khadr, allegedly carried on board the Gulfstream IV N85VM from Guantánamo to Tuzla in Bosnia and Herzegovina on 6 November 2003, with a stopover at a Portuguese airport  on 7 November 2003; calls on the authorities to examine other possible cases of detained people transported via Portugal;

120.  Welcomes the establishment of the inter-ministerial working group on 26 September 2006 and the entry into force, on 13 October 2006, of a regulation stipulating that lists of the names of crew members and passengers on private flights must be submitted to the Portuguese frontier authorities;

121.  Notes the 91 stopovers at Portuguese airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights that came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; is particularly concerned that of those flights, at least three originated from or were destined for Guantánamo; notes that the aircraft involved in the rendition of Maher Arar and Abou Elkassim Britel made stopovers in Portugal on their return flights;

122.  Expresses concern at an additional list that the Temporary Committee has obtained, which indicates that civil and military aircraft from a number of countries, travelling to or from Guantánamo in Portuguese airspace, between 11 January 2002 and 24 June 2006, made a further 14 stopovers at Portuguese airports; notes that the Portuguese Government provided information concerning 7 of those stopovers, carried out within the framework of operation "Enduring Freedom";

Ireland

123.  Welcomes the testimony given to the Temporary Committee by the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Irish Government as well as his unequivocal criticism of the process of extraordinary rendition; notes the fact, however, that he failed to answer all the questions in relation to the concerns that Irish airports may have been used by CIA aircraft travelling to or from extraordinary rendition missions (as in the case of Abu Omar);

124.  Thanks the Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) for its testimony to the Temporary Committee and endorses its view which considers that the acceptance by the Irish Government of diplomatic assurances does not fulfil Ireland's human rights obligations, which oblige the government actively to seek to prevent any actions that could in any way facilitate torture or ill-treatment in Ireland or abroad; regrets the decision of the Irish Government not to follow the IHRC's advice in this matter to date; notes that there is a continuing dialogue between the IHRC and the Irish Government;

125.  Notes the 147 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Irish airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Ireland of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed, Abu Omar and Maher Arar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zari;

126.  Notes the absence of Irish parliamentary scrutiny of either Irish or foreign intelligence services and the potential that this creates for abuse;

127.  Considers, that, in the absence of a system of random searches, a ban should be imposed on all CIA-operated aircraft landing in Ireland;

128.  Urges the Irish Government, in view of the findings of the Temporary Committee, to agree to launch a parliamentary inquiry into the use of Irish territory as part of the CIA rendition circuit;

Greece

129.  Notes the 64 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Greek airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Greece of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed and Maher Arar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El-Zari;

Cyprus

130.  Notes the 57 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Cypriot airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Cyprus of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed and Abu Omar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El-Zari;

Denmark

131.  Welcomes the cooperation received from the Danish authorities, while regretting that no representative of the government considered it appropriate to appear before the Temporary Committee;

Belgium

132.  Calls on the Belgian Government to disclose the results of all investigations that have taken place concerning the use of Belgian airports and Belgian airspace by aircraft involved in the extraordinary rendition programme or the transport of detainees;

133.  Notes the statements of the President of the Belgian Senate Anne-Marie Lizin which deplore the lack of cooperation by the Belgian intelligence services and the Belgian authorities at the beginning of the inquiry; but refers to the final conclusions of the report of the Belgian Senate, which testify to Belgium's willingness to overcome the problems encoutered;

Turkey

134.  Expresses its serious concern about the failure of the Turkish authorities to extend diplomatic protection to Turkish citizen Murat Kurnaz and about the absence of any step to secure his release from the prison at Guantánamo;

135.  Regrets that, on the contrary, the same authorities used the illegal detention of Murat Kurnaz to interrogate him at Guantánamo;

136.  Deplores the silence of the Turkish authorities concerning the use of their territory for the stopover of an aircraft that had taken to Guantánamo the six citizens of or residents in Bosnia and Herzogovina, of Algerian origin, who were illegally arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

137.  Emphasises that a delegation of the Temporary Committee was received in Skopje in April 2006 by the President of the Republic, members of the government and several officials and thanks them for the welcome given to the delegation; notes, however, a lack of thorough investigation into the Khaled El-Masri case by the authorities of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia;

138.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of the German citizen Khaled El-Masri, abducted at the border-crossing Tabanovce in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia on 31 December 2003, illegally held in Skopje from 31 December 2003 to 23 January 2004 and then transported to Afghanistan on 23 to 24 January 2004, where he was held until May 2004 and subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment;

139.  Urges the Council and its High Representative for the CFSP to shed full light on the fact that the EU police mission (PROXIMA) was incorporated into the Ministry of Interior of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and was involved in the work of the Macedonian Security and Counter-Espionage Service (DBK) at the time when Khaled El-Masri was handed over to the CIA; would like to know if it is true that the Council questioned the EU staff involved in the PROXIMA mission so as to evaluate the level of information in their possession regarding the case of Khaled el Masri; if appropriate, asks the Council to provide Parliament with a full account of the investigation;

140.  Fully endorses the preliminary findings of Munich Public Prosecutor Martin Hofmann that there is no evidence on the basis of which to refute Khaled El-Masri's version of events;

141.  Deeply regrets the fact that the authorities of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia failed to follow up the recommendations made by the Temporary Committee in its interim report of 6 July 2006;

142.  Points out again that the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia authorities are expected to carry out investigations; urges the newly elected national parliament of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to set up a committee of inquiry as soon as possible to deal with the case of Khaled El-Masri and to cooperate fully with the ongoing inquiry of the German Parliament;

Bosnia and Herzegovina

143.  Welcomes the fact that the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only European government that does not deny its participation in the extraordinary rendition of four citizens of and two residents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, all of Algerian origin, and stresses that the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only European government to have accepted formal responsibility for its illegal actions; regrets, however, that the steps undertaken by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina have not yet resulted in the release of the six men from Guantánamo;

144.  Condemns the extraordinary rendition of those six men, who were abducted in Sarajevo on 17 January 2002, turned over to US soldiers and then flown to Guantánamo, where they remain detained without trial or legal guarantees;

145.  Takes note of the testimony given to the Temporary Committee by Wolfgang Petritsch, former High Representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and by Michèle Picard, former President of the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which stated that representatives of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina were given adequate notice of the imminent transfer of the men to the US forces before events unfolded; condemns in this respect the governments of the Member States for their lack of action;

146.  Regrets the fact that the international community, as represented in Bosnia and Herzegovina, turned a blind eye to the failure to implement the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina ordering the release of the six men from custody;

147.  Points out that, according to the information that the Temporary Committee received from the lawyers of the six men, the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were subject to unprecedented pressure from the US Government, which threatened to close its embassy, withdraw all staff and cease diplomatic relations with Bosnia and Herzegovina unless the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina immediately arrested the six men on terrorism charges;

148.  Notes that Wolfgang Petritsch confirmed that the United States put considerable pressure on the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the international community not to interfere in the renditions and that the commander of the international NATO-led Stabilisation Force in particular rejected any questioning of his activities since he acted in his capacity as US military officer;

Other European countries

149.  Notes the stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at other European countries' airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; encourages the authorities of those European countries to launch adequate investigations into this matter;

Secret detention facilities

150.  Welcomes the investigations carried out into the existence of secret detention facilities in Europe by Human Rights Watch, the Washington Post and American Broadcasting Company News (ABC News);

151.  Recalls that some journalists at the Washington Post and ABC News, as they confirmed to the Temporary Committee, were put under pressure not to name the eastern European countries, namely Poland and Romania, where there were said to have been secret detention facilities;

152.  Emphasises that the concept of "secret detention facility" includes not only prisons, but also all places where persons are held incommunicado, such as private apartments, police stations or hotel rooms, as in the case of Khaled El-Masri in Skopje;

153.  Is deeply concerned that in some cases temporary secret detention facilities in European countries may have been located at US military bases;

154.  Calls for the appropriate implementation of bilateral agreements, Status of Forces Agreements and military base agreements (between Member States and third countries) to ensure the monitoring of respect for human rights and, where appropriate, for a review and renegotiation of those agreements to this effect; stresses that, according to the Venice Commission, the legal framework of foreign military bases on the territory of Council of Europe's Member States must enable them to exercise sufficient powers to fulfil their human rights obligations;

155.  Points out in this regard the allegations concerning the US Coleman Barracks in Mannheim, Germany, and calls on both the judiciary and the German Bundestag's inquiry Committee to investigate this case further;

156.  Regrets that there may have been a lack of control over US military bases by host European countries; recalls, however, that the ECHR provides that all State parties are bound to exercise jurisdiction over their entire territory, including any foreign military bases;

157.  Recalls that the ECHR also provides that every case of detention must be lawful and must be the result of proceedings prescribed by law, whether national or international;

158.  Recalls that imposing or executing or allowing directly or indirectly secret and illegal detentions, which are instruments resulting in people's 'disappearance', constitute serious violations of human rights per se and that the active or passive involvement in such secret and illegal detentions by a European country renders that county responsible under the ECHR;

Romania

159.  Welcomes the excellent hospitality and good cooperation extended by the Romanian authorities to the Temporary Committee, including meetings with members of the Romanian Government, as well as the establishment of an ad hoc inquiry committee of the Romanian Senate;

160.  Notes, however, the reluctance on the part of the competent Romanian authorities to investigate thoroughly the existence of secret detention facilities on its territory;

161.  Regrets that the report issued by the Romanian inquiry committee was entirely secret except for its conclusions, included in Chapter 7, categorically denying the possibility that secret detention facilities could be hosted on Romanian soil; regrets that the Romanian inquiry committee heard no testimony from journalists, NGOs, or officials working at airports, and has not yet provided the Temporary Committee with the report contrary to its commitment to do so; regrets that taking these elements into consideration, the conclusions drawn in the Romanian inquiry committee's report appear premature and superficial; takes note, however, of the intention expressed by the Chairwoman of the inquiry committee to the Temporary Committee delegation to consider the conclusions provisional;

162.  Regrets the lack of control of the Gulfstream aircraft with Registration Number N478GS that suffered an accident on 6 December 2004 when landing in Bucharest; recalls that the aircraft took off from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and that its seven passengers disappeared following the accident; appreciates, however, the good cooperation of the Romanian authorities in handing over the accident report to the Temporary Committee;

163.  Is deeply concerned to see that the Romanian authorities did not initiate an official investigation process into the case of a passenger on the aircraft Gulfstream N478GS, who was found carrying a Beretta 9 mm Parabellum pistol with ammunition;

164.  Notes the 21 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Romanian airports, and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Romania of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri, Binyam Mohammed and Abu Omar and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zari; is particularly concerned that, of the flights referred to, two originated from or were destined for Guantánamo; strongly encourages the Romanian authorities further to investigate those flights;

165.  Is concerned about the doubts expressed in regard to the control exercised by the Romanian authorities over US activities at Kogalniceanu airport;

166.  Cannot exclude, based only on the statements made by Romanian authorities to the Temporary Committee delegation to Romania, the possibility that US secret services operated in Romania on a clandestine basis and that no definitive evidence has been provided to contradict any of the allegations concerning the running of a secret detention facility on Romanian soil;

Poland

167.  Deplores the glaring lack of cooperation by the Polish Government with the Temporary Committee, in particular when receiving the Temporary Committee delegation at an inappropriate level; deeply regrets that all those representatives of the Polish Government and Parliament who were invited to do so, declined to meet the Temporary Committee;

168.  Believes that this attitude reflects an overall rejection on the part of the Polish Government of the Temporary Committee and its objective to examine allegations and establish facts;

169.  Regrets that no special inquiry committee has been established and that the Polish Parliament has conducted no independent investigation;

170.  Recalls that on 21 December 2005, the Special Services Committee held a private meeting with the Minister Coordinator of Special Services and the heads of both intelligence services; emphasises that the meeting was conducted speedily and in secret, in the absence of any hearing or testimony and subject to no scrutiny; stresses that such an investigation cannot be defined as independent and regrets that the committee released no documentation, save for a single final statement in this regard;

171.  Notes the 11 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Polish airports and expresses serious concern about the purpose of those flights which came from or were bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees; deplores the stopovers in Poland of aircraft that have been shown to have been used by the CIA, on other occasions, for the extraordinary rendition of Bisher Al-Rawi, Jamil El-Banna, Abou Elkassim Britel, Khaled El-Masri and Binyam Mohammed and for the expulsion of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed El Zar;

172.  Regrets that following the hearings carried out by the Temporary Committee delegation in Poland, there was confusion and contradictory statements were made about the flight plans for those CIA flights, which were first said not to have been retained, then said probably to have been archived at the airport, and finally claimed to have been sent by the Polish Government to the Council of Europe; acknowledges that in November 2006, the Szymany Airport's management provided the Temporary Committee with partial information on flight plans;

173.  Thanks the former manager of the Szymany airport, for the valuable testimony given before the Temporary Committee; notes the fact that during 2006 he or she was questioned in the framework of a late enquiry concerning the CIA flights, immediately after his or her testimony was made public;

174.  Takes note that, according to different sources, several high-value detainees who had been held secretly in Afghanistan in 2003 were transferred out of the country in September and October 2003; underlines with concern that a Boeing 737 with Registration Number N313P, used by the CIA for ascertained renditions, flew from Kabul to Szymany airport on 22 September 2003 and was then directed to Guantánamo;

175.  Recalls that as regards the landing of the aircraft referred to at Szymany airport, seven staff on board were joined by five passengers and no customs control was carried out on those passengers;

176.  Takes note of the declarations made by Szymany airport employees, and notably by its former manager, according to which:

177.  Acknowledges that shortly thereafter and in accordance with President George W. Bush's statements on 6 September 2006, a list of the 14 detainees who had been transferred from a secret detention facility to Guantánamo was published; notes that 7 of the 14 detainees had been referred to in a report by ABC News, which was published 9 months previously on 5 December 2005 but withdrawn shortly thereafter from ABC's webpage, listing the names of twelve top Al Qaeda suspects held in Poland;

178.  Encourages the Polish Parliament to establish a proper inquiry committee, independent of the government and capable of carrying out serious and thorough investigations;

179.  Regrets that Polish human rights NGOs and investigative journalists have faced a lack of cooperation from the government and refusals to divulge information;

180.  Takes note of the statements made by the highest representatives of the Polish authorities that no secret detention centres were based in Poland; considers, however, that in the light of the above circumstantial evidence, it is not possible to acknowledge or deny that secret detention centres were based in Poland;

181.  Notes with concern that the official reply of 10 March 2006 from Under-Secretary of State Witold Waszykowski to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, indicates the existence of secret cooperation agreements, initialled by the two countries' secret services themselves, which exclude the activities of foreign secret services from the jurisdiction of Polish judicial bodies;

Kosovo (under UN Security Council Resolution 1244(1999))

182.  Expresses deep concern about the fact that the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) obtained access to NATO-run detention facilities in Kosovo only in July 2006;

183.  Regrets the refusal of NATO to provide evidence of the allegations of illegal detention of terrorist suspects in the prison run by the NATO-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo (KFOR) at Camp Bondsteel, the only detention facility in Europe where CPT inspectors were not allowed unlimited access until very recently;

184.  Points out in this respect that the testimony given to the Temporary Committee by the former Kosovo Ombudsman, Marek Antoni Nowicki, confirmed that from July 1999, inmates were frequently detained at Camp Bondsteel, subject only to a decision by the Commander of KFOR and subject to no judicial decision or any form of other external control; recalls that from 2000 to 2001, a number of people were detained also following administrative decisions of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and that, according to official data available, 23 people were imprisoned at Camp Bondsteel for a short period of time by the KFOR Commander in connection with violent events in Kosovo in spring 2004;

Other relevant information collected by the Temporary Committee

185.  Points out that the Temporary Committee came across information - including the direct testimony of Murat Kurnaz - about the interrogation of Guantánamo detainees carried out by agents of Member State governments; emphasises that those interrogations were aimed at collecting information from individuals illegally detained, which is clearly in contradiction with the public condemnation of Guantánamo, as expressed on several occasions at both EU and Member State level;

186.  Encourages the Member States involved to launch adequate investigations into this matter;

Recommendations
Political recommendations

187.  Considers it necessary that those European countries that have started inquiries and investigations at governmental, parliamentary and/or judicial level on matters within the remit of the Temporary Committee should conduct their work as speedily as possible and make public the results of the investigations;

188.  Urges European countries in relation to which serious allegations have been made regarding active or passive cooperation with extraordinary rendition and that have not undertaken governmental, parliamentary and/or judicial investigations to commence such proceedings as soon as possible; recalls that, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, there is a positive obligation on Member States to investigate allegations of and sanction human rights violations in breach of the ECHR;

189.  Calls for the closure of Guantánamo and for European countries immediately to seek the return of their citizens and residents who are being held illegally by US authorities;

190.  Considers that all European countries that have not done so should initiate independent investigations into all stopovers made by civilian aircraft carried out by the CIA, at least since 2001, including those cases already analysed by the Temporary Committee;

191.  Expects to be kept fully informed about all developments concerning all the above-mentioned procedures;

192.  Calls on European countries to compensate the innocent victims of extraordinary rendition and to ensure that they have access to effective and speedy compensation, including access to rehabilitation programmes, guarantees that there will be no repetition of what happened as well as appropriate financial compensation;

193.  Asks the Commission to undertake an evaluation of all anti-terrorist legislation in the Member States and of both formal and informal arrangements between Member State and third-country intelligence services, from a human rights perspective, to review legislation which international or European human rights bodies consider could lead to a breach of human rights and to present proposals for actions in order to avoid any repetition of the matters under the remit of the Temporary Committee;

194.  Considers it necessary to review by limiting and restrictively defining the exceptions that flow from the notion of 'State secret', also in the framework of the impending review of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(9), as well as the adoption of common principles by the EU institutions as regards the treatment of confidential information, to avoid abuses and deviations that are more and more unacceptable in modern democratic States and that contradict human rights obligations; deems it necessary to establish specific mechanisms to allow for access to secret information by parliaments and judges, as well as for the release of the information after a certain period of time;

195.  Notes the recent creation of a High-Level Working Group composed of representatives of the Commission, the Council and US governmental representatives of the Justice Ministry and the Homeland Security, which constitutes the political framework for EU-US dialogue on security matters, including differences in the approach to terrorism as well as the concerns raised by the Temporary Committee; deems it necessary to associate in this High-Level Working Group the European Parliament and the US Congress, as well as to publish its agendas, minutes, documents examined and decisions taken, in order to ensure and increase its democratic legitimacy and transparency;

196.  Encourages European countries when they conduct military operations in third countries to:

Legal recommendations

197.  Considers that the powers of Parliament's temporary inquiry committees should be reinforced and the inter-institutional decision governing the exercise of Parliament's right of inquiry be amended accordingly;

198.  Considers that Parliament should be adequately involved when the Community or the Union adopt measures affecting civil rights and liberties;

199.  Calls for the establishment of an adequate and structured system of cooperation between Parliament and competent bodies of the United Nations and the Council of Europe when dealing with matters related to internal security of the European Union;

200.  Calls for enhanced cooperation with national parliaments in order to share all information in the public domain related to the fight against international terrorism;

201.  Underlines the importance of a common definition of 'terrorism' and calls for the establishment of efficient legal tools for combating terrorism within the framework of international law; believes that the United Nations is the most suitable organisation to define the concept;

Secret services

202.  Fully endorses the conclusions of the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Terry Davis, about the lack of oversight and judicial control mechanisms in respect of security services, as expressed in the "Follow-up to the Secretary General's reports under Article 52 ECHR" and expects his recommendations to be duly taken into consideration; calls on Member States to provide adequate and effective parliamentary monitoring (by establishing oversight committees with appropriate powers to access documents and budgetary information) and legal supervision over their secret and intelligence services and the formal and informal networks of which they are part;

203.  Considers it necessary to enhance the Conference of the Oversight Committees on the Intelligence bodies of the Member States, in which Parliament should be fully involved;

204.  Considers that all European countries should have specific national laws to regulate and monitor the activities of third countries' secret services on their national territories, to ensure better monitoring and supervision also of their activities, as well as to sanction illegal acts or activities, in particular those in violation of human rights;

205.  Considers the reinforcement of cooperation between the secret and security services of Member States to be highly desirable, either on a multilateral basis, preferably within an EU framework, or on a bilateral basis, provided that a legal framework for it is created ensuring full democratic parliamentary and judicial control and human rights are respected and protected at all times;

206.  Urges the Council and the Member States to establish as a matter of priority a system for the democratic monitoring and control over the joint and coordinated intelligence activities at EU level; proposes an important role for Parliament in this monitoring and control system;

Air traffic

207.  Urges the Member States to ensure that Article 3 of the Chicago Convention, which excludes state aircraft from the scope of the Convention, is properly implemented in order that all military and/or police aircraft fly over or land on another State's territory only if they have prior authorisation and, in accordance with that Convention, that a ban or system of inspections be introduced for all CIA-operated aircraft known or suspected to have been involved in extraordinary rendition;

208.  Calls on Member States to take adequate measures to ensure that overflight clearances for military and/or police aircraft should be granted only if accompanied by guarantees that human rights will be respected and monitored;

209.  Considers it necessary to enforce effectively, both at EU and national level, the Tokyo Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft so that the exercise of jurisdiction is used to ensure the observance of any obligation under a multilateral international agreement, in particular concerning the protection of human rights, and that, when appropriate, inspections on board should be undertaken;

210.  Calls on the Commission to adopt adequate legislative proposals on transport safety, as provided for in Article 71 EC Treaty, taking into account the recommendations included in this resolution;

211.  Recalls the Community competence in the field of transport, and notably transport security; asks the Commission, therefore, to take immediate action to ensure that the recommendations made by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe as well as by Parliament are implemented;

212.  Calls on the Commission to consider adopting rules on the use, monitoring and management of European airspace, on the use of EU airports and on the monitoring of non-commercial aviation;

International Conventions and agreements

213.  Urges the Member States that have not yet done so to complete as soon as possible ratification of the 2003 EU-US Extradition Agreement, while taking adequate steps to avoid wrongly interpreting Article 12 of the Agreement, thereby ensuring that its scope does not extend beyond formal extradition and does not legitimise extraordinary renditions;

214.  Calls on European countries to ratify and implement the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons Against Enforced Disappearance, adopted on 20 December 2006 by the UN General Assembly;

215.  Believes that, in providing for the adequate interpretation and enforcement of the UN Convention Against Torture, all European countries should ensure that their definition of torture is in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention and that, moreover, the obligations relating to the prohibition of torture are also fulfilled with respect to other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment referred to in Article 16 of the Convention; considers that all European countries should ensure that Article 3 of the Convention is properly enforced, in particular in relation to the activities of their secret services;

216.  States that, given that the protection against refoulement is higher under the ECHR than under the UN Convention against Torture, European countries should ensure in any event the protection afforded by the ECHR; recalls, in this context, that the principle of non-refoulement is also recognised by the Court of Justice of the European Communities;

217.  Calls on all European countries to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture and establish independent national mechanisms to monitor places of detention; emphasises the need to ensure that all such procedures used by the different international conventions on human rights are compatible;

218.  Takes the view that the CPT should be granted access without delay or obstruction to any place of detention within the European countries, including foreign military bases, and provided with all relevant information concerning such detention, and that, to this end, any bilateral agreements that restrict the access of the CPT should be revised;

219.  Urges all European countries to comply with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

220.  Believes that the European Union should encourage all third countries to become party to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and to the UN Convention on Enforced Disappearances;

221.  Asks European countries to establish clear rules that provide for the possibility of State immunity being waived where illegal actions violate human rights;

Administrative recommendations (at EU level)

222.  Takes the view that all internal services within the Council (inter alia, the Policy Unit and the Joint Situation Centre) and the Commission (the Crisis Management and Conflict Prevention Unit in the Directorate-General for External Relations and relevant services in the Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security), should be strengthened in the framework of the implementation of the EU Security Strategy and the counter-terrorism strategy in close cooperation with all Member States, and that their cooperation with each other, as well as with Member States, be clearly regulated and data protection be ensured; considers that Parliament should be involved fully in this regard by granting it oversight powers similar to those of national parliamentary oversight committees, and that the Court of Justice be granted competence in this area; underlines that the competence of the EU in the field of combating terrorism should be significantly strengthened;

EU relations with third countries

223.  Urges the European Union to stress in its contacts with third countries that the appropriate legal framework for governing the international fight against terrorism is criminal law and international human rights law;

224.  Stresses the necessity of political dialogue with the United States, as well as with other strategic partners of the European Union, on security matters in order to combat terrorism effectively and by legal means;

225.  Calls on the European Union to recall that the full application of the 'democratic clause' is fundamental in its relations with third countries, especially those with which it has concluded agreements; calls on the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Morocco to provide clarity on their role in the extraordinary renditions programme;

226.  Strongly believes that it is necessary to promote within the UN framework codes of conduct for all security and military services based on respect for human rights, humanitarian law and democratic political control, similar to the 1994 Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe;

Final conclusions

227.  Stresses, in view of the powers it was provided with and of the time which it had at its disposal, [and the secret nature of the investigated actions, that the Temporary Committee was not put in a position fully to investigate all the cases of abuses and violations falling within its remit and that its conclusions are therefore not exhaustive;

228.  Recalls the principles and values on which the European Union is based, as provided in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, and calls on the EU institutions to meet their responsibilities in relation to Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union and all other relevant provisions of the Treaties, and to take all appropriate measures in the light of the conclusions of the work of the Temporary Committee, the facts revealed in the course of the Temporary Committee's investigation and any other facts that may emerge in the future; expects the Council to put pressure on all the governments concerned to give full and through information to the Council and the Commission and, where necessary to start hearings and commission an independent investigation without delay;

229.  Believes that the principle of loyal cooperation enshrined in the Treaties – which requires Member States and the EU institutions to take measures to ensure the fulfilment of their obligations under the Treaties, such as the respect of human rights, or resulting from action taken by the EU institutions, such as ascertaining the truth about alleged CIA flights and prisons, and to facilitate the achievement of EU tasks and objectives – has not been respected;

230.  Recalls that in light of European Court of Human Rights case law, a signatory State bears responsibility for the material breach of the provisions of the ECHR, and therefore also of Article 6 of the Treaty on the European Union, not only if its direct responsibility can be established beyond reasonable doubt, but also by failing to comply with its positive obligation to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into reasonable allegations of such violations;

231.  Notes the reports by reputable media operators that extraordinary rendition, illegal detention, and systematic torture involving many people is continuing, and considering the declaration by the current US Government that the use of extraordinary rendition and secret places of detention will be continued; therefore calls for an EU-US counter-terrorism summit to seek an end to such inhumane and illegal practices, and to insist that cooperation with regard to counter-terrorism is consistent with international human rights and anti-torture treaty obligations;

232.  Instructs its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, where necessary in cooperation with the Committee on Foreign Affairs, notably its Sub-Committee on Human Rights, to follow up politically the proceedings of the Temporary Committee and to monitor the developments, and in particular, in the event that no appropriate action has been taken by the Council and/or the Commission, to determine whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the principles and values on which the European Union is based, and to recommend to it any resolution, taking as a basis Articles 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union, which may prove necessary in this context;

233.  Calls on its Secretary-General to publish, at least in compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, all the documents received, produced and examined, as well as the records of the proceedings of the Temporary Committee on the Internet as well as in any other appropriate manner and calls on the Secretary-General to ensure that the developments in fields falling within the remit of the Temporary Committee after its disbandment are monitored;

o
o   o

234.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the candidate countries and the associated countries, and to the Council of Europe, NATO, the United Nations and the government and both Houses of Congress of the United States, and to request them to keep Parliament informed of any development that may take place in the fields falling in the remit of the Temporary Committee.

(1) OJ C 286 E, 23.11.2006, p. 509. (2) OJ C 287 E, 24.11.2006, p. 159. (3) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0316. (4) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0525. (5) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0254. (6) OJ C 324, 24.12.1990, p. 201. (7) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000, p. 1. (8) Reference numbers: PE 380.593v04-00 and PE 380.984v02-00. (9) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on Providing Community macro-financial assistance to Moldova (COM(2006)0579 – C6-0342/2006 – 2006/0184(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0033 A6-0013/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0579)(1),

–   having regard to Article 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0342/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0013/2007),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 Recital 9 a (new) (9a) Transdnistria has a significant role in trade, expanded recently by the ban imposed by Russia on wine imports of Moldovan origin which does not apply to wine originating from Transdnistria. Amendment 2 Recital 9 b (new) (9b) Transdnistria obtains considerable revenue from trade in terms of customs duties and taxes, which does not constitute revenue for the State budget of Moldova. Amendment 3 Recital 9 c (new) (9c) The EU's macro-financial assistance should not merely supplement programmes and resources from the Bretton Woods institutions but ensure the added value of Community involvement. Amendment 4 Recital 9 d (new) (9d) The Community should ensure that the EU macro-financial assistance is legally and substantially coherent with the different areas of external action and other relevant Community policies. Such coherence should be ensured in formulating policy, including the Memorandum of Understanding and the Grant Agreement, and in its implementation. Amendment 5 Recital 9 e (new) (9e) The Community should ensure that the EU's macro-financial assistance is exceptional and limited in time, complementary to the assistance from the Bretton Woods institutions, bilateral donors and the Paris Club creditors, as well as conditional on meeting clearly identified requirements, including political pre-conditions, and is carefully monitored and evaluated in order to prevent fraud and financial irregularities. Amendment 6 Recital 9 f (new) (9f) Russia has explained that the ban on wine imports from Moldova had been imposed because of non-compliance with certain phytosanitary requirements. Amendment 7 Recital 9 g (new) (9g) The Community should provide financial assistance to Moldova in order to improve quality and food security in the wine-making sector. Amendment 8 Recital 10 (10)  The release of this grant assistance is without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority. (10)  The release of this grant assistance is without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority. This financial assistance should be provided after verifying whether the conditions to be agreed with the authorities of Moldova have been satisfactorily fulfilled. The conditions for the release of the instalments of the exceptional assistance, which should be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding and a Grant Agreement, should include specific targets to be achieved in the following areas: improved transparency and increased sustainability of public finances; the application of macro-economic and budgetary priorities on the basis of the satisfactory implementation of the economic programme supported by the International Monetary Fund under the Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and of the reforms identified under the EU-Moldova European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan; and full compliance with international democratic and human rights standards, including respect for minorities and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Real progress in attaining the above targets should provide the basis for the disbursement of the instalments of this assistance. Amendment 9 Article 1, paragraph 1 1.  The Community shall make available to Moldova macro-financial assistance in the form of a grant of up to EUR 45 million with a view to supporting Moldova's balance of payments and, in this way, alleviating the financial constraints on the implementation of the government's economic programme. 1.  The Community shall make available to Moldova exceptional macro-financial assistance in the form of a grant of up to EUR 45 million with a view to supporting Moldova's balance of payments in the context of a severe deterioration of Moldova's trade and current account balances and, in this way, alleviating the financial constraints on the implementation of the government's economic programme. Amendment 10 Article 1, paragraph 2 2.  This Community financial assistance shall be managed by the Commission in consultation with the Economic and Financial Committee and in a manner consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Moldova. 2.  This Community financial assistance shall be managed by the Commission in consultation with the Economic and Financial Committee and in a manner consistent with the agreements or understandings reached between the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Moldova. The Commission shall regularly inform the European Parliament of the Economic and Financial Committee proceedings and provide it with the relevant documents. Amendment 11 Article 1, paragraph 3 3.  The Community financial assistance shall be made available for two years starting from the first day after the entry into force of this decision. However, if circumstances so require, the Commission, after consultation of the Economic and Financial Committee, may decide to extend the availability period by a maximum of one year. 3.  The Community financial assistance shall be made available for two years starting from the first day after the entry into force of this decision. Amendment 12 Article 2, paragraph 1 1.  The Commission is empowered to agree with the authorities of Moldova, after consultation with the Economic and Financial Committee, the economic policy and financial conditions attached to this assistance, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding and a Grant Agreement. These conditions shall be consistent with the agreements or understandings referred to in Article 1(2). 1.  The Commission is empowered to agree with the authorities of Moldova, after consultation with the Economic and Financial Committee and the European Parliament, the economic policy and financial conditions attached to this assistance, to be laid down in a Memorandum of Understanding and a Grant Agreement. These conditions shall be consistent with the agreements or understandings referred to in Article 1(2). The Memorandum of Understanding and the Grant Agreement shall be immediately submitted to the Council and the European Parliament. These conditions shall include specific targets in the following areas: improved transparency and increased sustainability of public finances; the application of macro-economic and budgetary priorities on the basis of the satisfactory implementation of the economic programme supported by the IMF under the Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and of the reforms identified under the EU-Moldova European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan; and full compliance with international democratic and human rights standards, including respect for minorities and the fundamental principles of the rule of law. Real progress in attaining the above targets shall provide the basis for the disbursement of the instalments of this assistance. In order to increase transparency and accountability, the conditionalities of the EU's macro-financial assistance shall be made public. Amendment 13 Article 3, paragraph 3 3.  The second and any further instalments shall be released on the basis of a satisfactory implementation of the economic programme supported by the IMF under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and of the EU-Moldova European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan, and any other measures agreed with the Commission as set out in Article 2(1), and not before one quarter after the release of the previous instalment. 3.  The second and any further instalments shall be released on the basis of a satisfactory implementation of the economic programme supported by the IMF under the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and of the EU-Moldova European Neighbourhood Policy Action Plan, and any other measures agreed with the Commission as set out in Article 2(1), in particular the making of satisfactory progress towards attaining the targets set out in the Memorandum of Understanding provided for in Article 2(1), and not before one quarter after the release of the previous instalment. Amendment 14 Article 3, paragraph 4 4.  The funds shall be paid to the National Bank of Moldova. The final recipient of the funds will be the Ministry of Finances of Moldova. 4.  The funds shall be paid to the National Bank of Moldova and recorded under the heading "Exceptional financial assistance from the European Union". The final recipient of the funds will be the Ministry of Finances of Moldova. Amendment 15 Article 4 The implementation of this assistance shall take place in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation applicable to the General Budget of the European Communities and its implementing rules. In particular, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Grant Agreement to be agreed with the authorities of Moldova shall provide for appropriate measures by Moldova related to the prevention of and the fight against fraud, corruption and other irregularities linked to this assistance. It shall also provide for controls by the Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), with the right to perform on the spot checks and inspections, and for audits by the Court of Auditors, where appropriate, to be carried out on the spot. The implementation of this assistance shall take place in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation applicable to the General Budget of the European Communities and its implementing rules. In particular, the Memorandum of Understanding and the Grant Agreement to be agreed with the authorities of Moldova shall provide for specific measures to be implemented by Moldova related to the prevention of and the fight against fraud, corruption and other irregularities that may be linked to this assistance. In order to ensure greater transparency in the management and disbursement of funds, it shall also provide for controls by the Commission, including the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), with the right to perform on-the-spot checks and inspections, and for audits by the Court of Auditors, where appropriate, to be carried out on the spot. Amendment 16 Article 5 By 31 August of each year the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a report, including an evaluation on the implementation of this Decision in the previous year. By 31 August of each year the Commission shall submit to the relevant Committees of the European Parliament and to the Council a report, including an evaluation on the implementation of this Decision in the previous year. That report shall specify the linkage between the targets set out in Article 2(1), Moldova's ongoing economic and fiscal performance and the Commission's decision to release the instalments of this assistance. Amendment 17 Article 5 a (new) Article 5a No later than two years after the expiry of the implementation period of the assistance provided for in this Decision, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an ex-post evaluation report.

(1) Not yet published in the OJ.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down technical measures for the conservation of certain stocks of highly migratory species (COM(2006)0100 – C6-0106/2006 – 2006/0030(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0034 A6-0476/2006

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0100)(1),

–   having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0106/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0476/2006),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 Recital 4 a (new) (4a) According to the ICCAT Scientific Committee, current catch levels of bluefin tuna are not sustainable in the long term with the current exploitation patterns, and consequently the European Union should propose measures to rebuild the stock to ICCAT as a matter of urgency, including a recovery plan if necessary, together with control measures which will help to resolve the problems of overfishing and the underreporting of catches. Amendment 2 Recital 4 b (new) (4b) The scientific analyses point to a risk of collapse in the bluefin tuna fishery, and the European Union and its Member States should therefore urgently introduce control measures which will help to resolve the problem of overfishing, accompanied by a recovery plan, as recommended by the scientific analyses. Amendment 3 Recital 4 c (new) (4c) If they are to be effective, those control measures must enjoy general consensus, and it is therefore necessary for the Commission and the Member States to pursue an active policy to defend those measures in international fora as a matter of urgency, particularly vis-à-vis the regional fisheries organisations responsible for managing this resource and countries which are the main destination for bluefin tuna, such as Japan. Amendment 4 Recital 4 d (new) (4d) The growing demand for bluefin tuna has caused an increase in fishing pressure, both for direct sale and for supplying specimens to tuna farms, which requires, on the part of the European Union and the Member States, strict monitoring and improved information on both fishing and farming activity, since this is vital in order to be able to make a scientific assessment of the state of the resource. Amendment 5 Recital 4 e (new) (4e) The excessive capacity reached by bluefin tuna fattening farms, designed to meet growing demand, has caused an increase in the pressure on this species, and it is therefore necessary for the Union and the Member States to monitor their activity strictly and to improve the information they provide, which is vital in order to be able to make a scientific assessment of the state of the resource. Amendment 6 Recital 6 a (new) (6a) Given the current threat facing certain stocks of migratory species, the EU should promote and support the use of more selective and environmentally friendly fishing gear, in line with the commitments made under the common fisheries policy. Amendment 7 Recital 13 a (new) (13a) The high commercial value attained by some of these migratory species in the world market for fish requires a stringent inspection policy with regard to illegal fishing practices, which are responsible for the current depleted state of some of these stocks.

(1) Not yet published in OJ.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005 as concerns drift nets (COM(2006)0511 – C6-0327/2006 – 2006/0169(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0035 A6-0014/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0511)(1),

–   having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0327/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0014/2007),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

(1) Not yet published in the OJ.

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation laying down rules for voluntary modulation of direct payments provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (COM(2006)0241 – C6-0235/2006 – 2006/0083(CNS))

P6_TA(2007)0036 A6-0009/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0241)(1),

–   having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0235/2006),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 52(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0315/2006),

–   having regard to the second report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0009/2007),

1.  Rejects the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal;

3.  Calls on the Commission, if it does not withdraw its proposal, to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

4.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

(1) Not yet published in the OJ.

European Parliament resolution on the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 6/2005 on the Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T) (2006/2238(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0037 A6-0022/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 6/2005 on the Trans-European Network for Transport (TEN-T), together with the Commission's replies(1),

–   having regard to Article 248(4), second subparagraph, Article 276(3) and Article 280(5) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to the Committee on Budgetary Control working document on the issue(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2006 on the draft general budget of the EU for the financial year 2007(3),

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0022/2007),

1.  Welcomes the close and constructive cooperation between the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the programme for a TEN-T;

2.  Welcomes the accurate analysis and clarity of the Special Report, and notes that it shares most of the European Court of Auditors' concerns and endorses most of its suggestions;

3.  Notes the corrective actions taken by the Commission by, inter alia, modifying the governing Council regulations in 2004, with some of the European Court of Auditors' early findings being taken into consideration;

4.  Points out that the new 2007-2013 financial framework will have a considerable impact on the TEN-T, as the amount agreed upon is approximately 40% of that contained in the original Commission proposal of 14 July 2004 (COM(2004)0475), which proposed an amount of EUR 20 350 million for TEN-T for the period 2007 to 2013, whereas the financial framework made only EUR 8 013 million available; believes that, as a consequence, selecting, prioritising and ensuring efficient implementation of the projects will become even more important;

5.  Regrets the meagre increase in the appropriations available for TEN-T;

6.  Is concerned about the slow speed of implementation of the priority TEN-T projects;

7.  Is of the opinion that the Commission has to further improve cooperation with Member States when priority projects at national and EU level are selected;

8.  Considers it important for projects which are not completed on schedule to be subject to more stringent checks, with a possibility for subsidies under the multi-annual indicative programme to be transferred to projects which are progressing more rapidly;

9.  Stresses the importance of appropriate monitoring of the projects, including on-site checks by the Commission;

10.  Welcomes, in this context, the first annual activity reports of the European coordinators(4), and agrees with the Commission's finding that failure to complete the trans-European transport network as a whole would lead to a loss of economic competitiveness;

11.  Calls on the Member States to develop an integrated transport network policy to ensure the proper functioning of the trans-European transport network and the efficiency of national networks and to support a European added-value approach rather than fighting for the principle of "fair share";

12.  Emphasises that the selection of European transport projects has to be based on comprehensive studies assessing the need for any particular project at a very early stage;

13.  Notes that the presence of a European coordinator has in general had a positive impact on strengthening coordination between Member States and has highlighted the need to set up common planning and management structures;

14.  Emphasises, therefore, that the money available under the 2007-2013 financial framework should be allocated with account being taken of the European coordinators" comments, analyses and recommendations;

15.  Asks the Commission to clarify the procedure for the appointment of the European coordinators when setting up the regulatory framework for the content of their reports;

16.  Is of the opinion that in the current financial environment preference should be given to cross-border sections of priority projects with high Community added-value and to certain major "bottlenecks" in order to contribute significantly to the completion of a trans-European, interconnected and interoperable transport network; welcomes in this context the cooperation agreement with the European Investment Bank (EIB);

17.  Calls on the Commission to continue its efforts to establish clear legal frameworks and procedures, to guarantee rigorous monitoring and thorough evaluation of projects and programmes, and to draw up a comprehensive list of clear criteria which allow for the prioritisation of projects in a transparent manner;

18.  Stresses the need to clarify the definitions of the terms "studies" and "works" by harmonising the structure for the description of works and by standardising technical and financial reporting;

19.  Considers it essential, when selecting and assessing projects, to draw on the experience of external experts and the EIB and to promote the exchange of experience and information with DG REGIO;

20.  Urges the Commission to establish a clear and transparent division of institutional responsibilities and to define a framework for the coordination of activities between DG REGIO and DG TREN with a view to avoiding double-financing of the same projects; considers it good practice to have clear agreements in place between the Member States and the Commission on the separation of funding from different EU sources;

21.  Advocates a single entity for managing projects by focusing on the main activity, in the process maintaining centralised information, facilitating better monitoring by the Commission and improving the coordination of the different legal, administrative and technical issues between the Member States involved; believes that a single entity responsible for managing projects could reduce the risk of double funding;

22.  Notes that payments from the Commission have taken excessive time to reach the final beneficiary; calls therefore for money to be paid out swiftly and efficiently; is of the opinion that in this context a direct payment flow from the Commission to the beneficiary could be a better solution;

23.  Considers the coordination of TEN-T projects to be essential, particularly in the case of cross-border projects, and hopes that the establishment of the TEN-T Executive Agency, which has now been announced by the Commission, may contribute to the implementation of the TEN-T projects; points out that the Commission should present a progress report on the activities and the possible future added value of the TEN-T Executive Agency to Parliament before the first reading of the 2008 Budget;

24.  Points out that Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes(5) requires, in its Article 3(1) a cost-benefit analysis, taking into account a number of factors, before the establishment of an executive agency can be requested; regrets that the Commission was not in a position to present the European Court of Auditors with a satisfactory cost-benefit analysis of the establishment of an executive agency at the outset; remains, together with the European Court of Auditors, doubtful with regard to the quality of the revised version of the cost-benefit analysis concerning the externalisation of the management of Community financial support to the TEN-T networks; for the future, calls on the Commission to seek a positive opinion on cost-benefit analyses from the European Court of Auditors before forwarding a request for the establishment of an executive agency to the budgetary authorities;

25.  Regrets that DG TREN's establishment plan does not reflect more adequately the fact that 54% of its budget concerns TEN-T, but that only 5% of its staff work in that area;

26.  Stresses the use of modern project monitoring systems (GPS) and the sharing of best practices for project implementation monitoring systems;

27.  Notes, in this context, the projected creation of an executive agency in 2007 which, according to the Commission, will be staffed by eight seconded officials from the Commission, 32 temporary staff (agency) and 48 contract staff; also notes that the cost of setting up the agency is estimated at EUR 78 600 000;

28.  Underlines the fact that (co-)financing of TEN-T should take place transparently and that therefore regular information to Parliament and citizens should be guaranteed;

29.  Calls on the European Court of Auditors to verify, at the appropriate time before 2009, the effectiveness of executive agencies and report back to the Committee on Budgetary Control;

30.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European Court of Auditors.

(1) OJ C 94, 21.4.2006, p. 1. (2) PE 374.326v02-00. (3) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0451. (4) http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/coordinators/index_en.htm. (5) OJ L 11, 16.1.2003, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution on climate change

P6_TA(2007)0038 B6-0045/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the twelfth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 12) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the second session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 2) held in Nairobi, Kenya, from 6 to 17 November 2006,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions relating to climate change, and in particular those of 16 November 2005 on 'Winning the Battle against Global Climate Change'(1) and of 26 October 2006 on the European Union strategy for the Nairobi Conference (COP 12 and COP/MOP 2)(2),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions entitled 'Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 degrees Celsius – The way ahead for 2020 and beyond' (COM(2007)0002),

–   having regard to the conclusion formally approved on 2 February 2007 at the 10th Session of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), held in Paris, as a contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment report describing the current knowledge of the human and natural drivers of climate change and providing an estimate of projected future climate change,

–   having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the recent extreme weather events, such as the devastating storm Kyrill, have led to an even more intensive debate on climate change,

B.   whereas a single extreme weather event cannot be directly linked to climate change, but the fact cannot be ignored that many scientists see the increased intensity of extreme weather events as having a link to climate change,

C.   whereas recent scientific reports give cause for concern that the processes of climate change that are already underway may accelerate due to various forms of positive feedback,

1.  Stresses the urgency of taking concrete action at global level to tackle climate change, as well as the need for political leadership to drive the process forward;

2.  Welcomes, in this context, the fact that both the Commission and the Presidency-in-Office have put climate change at the core of their political agenda;

3.  Urges the European Union to maintain its leading role in the negotiations with a view to a post-2012 international framework on climate change and to maintain a high level of ambition in future discussions with its international partners;

4.  Urges the European Union to demonstrate its resolve by addressing climate change through measurable progress in reducing its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and meeting its domestic and international emission reduction targets;

5.  Recognises that the EU's share of GHG emissions - which according to the Fourth national communication from the European Community under UNFCCC (COM(2006)0040) amounts to 14% - may appear low; stresses, however, that, when measured in terms of per capita emissions, the EU share is among the highest in the world; in order to narrow these differences, reminds the Commission and the Member States of their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakesh Accords to ensure supplementarity of their use of flexible mechanisms;

6.  Stresses the need to accelerate significantly international negotiations on the post-2012 framework so as to ensure that there is no gap between the first and second commitment periods under the Kyoto Protocol and give the international community time to plan the necessary measures; reiterates its call for an agreement to be reached by the end of 2008 or, at the very latest, by 2009;

7.  Underlines that the EU should base its strategy on the assumption that an agreement will be achieved at international level on a post-2012 framework on climate change; believes, therefore, that it is premature to discuss at this stage a fall-back strategy in case such an international agreement is not reached;

8.  Recalls that, as set out in its abovementioned resolutions of 16 November 2005 and 26 October 2006, and partly acknowledged by the Commission in its communication, the EU strategy on climate change should be based on the following key objectives :

9.  Regrets the lack of clarity of the Commission's 'energy and climate package' with regard to the target for GHG emission reductions for 2020; emphasises that an overall 30% reduction for all industrialised countries is necessary to have a reasonable chance of attaining the EU objective of limiting the average temperature increase to 2°C;

10.  Insists that the EU must base all internal policies and measures on the reduction target of 30% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels;

11.  Underlines that, in order to reach agreement at international level on a 30% reduction of GHG emissions in all industrialised countries, the European Union has to focus not only on environmental policy but also on foreign policy and international trade policy, as well as on a willingness to change demand for energy and other natural resources, and that this broader picture has, therefore, to be part of the debate on the strategy to achieve the abovementioned objective;

12.  Considers that economically developed Member States have exported a large amount of their energy- and natural resource-consuming activities and technologies to less developed countries, where the same activity causes possibly higher GHG emissions; therefore urges the Commission and Member States to establish policies to prevent such practices;

13.  Insists on the specific responsibility of developed countries to tackle climate change at world level; calls, therefore, on Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC to meet their existing commitments and to take on ambitious targets for a second commitment period after 2012; calls, moreover, on those industrialised countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reconsider their position, to take vigorous domestic measures and to play an active role in future international negotiations, with a view to their participation in the future climate change regime;

14.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to investigate the possibility of adopting border adjustment measures applicable to trade in order to offset any short-term competitive advantage that producers in industrialised countries without carbon constraints might have;

15.  Reiterates its proposal to revise the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) with the goal of harmonising the allocation method on the basis of benchmarks and auctioning; proposes that the cost-free allocation of emission certificates should be reduced and suggests to the Member States that the money generated by, for instance, auctioning should be given back to the citizens and enterprises affected;

16.  Agrees with the Commission that non-Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC have to be further involved in the process, but underlines that developing countries cannot be treated as one block and that activities undertaken by or within developing countries must be differentiated on the basis of their particular national circumstances; further emphasises that the least developed countries should not be required to take on any commitments;

17.  In order to ensure an international level playing field, calls on the Commission and Member States to consider proposing sectoral targets for energy-intensive export industries in countries without binding emission reduction commitments as a supplement to binding emission targets for industrialised countries;

18.  Stresses that energy policy is a crucial element of the EU global strategy on climate change and that diversification of renewable energy resources and a switch to the most energy-efficient technologies has great potential for emission reductions while ensuring less energy dependency on external sources;

19.  Believes that the current inefficiency of many electricity power plants is a major contributor to the problem of global warming and calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals requiring all Member States to ensure that the energy released as a by-product of electricity generation is harnessed through combined heat and power technology;

20.  Considers that there is a huge potential for emission reductions in the field of energy efficiency; calls on the Commission and Member States to adopt ambitious measures and targets in this field and to explore the possibility of going above the 20% reduction target proposed by the Commission;

21.  Considers that with well balanced national tax/levy systems, energy efficiency can be increased in Member States and unnecessary energy consumption can be prevented;

22.  Furthermore calls on the Commission and Member States to scrutinise the possibility of establishing an EU-wide tax system aimed at promoting a low-carbon economy, encouraging the use of the best available technologies and production processes and more sustainable modes of consumption to this end;

23.  Calls on the Member States to fulfil their commitments by taking the appropriate measures to ensure the prompt implementation of Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings(3), which entered into force on 4 January 2003, whose cost-effective savings within the building sector are estimated at around 22%; calls therefore on the Commission to open proceedings against those Member States which have not yet taken adequate measures, as requested, to implement Directive 2002/91/EC;

24.  Underlines that energy consumption is increasing most in the transport sector and that road transport contributes to roughly 25% of the Community's CO2 emissions; calls, therefore, for binding measures for the transport sector, including aviation, to make emission reductions equivalent to those in other sectors by 2020 and for the development of more integrated and greener public transport, respecting the environment and natural resources;

25.  Stresses the urgent need to reduce CO2 emissions from cars and therefore insists that the Commission impose a binding target of 120 grams per kilometre (gpk) by 2012 for new passenger cars marketed in the European Union;

26.  Reiterates its call for aviation and maritime transport emissions to be included in international greenhouse gas reduction commitments for the post-2012 period, and calls for renewed efforts to introduce kerosene taxes at EU and global level;

27.  Notes the proposal of a binding target to increase the level of renewable energy in the EU energy mix to 20% by 2020 as a good starting point, but considers that this target should be increased to 25% of the EU energy mix;

28.  Notes the absence of binding sectoral renewables targets; points out that these would bring about a real reduction in GHG emissions in order to tackle climate change; urges the Commission to propose, in addition to the general target, the submission of sector-specific targets, notably for electricity generation, heating and cooling, by Member States for renewable energy taking into account their different situations as proposed by the impact assessment of the Renewable Energy Roadmap (COM(2006)0848);

29.  Reiterates that heating and cooling with renewable energy offers huge potential for a cost-effective reduction of CO2 and of dependence on fossil fuels; regrets that the Commission has not submitted a proposal for a directive to support heating and cooling with renewable energies as promised to the European Parliament but notes that legislative measures in the field are still planned by the Commission;

30.  Reiterates with insistence its recommendations for a proposal on heating and cooling from renewable sources of energy contained in its resolution of 14 February 2006(4);

31.  Notes the Commission proposal for a binding minimum target for biofuels of 10% of vehicle fuels in 2020; takes the view that a target of 12,5% would also be realistic and desirable; underlines the importance of the sustainable production of biofuels; calls on the Commission to introduce a certification scheme and standards (e.g.technical legislation) allowing sustainable production of biofuels which is applicable to biofuels produced within, and imported into, the European Union;

32.  Notes that the Commission recognises in the medium term the important role of fossil fuels and the possibility of undertaking further studies to reduce their carbon intensity in line with the 2°C target for CO2 reduction; considers that this should include continuous modernisation and improvement of their efficiency; the development of a new generation of installations; the further development of an efficient and economical method of carbon capture and storage in relation to coal, gas and oil, in accordance with the decisions taken by the European Technology Platform for Zero Emission Fossil Fuel Power Plant, and the removal of barriers posed by EU legislation; recognises the role of carbon capture and storage technologies in reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

33.  Supports the proposed energy partnership with Africa; however, strongly recommends that a similar partnership be established with China and India as well, bearing in mind the very rapid growth of GHG emissions in those countries and the urgent need to assist them in capacity-building as well as investments in carbon-free, low-carbon and energy-efficient technologies (with special attention to renewables), while insisting that the EU work with the relevant regions to stop tropical deforestation and instead encourage afforestation and reforestation; proposes, furthermore, that energy cooperation with Russia, Ukraine, North African and Caspian countries be stepped up;

34.  Considers that significant efforts to reduce emissions can go hand in hand with economic development and are even a prerequisite for sustainable economic development in the coming decades; reiterates that environmental technologies can give the European Union a competitive edge while greatly contributing to emission reductions; notes that environmental technologies are, therefore, at the heart of a sustainable development strategy compatible with the EU's Kyoto commitments and the Lisbon Strategy;

35.  Underlines economic, social and health costs of inaction shown, inter alia, by the Stern Review on the economics of climate change; recalls that the absence of action would cause damage corresponding to 5-20% of global GDP per year, whereas the cost of a sound climate policy and investment in clean technologies is estimated at between 0.5% and 1% of global annual GDP up to 2050, without taking account of ancillary environmental and health benefits; recognises that delaying action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and mitigation costs;

36.  Recognises that climate change is causing serious environmental problems requiring immediate EU and international action; believes that by 2050 the overwhelming proportion of EU energy needs must come from carbon-free sources or be produced with technologies which withhold greenhouse gas emissions, with a focus on energy saving, efficiency and renewable energies, and that there is therefore a need to set out a clear roadmap for attaining this objective; calls on the Commission to set ambitious but realistic targets for ultra-low or non-CO2-emitting and CO2-neutral energy technologies to supply 60% of EU electricity demand by 2020, in support of European climate and security-of-supply objectives;

37.  Takes the view that research in this field should be boosted and clear environmental performance targets should be adopted in order to encourage the development and use of better and more environment-friendly technologies;

38.  Maintains that reducing global emissions must not lead to other threats such as nuclear proliferation or terrorism; therefore believes that nuclear power should remain excluded from the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation or other mechanisms aimed at rewarding emission reductions in developing countries;

39.  Encourages much greater direct involvement in mitigation efforts at European citizen level; calls on the Commission therefore to intensify its awareness-raising activities concerning the urgency of the situation with the aim of informing individuals about their role in controlling climate change;

40.  Calls again on the European Union and its Member States to adopt an ambitious policy of technology partnerships with and transfers of clean technologies to developing countries, in order to help them develop their economies and increase their welfare in a more sustainable way;

41.  Calls on the Commission to evaluate climate change repercussions on the increase in ground temperature, the reduction of rains and the groundwater status; considers it especially important to study the effects of the reduction of the area of cultivable land as a source of biomass and as a carbon pool; underlines the importance of certain agricultural management practices;

42.  Calls for all of its relevant committees and delegations to work together closely on climate change, so that its industrial policy, energy policy and transport, agriculture, research and development and other initiatives are better coordinated with climate change targets, and so that climate change is regularly raised at interparliamentary delegation level and in the context of the Transatlantic Legislative Dialogue;

43.  Calls on the three Presidencies (Germany, Portugal and Slovenia) in 2007 to ensure that the momentum on climate change is accelerated, whilst increasing the level of political commitment and the number of international partners within the process at international level;

44.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Secretariat of the UNFCCC, with the request that it be circulated to all non-EU contracting parties.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 18.11.2006, p. 120. (2) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0460. (3) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 65 (4) OJ C 290 E, 29.11.2006, p. 115.

European Parliament resolution on SWIFT, the PNR agreement and the transatlantic dialogue on these issues

P6_TA(2007)0039 B6-0042/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the statements from the Council and the Commission during the debate held in Parliament on 31 January 2007, following the oral question on SWIFT, as well as the negotiations for a new EC-US Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreement,

–   having regard to the letter of reply by the European Central Bank (ECB) of 30 January 2007 to the question of whether the ECB had failed to inform the relevant data protection authorities and the national banks of the US practice of accessing data related to financial transactions generated by SWIFT, as well as to use its power of moral persuasion towards SWIFT in this matter,

–   having regard to the opinion of the Working Party on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data, as foreseen in Article 29 of the Data Protection Directive(1) (the Article 29 Working Party) on the future PNR agreement and to that of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) as regards the role of the ECB in the SWIFT case,

–   having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas the sharing of data and information is a valuable tool in the international fight against terrorism and related crime,

B.   whereas businesses with operations on both sides of the Atlantic increasingly find themselves caught between the conflicting legal requirements of the US and EC jurisdictions,

C.   whereas the sharing of personal data must take place on a proper legal basis, linked to clear rules and conditions, and must be covered by adequate protection of the privacy and civil liberties of individual citizens,

D.   whereas the fight against terrorism and crime must have proper democratic legitimacy, meaning that data-sharing programmes must at all times be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review,

General

1.  Stresses that during the last few years several agreements prompted by US requirements and adopted without any involvement of Parliament, notably the PNR agreement, the SWIFT memorandum and the existence of the US Automated Targeting System (ATS), have led to a situation of legal uncertainty with regard to the necessary data protection guarantees for data sharing and transfer between the EU and the US for the purposes of ensuring public security and, in particular, preventing and fighting terrorism;

2.  Reaffirms that the solutions envisaged so far by the Council and the Commission as well as by private companies do not adequately protect the personal data of EU citizens (as also noted in the letter from Mr Schaar, Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, regarding the new interim PNR agreement), and that this could constitute a violation of Community as well as national legislation, as in the SWIFT case (see Opinion 10/2006 of the Article 29 Working Party of 22 November 2006 and the EDPS' opinion of 1st February 2007);

3.  Notes that in the fight against terrorism the US Congress has for some time asked the US administration to adopt more targeted measures that better ensure privacy and are subject to parliamentary and judicial control (as was demanded when Congress was made aware of the existence of the National Security Agency (NSA) programme of telephone tapping);

4.  Confirms its reservations that have recently been shared by Congress as regards the method of profiling and data mining, which consists in accumulating in an indiscriminate manner larger and larger volumes of personal data, as in the case of the ATS used by the US administration;

5.  Welcomes the fact that the US administration has recently taken note of these reservations and that it will seek to improve the situation by means of the following steps:

6.  Believes, however, that these improvements are insufficient as regards data protection for EU citizens and that it would be warmly welcomed if the 1974 Privacy Act could also apply to EU citizens on a reciprocity basis in order for them to have access to their data, with a right of rectification and modification, as well as having access to a legal redress mechanism and to an independent data protection authority;

7.  Recalls its belief that such data protection guarantees would facilitate data sharing while ensuring protection of privacy, and that such transfers would in any case need to be based on one or more international agreements similar in structure to that of the EC/US agreement on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and extradition which is currently being examined by Congress;

8.  Believes that since such international agreements concern the fundamental rights of EU as well as US citizens, the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the Member States should be fully involved, as should Congress;

9.  Insists that in matters of data protection the agreements should strive to achieve a high level of protection as regards risks of abuse and should be supplemented with binding principles at EU level as regards the protection of data for security purposes (third pillar);

10.  Stresses the need for the adoption of a framework decision on the protection of personal data in the third pillar; draws attention to the fact that, in the position it adopted unanimously on 27 September 2006(2), it called for such a decision to be comprehensive and ambitious in scope and to provide for data protection rules also covering the exchange of personal data with third countries;

11.  Believes that it is necessary to define with the US a common and shared framework to safeguard the necessary guarantees that are needed in the special EU-US partnership in the fight against terrorism, which could also deal with all aspects concerning the free movement of persons between the EU and the US;

12.  Expects that this strategy of transatlantic partnership will be discussed at the next EU-US summit on 30 April 2007 and considers that, in this perspective, contacts should be strengthened between Parliament and Congress; requests that:

As regards the negotiation of the long-term PNR agreement

13.  Stresses that, in addition to the points already adopted by Parliament its above-mentioned position of 27 September 2006, a future long-term PNR agreement should be founded on the following principles:

As regards the access to SWIFT data

14.  Reiterates its concern over the fact that for four years SWIFT, upon receipt of subpoenas, has been transferring to the US administration a subset of data treated in its US system, including data that did not concern US citizens and data not generated on US territory, based on commercial and systemic reasons, to have systematic duplication of the data onto a mirroring information system based in the US, in violation of EU and national data protection legislation;

15.  Considers it very worrying that this situation, in breach of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as of the Treaties and secondary legislation (Data Protection Directive and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data(4)), has not been strongly criticised at an earlier stage either by the ECB or by the Group of 10 Central Banks that oversee SWIFT's activities, and that it is only recently that European banks and their customers have been made aware of the situation through press reports;

16.  Deeply regrets the fact that, several months after these matters came to light, the Council has not yet taken a stance on this subject affecting so many citizens, consumers and enterprises, and that only seven out of 27 Member States have responded to the questionnaire sent by the Commission to obtain clarification in relation to respect for national and Community data protection laws;

17.  Repeats its concerns as regards the current system of supervision of SWIFT whose responsibility belongs to the Group of 10 Central Banks, with oversight by the ECB, but without formal competence; calls on the Council and the ECB to reflect together on the way to improve this system so as to ensure proper functioning of the alert process with full consequences in terms of action to be taken;

18.  Endorses the opinion expressed by the EDPS on the role of the ECB and calls on the ECB:

19.  Reiterates its belief that, under clearly defined conditions, data generated in financial transactions can be used exclusively for judicial investigative purposes in connection with suspicion of terrorism financing and recalls that both the EC and the US in their respective legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1781/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 on information on the payer accompanying transfers of funds(5) and the US Bank Secrecy Act) have implemented Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendation VII;

20.  Recalls that, as from 31 December 2006, under FATF Recommendation VII, financial institutions are bound to collect and retain records of certain specified data regarding fund transfers of USD 1 000 or more in Europe (USD 3 000 in the US); any of these records must be submitted or made available to the authorities upon request(6);

21.  Believes that the EU and the US are fundamental and loyal allies in the fight against terrorism and that this legislative framework should therefore be the basis for the negotiation of a possible international agreement, based on the assumption that SWIFT as a Belgian company is subject to Belgian law and is consequently responsible for the treatment of data in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 95/46/EC; points out that the natural consequence would be for SWIFT to be obliged to stop its current practice of mirroring all data concerning EU citizens and enterprises in its US site or to move its alternative database site outside US jurisdiction; urges that this international agreement provide the necessary guarantees against abuse of data for economic and business purposes;

22.  Draws attention to the fact that SWIFT provides services outside the EU and the US and therefore considers that any measure adopted should take into account the global aspect of SWIFT's services;

23.  Calls on the Commission, which has competence both for data protection and for payment systems legislation, to analyse the potential for economic and business espionage stemming from the current design of payment systems in the broadest sense, thus including, in particular, messaging providers, and to report on ways of tackling the problem;

24.  Notes that financial services may be exempted from the Safe Harbour Agreement, as stated by the Article 29 Working Party in its Opinion 10/2006; is concerned over the fact that EU companies and sectors with operations in the US not covered by the Safe Harbour agreement may currently be forced to make personal data available to US authorities, in particular US branches of European banks, insurance companies, social security institutions and providers of telecoms services; calls on the Commission to investigate this as a matter of urgency;

o
o   o

25.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States, as well as to the US Congress.

(1) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31). (2) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0370. (3) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1. (4) OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1. (5) OJ L 345, 8.12.2006, p. 1. (6) (See report published on 17 January 2006 by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) on the reporting of cross-border wire transfer: http://www.fincen.gov/news_release_cross_border.html

European Parliament resolution on the input to the 2007 Spring Council in relation to the Lisbon Strategy

P6_TA(2007)0040 B6-0048/2007

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Spring European Council entitled "Time to move up a gear: the new partnership for growth and jobs" (COM(2006)0030),

–   having regard to Commission's Staff Work Document entitled "Community Lisbon Programme: Technical Implementation Report 2006 (SEC(2006)1379),

–   having regard to the 25 National Reform Programmes for Growth and Jobs as presented by the Member States (NRPs),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled "A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union" (COM(2006)0689),

–   having regard to the Community strategic guidelines on economic, social and territorial cohesion, 2007-2013, the Commission's Guidelines for the implementation of the Structural Funds in line with the Lisbon Strategy,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled "Global Europe: Competing in the World - A Contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy" (COM(2006)0567),

–   having regard to the Communication from the President of the Commission in agreement with Vice-President Verheugen and Commissioners Almunia and Spidla on Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs (2005-2008) (COM(2005)0141),

–   having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Lisbon European Council of 23 and 24 March 2000, of the Stockholm European Council of 23 and 24 March 2001, of the Brussels European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005 and of the Brussels European Council of 23 and 24 March 2006,

–   having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2006 on a European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy - Green Paper(1),

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the macro-economic impact of the increase in the price of energy (A6-0001/2007),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the European Parliament on an energy policy for Europe (COM(2007)0001),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking of 2003(2),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(3),

–   having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

General observations

1.  Welcomes the efforts of the Commission and the Member States to make the Lisbon Strategy a success and notes that the Lisbon Strategy is Europe's response to the challenges of globalisation; moreover, emphasises, once again, that growth and employment are prerequisites for the success of the Lisbon Strategy, together with economic, social and environmental reforms, with the aim of creating a dynamic and innovative economy and society; warns against reducing the strategy to only a few priorities that are linked to the completion of the internal market and better regulation; draws attention to the many complementary features of the new Sustainable Development Strategy and the Lisbon Strategy, such as their common goal of increased competitiveness, the creation of more and better-quality jobs, greater social inclusion, environmental protection and risk prevention;

2.  Welcomes the steps taken at the 2005 Spring European Council to revive the Lisbon Strategy, including a clarification of the division of responsibility for the implementation of individual measures between the Member States and the Community;

3.  Believes that, in a world with limited resources and a fragile ecological system, the European Union should strive to become the most resource and energy-efficient economic area in the world; points to the costs of inaction or delayed action in this respect and emphasises the huge economic potential for energy-efficient technologies and renewable energies on the world market, which the European Union is best placed to exploit;

4.  Believes that innovation plays a critically important role in the European Union's ability to respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities of the global economy, as well as other major challenges, such as climate change;

5.  Points out that implementing the Lisbon Strategy calls for the provision of sufficient and well-targeted financial resources through the Community budget; regrets in this context the lack of financial resources earmarked to achieve the goals set by the Lisbon Strategy;

6.  Recognises the unique added value of regional policy in the pursuit of the Lisbon Strategy objectives, which is also reflected in the 'Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013: Cohesion Policy in support of Growth and Jobs'; points out that for the current programming period the EU-15 are being asked to earmark 60% of expenditure for the Structural Funds' Convergence objective and 75% of expenditure for the Regional Competitiveness and Employment objective in order to pursue the Lisbon Strategy objectives; calls on the Commission to monitor the performance of Member States in achieving the Lisbon Strategy objectives through their Structural Fund interventions;

Improving Lisbon governance for better law-making
Better law-making

7.  Supports all the efforts made by the institutions to carry forward the better law-making agenda; believes that Parliament should retain the lead role in promoting better law-making by securing the basis for common procedures with other institutions, for independent impact assessments of proposed legislation, for greater openness in Council decision-making and for improved democratic scrutiny of the adoption, by the Commission, of delegated legislation; recalls that better law-making does not mean deregulation or minimal regulation;

8.  Insists on the full recognition of the Parliament's role in the area of comitology, which would help to simplify legislation by removing truly implementing measures while guaranteeing the full respect for Parliament's legislative powers; notes that impediments to democracy and cost-intensive obligations do not arise only from legislation, but also, and primarily from comitology decisions; calls, therefore, for comitology decisions also to be the subject of comprehensive and independent impact assessments;

9.  Welcomes the Commission's initiative on reducing administrative and cost burdens for businesses; asks to be more closely involved in obtaining solid cost-benefit analyses as a basis for informed decision-making, and therefore calls on the Commission to develop a methodology for an independent ex ante assessment of administrative costs; urges the Council, the Commission and the Member States to commit to a joint cost reduction target at the 2007 next EU Spring European Council; calls on the Commission regularly to consider all policy instruments, legislative and non-legislative, with a view to achieving the desired objectives; insists that all simplification initiatives comply fully with the principles and conditions outlined in its resolution of 16 May 2006 on a strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment(4);

10.  Suggests that a 25 % reduction in the administrative burden on the Member States would lead to an increase in real GDP of 1 to 1,4 %; urges all Member States to set quantitative and qualitative targets in this area and to contribute, within the framework of better transposition, in particular, to simplifying existing regulations and to introducing impact assessment procedures, whilst establishing consultation and complaint procedures with relevant stakeholders; underlines the important role of national parliaments and the need for cooperation structures in this context;

Early and better transposition

11.  Calls, in the interests of increasing transparency and fostering a better understanding of the Lisbon Strategy and its implementation, for the development of a common and coherent structure for NRPs, making for a better comparative analysis of the impact of the proposed actions at Member State level, as well as an open and constructive dialogue at European level on the progress achieved; supports the idea, in this respect, of establishing country-specific recommendations and a best practice ranking system on reform agendas in the different policy fields; calls on all national governments to publish and to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions when transposing EU directives: the so-called correlation tables;

12.  Calls for the broad involvement of civil society to bring about changes to increase growth and jobs; recalls that the success of reforms depends on the involvement and ownership of the whole of society; therefore proposes to establish an exchange of views on best practice with regard to the participation of representatives of civil society in this reform process;

Improving Lisbon governance and national ownership

13.  Stresses that Member State specific recommendations must be discussed and adopted in Council in order to develop a real European framework, to strengthen the economic and employment coordination work and to foster greater national ownership;

14.  Reiterates that EU economic and employment problems will not be overcome without the active involvement of parliaments, at national and European level; supports the Commission's request that Member States promote wider discussion of their NRPs and Implementation Reports, including national recommendations, with their national parliaments and establish closer links between NRPs and national budget debates;

15.  Encourages the Commission to introduce a form of benchmarking surveillance, using structural policy indicators with a clearly identified link to economic and employment performance and indicators underpinning the structural surveillance exercise, taking into account policies that stimulate innovation and job creation;

16.  Stresses the need for a more effective role for government representatives specifically responsible for implementing the Lisbon Strategy in all Member States, at the highest political level, with a view to convincing national decision-makers to improve the policy-mix-approach of this reform agenda at both national and European level;

17.  Points out that it is the guiding role of the 2007 Spring European Council to establish the growth and employment reform agenda for the European Union; calls on the European Council to ensure the equal involvement of all the Council formations concerned; underlines its own role in monitoring the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy as a whole;

Growth, employment and competitiveness
Creating more employment and employment opportunities

18.  Considers that labour market reform must aim to reconcile the demands of industry for greater flexibility with the demands of workers for more security, for example by creating new job prospects and new forms of security; is convinced that this combination of flexibility and social security makes it easier for employees, enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to adapt to the challenges of a dynamic economy and a changing society; calls, therefore, on the European Council and the Member States to define clear and objective principles and to introduce an intensified benchmarking exercise and exchanges of best practices with a view to developing and implementing flexicurity;

19.  Calls for more investment and better-trained and more highly qualified workers, in order to raise productivity and employment rates and to achieve the goals of the Lisbon Strategy, which should enable the European Union to meet the challenge of global competition; points out that modernising employment and social security systems in all Member States, including the promotion of active labour market measures (as in the Danish model), is a political imperative and that prosperity and solidarity are truly mutually supportive objectives of the Lisbon Strategy;

20.  Recalls that unemployment is most highly concentrated in vulnerable groups, especially among less-qualified workers and that a special effort is therefore needed to promote active policies of vocational training for unemployed workers who may be less qualified, and to improve the education system so as to reduce the high level of failure among school children;

21.  Believes that barriers to job creation, including disincentives to take up moderately paid employment, must be removed; recognises the responsibility of unemployed people to take up job offers; acknowledges the need for working-time arrangements to be sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of employers and employees and to allow people to balance their work and family life;

22.  Deplores the fact that the proportion of women in the workforce still falls far short of the Lisbon Strategy objectives; believes that older workers should be able to remain in the workforce on a voluntary basis, supported by appropriate training and health care at work; also believes that early retirement must be discouraged and that workers should be allowed to work past their legal retirement age voluntarily if they and their employers so agree; insists that these measures are needed to stimulate economic growth and strengthen the sustainability of public finances;

23.  Underlines that older workers account for an increasing share of the European Union's working population and economic production capacity; calls on the Member States to increase efforts to modify tax and social security systems to encourage a longer active working life and calls for the effective implementation of anti-age-discrimination legislation;

24.  Notes that there is a lack of skilled labour in the European Union, and that lifelong learning is a key to achieving the Lisbon Strategy objectives; urges the Member States, in cooperation with the social partners, to do more to create employment and raise labour market participation among young, female and older workers in particular, by:

25.  Supports the policy of allowing universities to be privately funded and encourages the private sector to make its views known on the education and training that the market requires;

26.  Considers that the health-care aspects of demographic change are of extreme importance and points out that the longer that people enjoy good health, the longer they can and will stay economically active and not send health-care costs escalating; is convinced that investment in measures to protect people from factors causing chronic and long-term illness is of particular importance; at the same time, efforts should be made to ensure that individuals suffering from those illnesses are not discriminated against in the workplace;

27.  Urges Member States to review inefficient social models in the light of their financial sustainability, changing global dynamics and demographic patterns in order that these become more sustainable;

Elimination of persistent internal market shortcomings

28.  Stresses that if the European economy is to be globally competitive, it also needs a dynamic internal market; recommends measures to facilitate market access and promote innovation-friendly policies, consistent with the principles of public interest and a high level of consumer protection, so as to enable citizens to reap the full benefit from the internal market; welcomes the Commission's initiative to review the functioning of the internal market and fully endorses its ambition finally to complete the project; calls on the Member States to take ownership of the internal market and establish a culture of cooperation among themselves, with a view to policing and promoting participation by firms in pan-EU activity; highlights, in particular, the importance of proper implementation and enforcement of EC legislation and stresses the role of adequately trained national judges in this respect;

29.  Notes that the long-term strengthening of the internal market is fundamental to achieving the Lisbon Strategy objectives and, in particular, to making the European Union sustainably competitive in a globalised economy; notes also that the European institutions and the Member States must maintain their efforts to strengthen this key aspect of the integration process;

30.  Stresses that the free movement of goods is one of the cornerstones of the internal market; points out that, in the case of products that have not been the subject of Community harmonisation, Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty prohibit Member States from maintaining or imposing barriers to intra-Community trade in goods; therefore calls on the Member States and the Commission definitively to remove all obstacles to the free movement of goods within the European Union;

31.  Notes that, as regards the free movement of goods, there are still serious shortcomings in the area of the mutual recognition of non-harmonised products; supports, therefore, the Commission's plans to secure the adoption of a legal instrument making the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice binding in all Member States;

32.  Highlights, following the final adoption of the Services Directive, the Commission's obligation to provide guidance to Member States and monitor their progress; urges the competent authorities in the Member States to cooperate so as to ensure consistent implementation across the European Union; stresses that this is essential for the European economy in order to comply with the Treaty provisions and to continue to complete the internal market;

33.  Underlines that the free movement of services is one of the cornerstones of the internal market; points out that the services industry accounts for no less than 70 % of GDP and the labour market; calls for improved cooperation between health services, in particular as regards patient mobility;

34.  Underlines that the enforcement and protection of intellectual property rights remains relatively costly and time-consuming in Europe, impeding innovation-related competitiveness; the issue of standardisation has received the necessary attention neither at European nor at national level; reiterates its call for an improvement in the framework conditions for a better intellectual property and patents policy, which is to be achieved through EU-wide standards, improved cooperation between national standardisation bodies and simplified procedures; reiterates the need effectively to address counterfeiting (drug counterfeiting) in the interests of patient safety;

35.  Regards as exceptionally regrettable the failure to make any progress with European patent policy and as unacceptable the failure to develop a uniform European patent strategy; draws attention to the outcome of its consideration of the European patent regulation at first reading, which points to a solution to the problems which have not yet been resolved in the Council; calls on the Commission immediately to submit proposals for a new patent strategy so that a fresh basis for negotiations in the Council can be established without delay; calls on the Member States to adopt an effective patent system based on past consultations, including consideration of participation in the European patent litigation agreement , to ensure progress and legal security as fast as possible;

36.  Underlines the importance of an effective, innovative and properly functioning public procurement regime to the creation of a competitive internal market; calls on the Commission to continue its reform of the public procurement framework, to maximise participation and minimise bureaucracy and to examine the best ways of ensuring fair access to public procurement for SMEs;

37.  Welcomes the progress which has been made through the implementation of the first Financial Services Action Plan and points out that a properly functioning financial market is fundamental to the growth prospects of the European economy; strongly urges the Member States and the Commission to ensure that European legislation on financial services is correctly implemented in all Member States and is fully complied with by our international partners;

38.  Points out that effective financial markets are fundamental to the proper functioning of a single market; believes that ensuring the development of high-quality financial products on a cross-border basis will contribute to an innovative business environment in Europe; believes that rapid innovation and growth in international financial transactions are creating new challenges for the business sector and for the international finance system; calls on the Commission to improve transparency and define more effective regulatory policies to promote financial stability, appropriate consumer protection and market integrity; urges the Council and the Commission to examine the need for more effective supervisory rules for private equity and hedge funds;

39.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to make the free movement of capital a reality; deplores recent instances of national governments trying to impede cross-border mergers within the European Union; commends the Commission for its unambiguous defence of the EC Treaty in this regard; calls, therefore, on the Commission to propose, without delay, including in the area of company law, new draft legislation to facilitate the mobility of firms and capital in the European Union; this applies, in particular, to the 14th Directive on the transfer of the registered office and to the European Private Company;

40.  Calls for more attention to be given to other flanking policies which will make the internal market work better; considers that priority should be given in particular to transport and to demonstrating the potential of better logistics and faster roll-out of the TENs; supports the EU German Presidency initiative in this area;

Strengthening the EU's external competitiveness

41.  Points out that free and fair trade enhances prosperity in Europe and the wider world; notes that companies within the internal market operate in a global environment, with interdependent markets and global players; calls on Member States to refrain from protectionism; considers that further global economic integration can boost competitiveness, growth and jobs in the European Union; points to the importance of international regulatory cooperation, especially in the fields of supervision, regulatory reform and simplification; notes, however, that international trade may also have negative consequences for the most vulnerable and least qualified workers in some sectors;

42.  Considers that market access, a more balanced regional approach and the promotion of International Labour Organization Core Labour Standards and decent work worldwide are vital to strengthening the European Union's external competitiveness and that avoiding environmental dumping is a crucial element of fair competition; states its readiness to consider appropriate trade measures against 'free rider' countries, which do not shoulder their fair share of the burden of combating global climate change, whilst taking into account the different stages reached in their socio-economic development by our trading partners;

43.  Points out that corporate social responsibility (CSR) should not be interpreted as being imposed unilaterally by the state, through new legal burdens on business, which would lead to a reduction in competitiveness and in the capacity to generate employment; believes that CSR should instead be brought into play through company initiatives, whether of a fiscal or other nature, so that companies voluntarily take on social interest functions;

44.  Emphasises the need to secure better financial, labour and fiscal conditions for SMEs, the source of European economic competitiveness, which will help to make for constant product innovation; regards the implementation of effective policies as imperative if the challenges of globalisation are to be faced;

45.  Points to the importance of international regulatory cooperation, especially as regards regulatory reform and simplification; considers that cooperation on the basis of multilateralism and democratic accountability should be stepped up in order to open up foreign markets to European companies" products and services on a balanced basis; in this context, stresses the need to rebalance the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement by ensuring that the exclusions in favour of SMEs retained in the commitments of several signatories are counterbalanced in the European commitments by a similar exclusion or a provision entitling the signatories to grant SMEs preferential treatment, provided that such treatment is extended without discrimination to any SME within any signatory;

46.  Believes that EU assistance to third-country governments in implementing social and environmental regulation consistent with international conventions, together with effective inspection regimes, are a necessary complement to advancing the CSR of European business worldwide; stresses that CSR must be part of the business dialogue with other markets;

Boosting the EU's innovative capacity

47.  Stresses the vital importance of boosting EU investment in R&D, embracing both products and services;

48.  Welcomes the adoption of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the main objective of which is to strengthen the scientific and technological basis of Community industry, thereby ensuring a high level of international competitiveness; reiterates, once again, the importance of research funding targets of 3 % of GDP and urges the Member States to honour the commitments into which they entered during the 2002 Spring European Council in Barcelona; emphasises the overriding aim of FP7 and its contribution towards the European Union becoming the world's leading research area; points out that it has repeatedly stressed the importance of R&D and the increased role of knowledge in fostering economic growth and social and environmental well-being;

49.  Strongly endorses the work of Joint Technology Platforms in promoting coherent strategic research agendas in key areas for Europe's competitiveness; calls on Member States to promote participation in these platforms by small enterprises and research organisations;

50.  Commends the Commission for directing targeted funds through joint technology initiatives to help translate research concepts into concrete programmes; calls on Member States to promote these programmes through their national innovation initiatives;

51.  Notes the disparity in ICT investment per employee between the United States and the European Union, and the correlation between ICT investment and productivity growth; endorses the need to sustain and develop a highly competitive ICT sector within the European Union, in particular by fully implementing the EU communications regulation framework in all Member States;

52.  Stresses the strong potential for public procurement funds to be used to promote innovation; notes that pre-competitive procurement of innovative goods and services can be carried out within the existing public procurement framework; calls on the Member States to promote this activity within their own public authorities; notes that the effective application of ICT to the delivery of public services will improve customer experiences and help EU companies to produce globally competitive products;

Securing sustainable energy policies

53.  Is convinced that the Lisbon Strategy can be a success only if further efforts are made to establish a common energy policy; is of the opinion, however, that policy should not lead to the communitarisation and standardisation of national energy policies, but rather create more competition and benefits for consumers; points out that not only Europe's strength, but also its security in the area of energy supply, lies in its diversity;

54.  Draws attention to the importance of the three key energy policy objectives, namely security of supply, sustainability and competitiveness, for stability and growth in the European Union; emphasises the need constantly to revise these three objectives in the light of changing circumstances and to strike a fresh balance between them;

55.  Draws attention to the fundamental importance of sufficient and cheap supplies of energy for the competitiveness and growth of European industry;

56.  Welcomes the Commission's Green Paper on a European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy (COM(2006)0105), but underlines the need to acknowledge the ever-changing conditions on the broader global energy market and highlights the importance of extending the producer perspective to a systematic approach embracing production, distribution and consumption in order to develop a European energy policy which can secure affordable energy for European businesses and private households;

57.  Agrees with the Commission that an essential element of a common energy policy should be enhanced solidarity between Member States in order to deal with difficulties relating to the physical security of infrastructures and security of supply; considers, furthermore, that such enhanced solidarity would considerably strengthen the capacity of the European Union to defend its common interests with regard to energy issues at international level;

58.  Notes that energy policy, and in particular security of energy supply, must become an integral part of the European Union's common foreign, trade development and security policies and calls for a common strategy to secure and diversify supplies and transit routes, thereby demonstrating solidarity within the European Union; urges the Commission and the Member States, in this context, to take very seriously the real danger of a deficit in gas supplies from Russia after 2010, due, inter alia, to a lack of investment; insists that Member States and the European Union, in its energy-related discussions with Russia, press for the signing and ratification of the Transit Protocol and the ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty; is of the opinion that partnership and cooperation agreements should be used to create a stable but open regulatory framework in supplier countries and that the Commissioner responsible for energy should follow a well-defined mandate, which sets out a long-term European approach to energy planning;

59.  Stresses that the experiences of the winter of 2005 to 2006 and the drastically increasing energy demand of booming economies such as China and India have highlighted the fact that no sustainable and safe source of energy must be left unused in order to safeguard security of energy supply;

60.  Welcomes the efforts to achieve the targets for reductions in CO2 emissions agreed at Kyoto; recognises that nuclear energy is an important part of the energy mix in a number of Member States; notes the role that it currently plays in some Member States in maintaining security of electricity supply, as part of the energy mix, and in preventing CO2 emissions; emphasises, however, that there are risks relating to its production and that there is, at present, no final solution for the recycling of nuclear waste; supports research in the areas of reactor safety and new technologies, considers that decisions on whether nuclear energy production should continue to play a role in some Member States can only be taken at Member State level within the framework of subsidiarity;

61.  Draws attention to the European Union's growing dependence on imports of oil and natural gas, which could reach 94 % and 85 % respectively by 2030, whilst dependence on imports of solid fuels will increase to no more than 59 %; points out that imports of oil and natural gas will increasingly come from politically unstable regions, into which, as a result, large volumes of money will flow and be put to uses over which the European Union will have no influence;

62.  Stresses that inflationary pressure due to the rise in oil prices increases uncertainty about the extent of monetary tightening connected to it, leading to a higher perception of risk, tighter global liquidity, and increased volatility, particularly on commodity and equity markets; warns against the negative impact of oil price speculation on the financial markets, which in turn amplifies the oil price crisis; calls on the Commission and the Council to draw up a detailed plan to reduce the European Union's dependence on oil imports and initiate a shift towards clean energy; calls for an integrated EU emergency mechanism to guarantee security of supply;

63.  Stresses the fact that a new form of political dialogue and cooperation among consumer countries has become indispensable, especially with the United States, China, India and Japan; notes that a similar dialogue between key consumer and producer countries has also become necessary in order to develop a global approach to energy; believes that these new forms of global energy dialogue should aim at making global energy markets stable, secure and transparent, and at the same time provide a continued boost in support for clean energy sources and energy efficiency;

64.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to promote an internationally recognised mediation system for conflicts and disputes concerning the delivery and distribution of energy; believes that the European Union could initiate such a process by developing a mediation system as part of its neighbourhood policy and also with other key supplier countries, as well as by actively promoting this mediation system globally; takes the view that the EU should therefore develop a model approach to the international management of energy distribution;

65.  Welcomes the draft Energy Community Treaty as an essential contribution to the stabilisation of south-east Europe, to the openness of energy markets and to the security of transit routes in Europe; calls for the gradual extension of the Energy Community to encompass Norway and Turkey and all countries involved in the European Neighbourhood Policy;

Making energy policy environmentally sound

66.  Stresses that the need to change the current energy production mix is not a burden but an opportunity and that the use of solar, wind, biomass, hydro or geothermal energy and more energy-efficient technologies will help to fulfil the commitments made in Kyoto and under the UN Framework Climate Change Convention and will also strengthen innovation, job creation and competitiveness in Europe;

67.  Supports, therefore, the efforts to develop renewable energy sources with a view to securing a sustainable supply of energy; welcomes the steady growth of this sector and its positive impact on jobs; sees major potential for exports of renewable energy production plants to third countries;

68.  Urges the 2007 Spring European Council to endorse the Energy Efficiency Action Plan action plan proposed by the Commission, which should at least contain the following elements: the placing of consumers, whether they are householders or commercial and industrial users, at the centre of energy policy; a road map at Council and Commission level for reaching a target for renewable energy of 50 % by 2040, a 30 % reduction at EU level in the CO2 target for 2020, an EU target for energy efficiency improvements of at least 20% by 2020 and a 60 to 80 % reduction for 2050; reform of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to guide the market into investment in a low carbon economy, which should be driven by a set target for EU carbon emissions by 2020, including a target of 25 % of energy from renewable sources by 2020 and a binding target for car emissions; a step change in energy efficiency, faster implementation of existing EC rules in the Member States, or failing that, concrete improvements in the regulatory framework; a clearer separation of energy production from energy distribution through stronger independent regulatory control, which takes into account the interests of Europe as a whole, an effort to address missing interconnections, stimulate investment and innovation, minimum binding guidelines set out for regulators, including a procedure for the appointment of regulators, independence, transparency and accountability; an ambitious R&D strategy on clean energy technologies, including an increase of at least 50 % in its annual spending on energy research over the next seven years; the development of an effective solidarity mechanism to deal with any energy supply crisis; a common foreign energy policy strategy so that it can increasingly speak with one voice to third countries; a doubling of the efforts to prompt global action to combat climate change, since the European Union cannot tackle the problem alone; and the full implementation of all current EC legislation on energy; finally, calls on the Commission to propose a framework for options for harmonised renewable energy support schemes as part of the renewable energy roadmap;

69.  Recognises that climate change is causing serious environmental problems requiring immediate EU and international action; believes that by 2050 the overwhelming proportion of EU energy needs must be produced from carbon-free sources or using technologies which cut greenhouse gas emissions, with a focus on energy saving, efficiency and renewable energies, and that there is therefore a need to set out a clear roadmap for attaining that objective; urges the governments of the Member States to agree, by the end of 2008, on a binding 2020 CO2 target and an indicative 2050 CO2 target; calls on the Commission to set ambitious but realistic targets for ultra-low or non-CO2-emitting and CO2-neutral energy technologies to supply 60% of EU electricity demand by 2020, in support of European climate and security of supply objectives;

70.  Acknowledges the significant role which renewable energy sources play in helping SMEs achieve the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take practical measures to improve the energy efficiency of SMEs; notes that those measures should include, in particular, measures to raise awareness of the issues involved and to facilitate access to funding, for example from the Structural Funds, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank, so that firms can make investments aiming at a reduction in energy consumption;

71.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that the European Union becomes the most energy efficient economy in the world by 2020 and to make energy efficiency measures a horizontal priority for all sectors of the EU economy; calls on the Commission to ensure timely implementation of EC directives in that field and urges the Council to adopt the proposals in the Commission's Action Plan to improve Energy Efficiency in the European Community (COM(2000)0247) and Member States to use best practices as a basis for their first national Energy Efficiency Action Plans, which Directive 2006/32/EC requires be submitted by 30 June 2007; points out that if Member States were to fully implement existing EC legislation, half the EU target of a 20 % energy saving by 2020 would already be met; calls on the President of the Commission to promote a global energy efficiency agreement;

72.  Calls for the Spring 2007 European Council to ensure that Europe's future energy policy is backed up by an ambitious R&D strategy in the field of energy, including more adequate public funding and strong incentives for increased private R&D funding; encourages Member States to set out a strategy for increasing the budget for energy research, especially when there is a mid-term review of the EC budget for the FP7 and for the Intelligent Energy Specific Programme, and therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal that the European Union should increase, by at least 50 %, its annual spending on energy research over the next seven years; calls for a European strategic energy technology plan and hopes that it will cover research fields focusing on new energy technologies, such as all renewable energy sources, including wave and tidal power, coal gasification and in particular energy storage, as far as the medium and long-term prospects are concerned;

Creating the internal market for energy

73.  Stresses that further action is required to deliver a functioning internal market for energy through a clearer separation of energy production from energy distribution; therefore welcomes the Commission proposal for further action aiming to achieve this separation, accompanied by stronger independent regulatory control which considers the interest of Europe as a whole; insists that this action, together with national measures, must deliver on the European Union's target of 10% minimum interconnection levels, by identifying key bottlenecks and appointing coordinators; believes that a clear and stable political framework and a competitive energy market are needed to establish a high degree of competitiveness, energy independence, long-term stability, efficiency, environmental sensitivity and security of supply, and calls on the 2007 Spring European Council to provide a broader vision of the common European interest in the energy field, in order to place the completion of the internal market within a clear political framework, which is currently lacking;

74.  Believes that cross-border trade will lead to the elimination of the existing bottlenecks between national markets; urges the Commission and the Member States to promote improved cooperation among transport system operators (TSOs), especially in areas such as cross-border capacity allocation, transparency, intraday markets, planning of grids and investments relevant to development of regional markets; calls on the Commission to draw up, together with TSOs, a European grid code ensuring interoperability of national energy grids;

75.  Congratulates the Commission on the energy sector inquiry, calls on the Commission to pursue enforcement action, including fines against companies which breach competition rules, and encourages the Commission to take action against Member States which unduly protect national energy champions;

76.  Believes that consumers must be placed at the centre of all future energy policies and that energy poverty should feature more clearly in the Commission's proposals; recalls that consumers, particularly public authorities, which must set an example in this area, also have obligations in terms of energy saving; recognises the central role that smart metering and billing can play in increasing consumer awareness of how and why energy is being used and therefore in changing consumer behaviour; calls on the Council and the Commission to propose measures which help low income households to achieve energy savings in their homes, thereby reducing their energy bills and their exposure to future price increases;

77.  Points out that energy policy calls for cost-intensive, long-term investment decisions which must be based on a high degree of transparency and predictability; calls on the Member States and the Commission to provide undertakings with legal certainty and to avoid new regulatory proposals at regular intervals, which create uncertainty and delay vitally needed investments in energy infrastructure;

78.  Reaffirms its strong support for renewable energy sources; in order to boost the diversification of energy sources, proposes that the Commission should set a stable, long-term policy framework in order to create the necessary investment climate; this framework should contain an EU target for energy efficiency improvements of at least 20 % by 2020; asks the Commission to propose a framework for a range of harmonised support schemes for renewable energies as part of the renewable energy roadmap;

79.  Stresses that further action is required to deliver a functioning internal market for energy through a clearer separation of energy production from energy distribution; calls, therefore, for stronger independent regulatory control, taking into account the European market, as well as national measures to deliver on the European Union's target of 10 % minimum interconnection levels, by identifying key bottlenecks and appointing coordinators;

o
o   o

80.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2006)0603. (2) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p.1. (3) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. (4) OJ C 297 E, 7.12.2006, p. 136.

European Parliament resolution Towards a European policy on the radio spectrum (2006/2212(INI))

P6_TA(2007)0041 A6-0467/2006

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'A market-based approach to spectrum management in the European Union' (COM(2005)0400),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled 'A forward-looking radio spectrum policy for the European Union: Second annual report' (COM(2005)0411),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'EU spectrum priorities for the digital switchover in the context of the upcoming ITU Regional Radiocommunications Conference 2006 (RRC-06)' (COM(2005)0461),

–   having regard to Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision)(1),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services (COM(2006)0334),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled 'First Annual Report on Radio Spectrum Policy in the European Union; State of Implementation and Outlook' (COM(2004)0507),

–   having regard to the Opinion of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group of 19 November 2004 on secondary trading of rights to use radio spectrum (RSPG04-54 Rev.),

–   having regard to the Council (Transport, Telecommunications and Energy) Conclusions of 9 and10 December 2004 on the first Annual Report on Radio Spectrum Policy in the European Union,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment' (COM(2005)0229) and the accompanying Commission Staff Working Paper on extended impact assessment (SEC(2005)0717),

–   having regard to Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive)(2),

–   having regard to Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Services Directive)(3),

–   having regard to Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive)(4),

–   having regard to Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive)(5),

–   having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2006 on a European Information Society for growth and employment(6),

–   having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005,

–   having regard to Directive 2005/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2005 repealing Council Directive 90/544/EEC on the frequency bands designated for the coordinated introduction of pan-European land-based public radio paging in the Community(7),

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 6 April 2005 on broadband electronic communications through powerlines(8),

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 20 March 2003 on the harmonisation of the provision of public R-LAN access to public electronic communications networks and services in the Community(9),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'Electronic Communications: the Road to the Knowledge Economy' (COM(2003)0065),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'Connecting Europe at high speed: recent developments in the sector of electronic communications' (COM(2004)0061),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'eEurope 2005: An information society for all - An Action Plan to be presented in view of the Sevilla European Council, 21/22 June 2002' (COM(2002)0263),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'i2010 – First Annual Report on the European Information Society' (COM(2006)0215),

–   having regard to the Communication from President Barroso in agreement with Vice-President Verheugen to the Spring 2005 European Council entitled 'Working together for growth and jobs - A new start for the Lisbon Strategy'(COM(2005)0024),

–   having regard to the Commission Staff Working Paper entitled 'Working together for growth and jobs - Next steps in implementing the revised Lisbon strategy' (SEC(2005)0622),

–   having regard to the Council (Transport, Telecommunications and Energy) Conclusions of 1 December 2005 on Accelerating the transition from analogue to digital,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'Results of the World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03)' (COM(2003)0707),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled 'The World Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-03)' (COM(2003)0183),

–   having regard to the Opinion of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group of 23 November 2005 on Wireless Access Policy For Electronic Communications Services (WAPECS) (A more flexible spectrum management approach) (RSPG05 -111),

–   having regard to its resolution of 16 November 2005 on accelerating the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting(10),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on accelerating the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting (COM(2005)0204),

–   having regard to the Opinion of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group of 19 November 2004 on spectrum implications of switchover to digital broadcasting (RSPG04-55 Rev.),

–   having regard to the Protocol on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0467/2006),

A.   whereas in recent years Europe has witnessed an increased pace of technological evolution, with copper networks being replaced by fibre optic networks and increasing use of wireless communications and multimedia platforms,

B.   whereas technological convergence is beneficial to consumers as it offers a greater choice of infrastructure and services,

C.   whereas radio spectrum is key to the provision of a wide range of services,

D.   whereas spectrum shortage has been an obstacle to the deployment of new services,

E.   whereas the success of WiFi has demonstrated that it is now possible to use the unlicensed band more efficiently than before,

F.   whereas efficient use of spectrum is critical in ensuring access to spectrum for the various interested parties who want to offer services, and is therefore a key factor in the growth, productivity and development of European industry in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy,

G.   whereas efficient and prudent use of spectrum serves the cultural objectives of EU policies pursuant to Article 151 (4) of the EC Treaty and should facilitate cultural and linguistic diversity as well as media pluralism,

H.   whereas access to spectrum needs common technical parameters,

I.   whereas, through the digital switchover and the transition from analogue to digital, several hundred megahertz of spectrum will be released, thus offering the possibility of reallocating spectrum and new opportunities for market growth,

J.   whereas the legal framework for electronic communications is a prerequisite for an open and competitive electronic communications market; whereas, however, not all Member States have transposed its provisions in a timely and correct manner,

K.   whereas the Commission's position is that digital electronic communication is of fundamental importance for the entire economy, the Lisbon process and the i2010 strategy, and a reform of the system of spectrum management is therefore essential,

L.   whereas information and communication technology offers European industry great prospects for growth and development and can also contribute to social welfare,

M.   whereas access to spectrum can facilitate the development of technology-driven markets,

N.   whereas the Commission in its various communications on radio spectrum adopted in 2005 and 2006 proposed a more flexible and efficient approach to spectrum management, including spectrum tradability,

1.  Considers that the European Union needs to adopt a sustainable approach to spectrum which will promote competition and the development of innovative technologies, inhibit the hoarding of frequency rights and the aggregation of monopolies and benefit consumers, and that this approach should take into consideration technological change as well as the needs of market players and of citizens;

2.  Emphasises that the importance of spectrum has increased during recent years and that the growth of the technology sector relies, inter alia, on the efficient use of spectrum;

3.  Notes that, in the EU, the regimes for assigning spectrum to interested parties differ from Member State to Member State and that this divergence can cause additional delays and costs; takes the view therefore that the EU will require efficient and responsive guidelines for common decision-making mechanisms and that, furthermore, a European register will be needed with the completion, expansion and accessibility of the EFIS database;

4.  Agrees with the Commission's view that part of the spectrum dividend should be earmarked for technical harmonisation at European level;

5.  Encourages the Commission to take into account the reality of the spectrum dividend when defining the future direction of the radio spectrum policy and consider the appropriateness of allowing unlicensed users access to the spectrum dividend;

6.  Emphasises that implementation of the new conditions for spectrum usage must ensure an unrestricted choice of the technology which can be used and the service to be delivered in a given spectrum band;

7.  Welcomes the development of new radio technologies that make efficient and flexible use of the radio spectrum and that make interoperability and coexistence possible;

8.  Rejects a one-sided market model of spectrum management and urges the Commission to reform the system of spectrum management in such a way as to facilitate the coexistence of different types of licensing models, i.e. traditional administration, use without numerical restrictions and new, market-based approaches; stresses that the aim must be to boost economic and technical efficiency as well as the usefulness to society of this valuable resource;

9.  Emphasises, with regard to spectrum management, the general principles of technological neutrality together with service neutrality in order to promote competition and innovation, within the context of the Lisbon Strategy; points out that spectrum should be managed in a manner which is flexible and transparent and which facilitates cultural and linguistic diversity, freedom of expression, and media pluralism and takes into account the technical, social, cultural and political needs of all Member States;

10.  Emphasises the importance of technical neutrality to the promotion of innovation and interoperability and calls for a more flexible and transparent policy for the consideration of the public interest;

11.  Considers that, given technological evolution, the approach to frequency use adopted until now needs to be adapted to meet the requirements of a rapidly-changing information society and also provide for guarantees of high-quality service delivery and related customer protection; considers that spectrum management should not be based only on a market-driven approach but also needs to take into account wider social, cultural and political considerations;

12.  Welcomes the Commission's proposal to adopt differentiated spectrum management models including the unlicensed model which provides additional flexibility by allowing for free access within some technical limitations; considers that developing the right mix between the different types of licensing model will be important in achieving EU policy objectives;

13.  Agrees that radio spectrum is a key resource for many activities and important for the proper functioning of the internal market; emphasises that the use of market mechanisms should safeguard the interests of consumers and encourage the take up of innovative products and services; agrees also that social, cultural and political considerations must also be taken into account in line with Article 151(4) of the EC Treaty; considers, furthermore, that audiovisual policy, the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity and the pluralism of the media may justify exceptions from the principle of service neutrality;

14.  Considers that the administrative method of allocating spectrum rights could be supplemented by Member States opening up more frequencies to unlicensed, and therefore possibly shared use, and by allowing spectrum trading on condition that this opening up does not harm the continuity and quality of services concerned with public information and safety; takes the view that the phenomenon and the standard conditions of spectrum trading should be clarified;

15.  Emphasises the importance of communication for rural and less developed regions, for which the diffusion of broadband, of lower frequency mobile communications and of new wireless technologies could provide efficient solutions to achieving universal coverage of the 27 EU Member States with a view to the sustainable development of all areas; believes that complete coverage of all areas must not be achieved by transferring the burden to the regions concerned;

16.  Emphasises the risk of frequency shortage and of interference problems due to analogue-digital simulcasting between Member States and bordering third countries and emphasises also that all EU countries and regions should benefit from the digital dividend;

17.  Notes that, given the scarcity of the resource, adequate amounts of spectrum should be allocated to meet the needs of consumers and of services of public and general interest, including broadcasting services; stresses also the need to include a clause on reallocating frequencies where the commitments made when frequencies are assigned are not fulfilled;

18.  Urges Member States to take a decision on the priority to be given to the protection of the public interest and of frequencies of strategic importance as a key principle in developing spectrum management policies;

19.  Recognises spectrum efficiency as a common duty of Member States, national regulators and industry; insists on the necessity of securing the stability and continuity of the media services provided by broadcasters, but emphasises the importance of a level playing field for new entrants and for new technologies; believes that room for innovation must be guaranteed, in the interest of consumers, enterprises and employment generally; calls on the Commission to clarify the specific risks relating to interferences and conditions of applications of new rules in the new Member States and to propose adapted solutions;

20.  Calls on the Commission to ensure, when reviewing the legal framework for electronic communications networks and services, that sufficient account is taken of the significance of broadcasting, with regard to the freedom of opinion of individuals, and of diversity of opinion, when transmission capacities are allocated at European level;

21.  Notes that, in order to preserve their high quality, services of public and general interest need to adapt to changing technology;

22.  Notes that access to harmonised frequency bands is essential for the development of new services and new types of wireless technology, as industry seeks common conditions of use that provide flexibility and efficient use of the spectrum, in order to prevent severe constraints on the growth of the ICT sector in the EU, if the frequencies intended to meet these new needs are not allocated;

23.  Welcomes the Commission's proposal to introduce a market-based approach to spectrum, and acknowledges that the traditional model will continue to be relevant, in particular where important public interests are at stake;

24.  Considers that the introduction of a market-based approach to spectrum will be most effective if based on a consensual agreement backed by regulators, operators and other actors; draws attention, in this regard, to the work of the European Regulatory Group (ERG) and the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG);

25.  Asks that the proposals of the European Commission on spectrum management and tradability be carefully considered and that a common agreement at political level be reached for their implementation;

26.  Notes that the freeing-up of spectrum raises a number of issues for existing users and calls, therefore, for a clear legal framework providing for competition-based solutions and defining, inter alia, conditions for entry and exit, the maintenance of spectrum rights, responsibilities with regard to interference and dispute resolution mechanisms;

27.  Suggests that in order to achieve technological harmonisation, minimal common technical and regulatory conditions be developed with a view to ensuring technical co-existence and the avoidance of interference, with particular attention being paid to ensuring that the utilisation of frequency bands already assigned cannot be adversely affected and that cross border issues are settled;

28.  Calls for a balanced and efficient approach to spectrum management in order to maximise the social, cultural and economic benefits arising from its use, encourage the development of innovative services, deliver jobs and growth in accordance with the Lisbon Strategy and make European industry a global leader in electronic communications;

29.  Is convinced that we will see in the future even more sophisticated packages on offer than the already existing triple play packages, offering voice telephony, internet access and television and that, as a result, the borders between products and services in the area of electronic communications will in the future become even more blurred;

30.  Considers that, besides the market-based approach, attention should also be given to ensuring access to the spectrum market for everyone; notes that, in order to guarantee such access, information, knowledge and technological infrastructure should be provided via education or alternative training opportunities;

31.  Notes that the divergence in Member State regimes for spectrum allocation and exploitation differ widely and that these differences represent serious obstacles to the achievement of a well-functioning single market;

32.  Calls on Member States to support enhanced cooperation measures between spectrum management authorities, to consider areas where common spectrum allocation would allow new technologies and services to emerge, to step up their information exchanges and to remove over-prescriptive regulatory constraints;

33.  Emphasises the need for sufficient time for transition and calls, therefore, for a step-by-step approach in this field; is of the opinion that effects for smaller networks - especially local wireless networks - for which no license requirements currently apply must be taken into account and that universal access to broadband, especially in rural areas, should be promoted;

34.  Emphasises the potential value of the spectrum released by the digital switchover (digital dividend) which could increase the widespread availability of affordable mobile/wireless broadband, including in rural areas;

35.  Urges the establishment of clear definitions of rights and obligations to promote legal certainty; underlines the importance of separation between providers of infrastructure and providers of electronic communications services and the importance of avoiding the creation of monopolies;

36.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p.1. (2) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33. (3) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 51. (4) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 21. (5) OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 7. (6) OJ C 291 E, 30.11.2006, p. 133. (7) OJ L 344, 27.12.2005, p. 38. (8) OJ L 93, 12.4.2005, p. 42. (9) OJ L 78, 25.3.2003, p. 12. (10) OJ C 280 E, 18.11.2006, p. 115.