– having regard to the Barcelona Declaration adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference on 28 November 1995 which initiated the Euro-Mediterranean partnership(1),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership(2) (the "MEDA Regulation"),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2698/2000 of 27 November 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 (the "MEDA II Regulation")(3),
– having regard to its resolution of 1 February 2001 on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament to prepare the fourth meeting of Euro-Mediterranean foreign ministers "reinvigorating the Barcelona Process"(4),
– having regard to its resolution of 3 June 2003 on the annual report on the MEDA 2000 programme(5),
– having regard to its resolution of 20 November 2003 on Euromed(6),
– having regard to its resolutions of 12 February 2004 on reinvigorating EU actions on human rights and democratisation with Mediterranean partners(7) and of 27 October 2005 on the Barcelona Process revisited(8),
– having regard to the political priorities for the European Parliament Presidency of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly, formulated on 21 April 2005(9),
– having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2006 on the European Neighbourhood Policy(10),
– having regard to its position of 6 July 2006 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument(11),
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument(12),
– having regard to the Communication of 4 December 2006 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Strengthening the European Neighbourhood Policy (COM(2006)0726),
– having regard to the final report of 18 July 2005 on the Mid-term Evaluation of the MEDA II Programme(13),
– having regard to the Annual Report 2006 on the European Community's development policy and the implementation of external assistance in 2005(14),
– having regard to the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 5/2006 concerning the MEDA Programme(15),
– having regard to the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) Annual Report 2005 of 26 June 2006(16),
– having regard to the Communication of 17 October 2006 from the Commission to the Council entitled "Assessment of the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) and Future Options" (COM(2006)0592),
– having regard to the strategic partnership for the Mediterranean and the Middle East, adopted by the European Council in December 2006(17),
– having regard to the Council Decision 2002/817/EC of 23 September 2002 on the conclusion of the Convention between the European Community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) concerning aid to refugees in the countries in the Near East (2002 to 2005)(18),
– having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2003 on peace and dignity in the Middle East(19),
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 669/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1734/94 on financial and technical cooperation with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip(20),
– having regard to its resolution of 2 February 2006 on the result of the Palestinian elections and the situation in East Jerusalem(21),
– having regard to the statements of 30 January 2006(22) and 9 May 2006(23) of the Middle East Quartet (composed of representatives of the EU, the UN, the United States and Russia) in which it expressed serious concern about the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian territories and expressed its willingness to endorse a temporary mechanism for direct aid to the Palestinian people,
– having regard to the Council conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 15 May 2006(24) in which the Council expressed its serious concern about the deterioration of the humanitarian, economic and financial situation in the West Bank and Gaza and welcomed the willingness of the Quartet to endorse a temporary international mechanism (TIM), the objective of which is direct delivery and supervision of assistance to the Palestinian people,
– having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2006 on the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories and the role of the EU(25),
– having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2006 on the situation in the Middle East(26),
– having regard to the report of its ad hoc delegation to Israel and the Palestinian Territories on 20-21 December 2006,
– having regard to the report of 31 January 2007 of the UK House of Commons' International Development Committee entitled "Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories"(27),
– having regard to the report of February 2007 of the World Bank entitled "West Bank and Gaza – Public Expenditure Review – From Crisis to Greater Fiscal Independence"(28),
– 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 Foreign Affairs (A6-0210/2007),
A. whereas the MEDA Programme is the EU's principal financial instrument for the implementation of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership supporting measures to accompany the reform of economic and social structures in the Mediterranean partner countries in order to decrease the gap between the two sides of the Mediterranean region,
B. whereas the main areas of intervention of the MEDA Programme are directly derived from the objectives of the 1995 Barcelona Declaration, which have been reaffirmed on several occasions:
–
political and security chapter: hold a political dialogue at both bilateral and regional levels, establish partnership-building measures and agree on a Charter for Peace and Stability, the overall objective is to create an area of peace and stability on the basis of the principles of human rights and democracy;
–
economic and financial chapter: establish a free trade area in the Euro-Mediterranean region (North-South, South-South), provide EU financial support for economic transition and more general support for the economic and social challenges, increase investment flows to the Mediterranean partners as the result of free trade, the overall objective is to create an area of shared prosperity and development;
–
social, cultural and human affairs chapter: create exchanges, develop human resources, support civil societies and social development, the overall objective is to develop a free and enhanced civil society and to promote mutual comprehension between the two sides,
C. whereas the average annual commitments are similar under MEDA I and MEDA II, at EUR 613 million and EUR 618 million respectively, and the indications for 2005-2006 show that such commitments will be increased to about EUR 660 million,
D. whereas MEDA II was scheduled to provide EUR 5 350 million from 2000 to 2006 for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership,
E. whereas the annual commitments under MEDA II varied between EUR 569 million (2000) and EUR 817 million (2006), and whereas from MEDA I to MEDA II commitments increased for Algeria, Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Morocco, Syria and Tunisia and for the regional activities, and decreased for Egypt and Lebanon,
Commitments per country, in EUR million
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Total
MEDA I
Total
MEDA II
Algeria
0
0
41
95
29
30
60
50
42
51
40
66
165
339
Egypt
0
75
203
397
11
13
0
78
104
159
110
129
685
593
Jordan
7
100
10
8
129
15
20
92
43
35
58
69
254
332
Lebanon
0
10
86
0
86
0
0
12
44
18
27
32
182
133
Morocco
30
0
236
219
176
141
120
122
143
152
135
168
660
980
Syria
0
13
42
0
46
38
8
36
1
53
22
22
101
180
Tunisia
20
120
138
19
132
76
90
92
49
22
118
71
428
517
WBG
3
20
41
5
42
97
0
100
81
73
80
92
111
522
Total
bilateral
60
337
797
743
650
409
298
582
505
562
590
649
2 587
3 596
Regional
113
33
114
66
145
160
305
29
110
135
145
168
471
740
Total
173
369
912
809
802
569
603
612
615
698
735
817
3 057
4 336
Source: EuropeAid Office (WBG= West Bank and Gaza)
F. whereas under MEDA II new sectors include justice and police, civil society/human rights and migration; whereas other sectors which received a marked increase in funding include education and training and economic institutional support, but for other sectors such as agriculture, local development and private reforms less funds were committed under MEDA II than under MEDA I,
G. whereas the MEDA II Regulation specifies that European Investment Bank (EIB)-managed operations may receive EU funds from the MEDA budget for environmental projects and for implementing risk-capital operations in the Mediterranean partner countries; whereas the total volume of EIB operations under MEDA II remains comparable to that under MEDA I but their composition has changed, with a significant decrease of risk subsidy programmes and an increase of risk capital operations,
EIB: FEMIP assigned lending mandate
1995-1999
EUR 4 808 million
2000-2007
EUR 6 400 million
Source: DG RELEX
H. whereas the EIB's operations in the Mediterranean partner countries have been brought together under the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) since October 2002;
I. whereas the MEDA Regulation came to an end in 2006 and the new European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument entered into effect in 2007,
J. whereas from 1994 to 2006 the Commission has provided about EUR 2 300 million to the Palestinian people, including support for Palestinian refugees via UNRWA, humanitarian assistance through the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), food security, Middle East Peace Process actions, and support for health, education and institution building,
K. whereas payments to Palestinian areas have been quite stable at between EUR 233 and 260 million per year from 2002 to 2005 and varying commitment rates reflect the difficult nature of the Peace Process, but the payment/commitment ratio has increased from less than 45% in 2000 to more than 90% in 2005,
AID TO PALESTINIAN ADMIN. AREAS FINANCED BY THE GENERAL BUDGET 2000-2006
Commitments (in EUR million)
Geogr./Thematic
Programme
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Grand
total
Geographic
programmes
MEDA
119
0
105
93
74
92
102
483
UNRWA
40
57
55
58
61
64
64
335
Israel/PLO Peace Agreement
20
43
88
47
51
51
56
300
Geographic total
179
100
248
198
186
207
222
1 118
Thematic
programmes
Food Aid
16
17
35
24
24
29
26
145
Human Rights
2
1
3
0,5
2,5
4
1
13
NGO
2,5
1
1,5
4
5
0
2
14
ECHO
18
26
35
38
37
36
84
190
Other
7
4
5
0
1
1
0
18
Thematic total
45,5
49
79,5
66,5
69,5
70
113
380
Grand total
224,5
149
327,5
264,5
255,5
277
335
1 832
Total EC commitments 2000-2006 = EUR 1 832 million (excluding CFSP actions, approx. EUR 10 million in 2006).
Sources: DG Budget, DG AidCo.
Payments (in EUR million)
Geogr./thematic
Programme
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Grand
total
Geographic
programmes
MEDA
31
62
81
59
93
94
420
UNRWA
40
54
57
58
60
60
329
Israel/PLO peace agreement
13
48
80
66
58
50
315
Geographic total
84
164
218
183
211
204
1 064
Thematic
programmes
Food Aid
0
2
7
15
17
32
73
Human Rights
2
0
1
0
3
4
10
NGO
0
2
2
2
1
3
10
ECHO
6
9
14
33
31
14
107
Other
5
1
4
0
0
3
13
Thematic total
13
14
28
50
52
56
213
Grand total
97
178
246
233
263
260
1 277
Source: DG Budget
L. whereas the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) closed in March 2005 its investigation into the Commission's direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority's budget and, on the basis of the information available in OLAF's press release of 17 March 2005, no conclusive evidence of support of armed attacks or unlawful activities financed by Commission's contributions to the Palestinian Authority was found; whereas, however, according to the press release, "there are consistent indications to support the hypothesis that it cannot be excluded that some of the assets of the Palestinian Authority may been used by some individuals for other than the intended purpose",
M. whereas the Middle East and North Africa Region Social and Economic Development Group of the World Bank has thoroughly analysed the Palestinian Authority's public finances and delivered its conclusions and recommendations in February 2007,
N. whereas Israel has withheld Palestinian tax and customs revenues of about EUR 50 million per month, representing approximately two-thirds of the public income, since the Hamas victory in the elections to the Palestine Legislative Council in January 2006,
O. whereas the Quartet addressed on 9 May 2006 the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories and in the face of the seriousness of that situation and the enormous problems of the Palestinian people asked the EU to develop and propose a temporary international mechanism (TIM) which would be limited in scope and duration, operate in a transparent manner, be accountable and ensure direct delivery of assistance to the Palestinian people,
P. whereas the EU (EU budget and EU Member States) allocated almost EUR 700 million to Palestine in 2006, more than in any previous year;
Q. whereas the TIM was subsequently developed by the Commission and endorsed by the European Council on 16 June 2006,
R. whereas in 2006 the Commission allocated a total of EUR 107,5 million to the three TIM "windows" of support:
–
EUR 10 million for essential supplies and running costs of hospitals and health care centres, through the World Bank's Emergency Services Support Programme (Window I),
–
EUR 40 million for the uninterrupted supply of energy utilities including fuel, through the Interim Emergency Relief Contribution (Window II),
–
EUR 54,5 million to support vulnerable Palestinians, through the payment of social allowances to the poorest part of the population and to key workers delivering essential public services (Window III),
–
in addition to the TIM, EUR 12 million have been allocated from the MEDA budget line 19 08 02 01 by the Commission to the Office of the President of the Palestinian Authority, for technical assistance and capacity building,
Cost and financing of the TIM in 2006 in EUR million
EC budget
+ donors
TIM - Window II (Interim Emergency Relief Contribution (IERC) Phase II)
40
Total on heading 19 08 02 01 (MEDA)
40
TIM - Window I (World Bank Emergency Services Support Project (ESSP))
10
+ 46,6
TIM - Window III (payment of social allowances)
57,5
+ 61,9
Total on heading 19 08 03 (Peace Process)
67,5
Total on both headings
107,5
Source: DG AIDCO
S. whereas fighting between Hamas and Fatah supporters in early 2007 made TIM operations extremely difficult,
1. Confirms the conviction expressed in its resolution of 27 October 2005 on the Barcelona Process revisited that even if the Euro-Mediterranean partnership has not as yet produced the expected benefits and has not contributed to the lowering of tensions in the area to its full potential, improvements can still be made and thus the Barcelona Process continues to be the appropriate framework for Mediterranean policy, in which changes and the necessary political will are needed to obtain better results;
2. Notes that taking a global strategic view the relevance of the MEDA Programme as the Community assistance instrument supporting the Barcelona Process and the bilateral association agreements was judged to be satisfactory according to the "overall judgement" of the mid-term evaluation of the MEDA II Programme which also states that programme relevance has improved from the MEDA I to the MEDA II period and can improve further in the coming years;
3. Underlines that the effectiveness and efficiency of MEDA management and implementation arrangements is improving but is still not fully satisfactory;
4. Notes that in terms of financial efficiency the total MEDA II Programme has disbursed funds faster than did MEDA I: over a similar period as during MEDA I it took on average three years to reach a 30% payment level, whereas during MEDA II this was reduced to two years;
MEDA COMMITMENTS/DISBURSEMENTS 1995-2005
in EUR million
1995 to 1999
2000 to 2006
1995 to 2006
Commitments
Disburse-
ments
Commitments
Disburse-
ments
Commitments
Disburse-
ments
Bilateral
Algeria
164
30
339
142
504
172
Egypt
686
157
592
695
1279
852
Jordan
254
108
331
345
585
454
Lebanon
182
1
133
182
315
183
Morocco
660
128
980
917
1 640
1 045
Syria
101
0
180
91
281
91
Tunisia
428
168
518
489
946
657
WBG
111
59
522
486
633
546
Total bilateral
2 586
651
3 595
3 349
6 182
4 000
Regional
471
223
1 052
712
1 483
934
Total
3 057
874
4 647
4 060
7 705
4 934
The total amount available under MEDA I and II = 3 424 + 5 350 = EUR 8 774 million. From this an amount of about EUR 852 million was committed for Turkey during 1996 to 2002 (minor differences are due to rounding).
Source: EuropeAid (WBG = West Bank and Gaza)
5. Notes that according to the Court of Auditors' Special Report 5/2006 the Commission's management of the MEDA Programme has clearly improved since the early years and can be considered as satisfactory taking into account procedural and external constraints, and programming efforts have resulted in a more even allocation of resources over time; preparation periods are becoming shorter and disbursements have increased significantly;
6. Stresses the fact that the findings of the mid-term evaluation of the MEDA II Programme and of the Court of Auditors on implementation and management effectiveness and efficiency – "improving but still not fully satisfactory" – cannot by themselves explain the differences in MEDA performance between countries and programmes; notes that external factors (financial regulation, governance, cultural factors) clearly play an important role in explaining the observed differences in speed of change and in financial disbursement patterns; invites the Commission to take these factors into consideration in its planning and in implementation, monitoring and evaluation;
7. Invites the Commission and the Council to give high priority to the Barcelona Process as a driving force for policy setting under the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (period 2007-2013) with more efficient policies and measures having regard to the specific challenges and problems of the Mediterranean partner countries;
8. Recalls that according to Article 15 of the MEDA II Regulation the Commission has, together with the EIB, to produce an overall evaluation report of the assistance already provided to the Mediterranean partners, including the effectiveness of the programmes, evaluate ex post their respective projects and main sectors of intervention and examine progress in implementation, and submit to the Parliament and the Council an annual report, no later than 30 June of the following year; with respect to this obligation, invites the Commission to inform it of the current stage of elaboration of such ex post evaluations by individual projects and sectors, and to transmit these and the latest annual reports to the Parliament and the Council;
9. Urges the Commission to take into consideration the factors contributing to the improvement of future management:
a)
an increase in the number of projects and programmes, in parallel with the evaluation of their content, their effect and their qualitative value;
b)
a larger share of budget support in the total programme;
c)
the overall positive effect of devolution of responsibilities from the Commission's headquarters to its delegations in the field in relation to project preparation and implementation (effects of decentralisation);
d)
the cooperation and effective participation of the local authorities;
e)
the enhancement of cooperation between the Mediterranean partner countries (South-South) for the achievement of the objective of regional dimension;
10. Believes that other improvements include more systematic monitoring and evaluation and more intensive dialogue and coordination with local counterparts and other donors; invites the Commission to secure more regular monitoring mechanisms adapted to each type of project;
11. Agrees with the Court of Auditors on the need for the Commission to:
a)
ensure a smooth and quick transition towards the new country programmes to avoid negative consequences for future implementation,
b)
define more clearly in the new country programming documents its strategic objectives and establish appropriate indicators, to allow for better monitoring and evaluation of impact,
c)
continue to focus its support on a limited number of intervention areas to ensure coherence and to keep the programmes manageable,
d)
continue to search for best practices in managing projects to avoid delays.
12. Supports the 19 recommendations of the mid-term evaluation of the MEDA II Programme regarding the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the management of the MEDA Programme;
13. Calls on the Commission to maintain a balance between the effectiveness of assistance in terms of sustainable institutional development and the efficiency of assistance in terms of absorption capacity and financial disbursement speeds, transparency and budget management control;
14. Calls on the Commission to further improve the quality of strategic and indicative programming by investing in a MEDA knowledge centre for in-depth understanding of implementation conditions and the institutional speed of changes aspects in the MEDA countries, as suggested by the mid-term evaluation in view of the revision of the regulation (European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument);
15. Takes the view that the economic aspect of the partnership must be redirected towards social cohesion and sustainable economic development but also considers that pursuing all objectives of the Barcelona Process is important for the whole region; therefore invites the Commission to pay as much attention as possible to the issues of institution building, the rule of law, freedom of the press, human rights and gender equality;
16. Invites the Commission to motivate and commit its partners in the MEDA countries to pursue also all non-economic objectives of the MEDA Programme, and to systematically monitor indicators concerning these objectives;
17. Considers that, in view of the Mediterranean partner countries' economic situation, significant support is required for infrastructure projects, particularly in the fields of transport, health, housing and the supply of drinking water;
18. Recommends that the Commission increase the capacity to manage small-scale projects based on civil society initiatives and recommends the adoption of measures to enhance economic growth and cohesion, in particular through the use of loans and micro-credit facilities by small and medium-sized enterprises in the partner countries;
19. Stresses that respect of the principle of gender equality is a matter of respect of human rights and of democracy and calls for gender mainstreaming to be explicitly incorporated horizontally in the Barcelona Process and in the three pillars of the partnership;
20. Underlines the fact that women play a significant role in the economic and social development of the partner countries and calls on the Commission to report on the fulfilment and effective application of the financial commitments laid down in the MEDA Programme to support women's active participation in economic and social life (education, training, employment);
21. Recalls the significance of enhancing the complementarity and coherence between MEDA, other EU external actions and EIB activities;
22. Considers that the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly could play through inter-parliamentary dialogue a key role in the improvement of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership, as it subsequently develops stable inter-parliamentary relations, giving political orientations through its declarations and resolutions and promoting a systematic political control and evaluation of the implementation of the MEDA Programme;
23. Welcomes the establishment in 2002 of FEMIP within the framework of the EIB, but calls for further discussion between the EU Member States and their Euro-Mediterranean partners with the aim of developing this initiative into a genuine financial instrument for cooperation, responding to the new needs and challenges of both the public and private sector;
24. Recalls that the task division between DG Relex and EuropeAid is functional in the sense that the political dimension of the programme is separate from the professional assistance formulation and delivery function and that there is, however, scope for improvement in terms of efficiency and effectiveness;
25. Acknowledges the progress made by the Commission in ensuring a higher profile for Community external cooperation and urges it to continue the efforts currently being made; deplores, however, the fact that the public is not aware of the EU's close involvement in many projects and programmes; calls on the Commission to make representations to international organisations and NGOs with a view to:
a)
ensuring public awareness of EU contributions and involvement,
b)
laying down provisions enabling proper assessment, audit and control operations to be carried out also in connection with projects and programmes conducted jointly with or through international organisations or NGOs;
26. Recalls its resolution of 1 June 2006 on the humanitarian crisis in the Palestinian territories and the role of the EU in which it called on the Commission and the Council to develop a temporary international mechanism (TIM) in order to avoid a major humanitarian crisis in these territories; recalls having welcomed, following the recommendations of the European Council and the Quartet in June 2006, the setting-up by the EU of the TIM for the Palestinian Authority and its subsequent renewal;
27. Notes that this financial stopgap measure made it possible, in a transparent manner and in partnership with the President of the Palestinian Authority, to limit the most egregious humanitarian suffering caused by the freezing of European and international financial aid, Israel's partial payment of Palestinian tax and customs revenues and the general impossibility of developing a viable economy in the current occupation situation;
28. Congratulates the Commission on the design and implementation of the TIM under difficult circumstances and considers the administrative cost of the TIM at the level of 5% for Windows II and III(29) as modest, and the method of direct payment via commercial banks to the beneficiary households adequate; underlines moreover that under Window III the international and locally operating bank (HSBC) receives EUR 8 per transfer (3% of the total allocated amount);
29. Underlines that payments under the TIM did not go to, or through, the Office of the President of the Palestinian Authority or the Ministry of Finance, but that it provided for direct payment of invoices, or for cash payments to individual beneficiaries of allocations; notes that allocations did not cover security staff or support to politicians;
30. Regrets however, that this financial assistance did not compensate for the tragic situation in Palestine and that conditions worsened in the past months in economic, social and human terms(30);
31. Welcomes the fact that through the TIM and without the involvement of the Hamas-led Government more than 140 000 low income households comprising more than 800 000 persons could be provided directly with modest but helpful allocations under Window III, and that the operation of hospitals and other basic services could be prevented from complete breakdown due to the TIM's support for the uninterrupted supply of essential services under Window II;
32. Regrets however the slow implementation of TIM Window I supporting the provision of essential supplies and running costs for hospitals through the World Bank's Emergency Services Support Programme (ESSP); notes that the first delivery of medicines under the ESSP took place only on 24 January 2007, to Gaza hospitals; invites the Commission to analyse the reasons for these delays and to suggest alternatives to ensure the timely implementation of the objectives of TIM Window I;
33. Stresses that the control mechanisms and internal audit put in place by the Palestinian Authority in 2003 constitute a solid guarantee against fraud and corruption;
34. Reiterates its call on Israel to abide by its legal obligations by resuming transfers of withheld Palestinian tax and customs revenue; invites Israel, if it refuses to do so, at least to consider channelling the withheld tax into the TIM and in this way to enable the Palestinian people to satisfy their basic needs; invites Israel to contribute to the need of the Palestinian people to create a viable and autonomous economy and to stop placing unjustified obstacles in the way of this objective;
35. Takes note of the sound analytical work reflected in the World Bank's public expenditure review on West Bank and Gaza; welcomes the fact that according to this review the Palestinian Authority has achieved progress notably in the educational and health sectors, as compared to other Middle East and North African countries, and in governance and public financial management where the Palestinian Authority has implemented a host of reforms between 2002 and 2004 that have reduced corruption and improved transparency; invites all involved parties to reactivate the reform process and thereby seriously consider the detailed recommendations of the World Bank's report, notably those concerning civil service reform and public financial management including financial control and audit;
36. Welcomes the fact that among the objectives and commitments (for example a recent agreement with an international audit firm) of the Ministry of Finances are the aims of reform of public finance and of full transparency and accountability, including the observance of international accounting standards;
37. Invites all parties within the Palestinian areas to do their utmost to settle conflicts peacefully and to form and maintain a stable and effective government, able to cooperate with the international community and to use effectively the EU's and international donor's funding;
38. Welcomes the Council decision of 18 June 2007 asking the EU to resume normal relations with the Palestinian Authority immediately in order to develop the conditions for urgent practical and financial assistance, including direct financial support to the new government, as well as to ensure the provision of emergency and humanitarian assistance to the population of Gaza (via, especially, the TIM);
39. Considers it important for the purposes of the maintenance of public order that security forces committed to peace and stability are trained and equipped including with police arms; considers that the financing of such training and equipment must be carried out with appropriate safeguards, under the authority of the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, so as to avoid funds being used for other purposes or illegal acts; underlines that not paying the salaries of civil servants, including the security forces, contributes to the deterioration of the political, social and economic situation in the Palestinian territories;
40. Stresses the dangers of the current collapse of the Palestinian administrative authorities; underlines the need for the EU and the international community to go beyond their humanitarian commitment and invest once again in capacity building and security to avoid jeopardising the Palestinians' living conditions in the very long term;
41. Calls on the Commission to consider strategies, using the TIM or another body of a permanent nature, in cooperation with other financial instruments, which could cover, in the near future, not only urgent problems but a greater number of the needs of a larger proportion of the Palestinian population; in any case, seeks to assist political and economic developments that will gradually reduce the reliance of the Palestinian Authority on international aid;
42. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors, the EIB, the parliaments of the Member States and the governments and parliaments of the Mediterranean partners.
OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 1. Repealed by Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 laying down general provisions establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (OJ L 310, 9.11.2006, p. 1).
Source: Communication of 4 June 2007 from DG AidCo, Unit Finance, Contracts and Audit for Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East: TIM Windows II and III -– Summary of Allowances and Bank Fees.
Report of the Parliament's delegation for relations with the Palestinian Legislative Council on its mission to East Jerusalem, Ramallah and Gaza on 29 April – 3 May 2007; West Bank and Gaza Public Expenditure Review: "From Crisis to Greater Fiscal Independence" – World Bank Document, February 2007.
Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 June 2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (COM(2006)0195 – C6-0141/2006 – 2006/0066(COD))
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0195),
– having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0141/2006),
– having regard to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
– having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0172/2007),
1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;
2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;
3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 June 2007 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2007/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2007/66/EC.)
Exchanges of information extracted from criminal records *
243k
81k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 June 2007 on the proposal for a Council framework decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States (COM(2005)0690 – C6-0052/2006 – 2005/0267(CNS))
– having regard to Articles 31 and 34(2)(b) of the EU Treaty,
– having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0052/2006),
– having regard to Rules 93 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0170/2007),
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. Calls on 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 8 a (new)
(8a)The fact that different legal regimes may apply to a single criminal conviction leads to the circulation of unreliable information between Member States and creates legal uncertainty for the convicted person. To avoid this situation, the convicting Member State should be regarded as the owner of the data on criminal convictions handed down on its territory against nationals of other Member States. Accordingly, the Member State of nationality of the convicted person, to which these data will be transmitted, should ensure that they are kept up-to-date by taking into account any alteration or deletion occurring in the convicting Member State. Only data that have been kept up-to-date in this way should be used internally by the Member State of nationality or further transmitted by it to any other State, being another Member State or a third country.
Amendment 2 Recital 10
(10) Personal data handled as part of the implementation of this Framework Decision are protected in accordance with the provisions of Framework Decision XXX on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. This Framework Decision also incorporates the provisions of the Decision of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal records11, which limit the use the requesting Member State can make of information asked for. It supplements them with specific rules applying where the Member State of the person's nationality forward conviction information transmitted to it by the convicting Member State.
(10) Personal data handled as part of the implementation of this Framework Decision are protected in accordance with the provisions of Framework Decision XXX on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and in particular with the basic principles of data protection referred to in Article 9. This Framework Decision also incorporates the provisions of the Decision of 21 November 2005 on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal records, which limit the use the requesting Member State can make of information asked for. It supplements them with specific rules applying where the Member State of the person's nationality forwards conviction information transmitted to it by the convicting Member State.
Amendment 3 Recital 12 a (new)
(12a)Improving the exchange and circulation of information on convictions can considerably enhance judicial and police cooperation at EU level, but such cooperation may be hampered if it is not supplemented by the swift adoption of a uniform set of basic procedural guarantees for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings applicable in all Member States.
Amendment 5 Article 2, point (a)
a) "conviction" means any final decision of a criminal court or of an administrative authority whose decision can be appealed against before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters, establishing guilt of a criminal offence or an act punishable in accordance with national law as an offence against the law
(a) "conviction" means any final court decision establishing guilt in criminal proceedings for a criminal offence under national law;
Amendment 6 Article 3, paragraph 1
1. For the purposes of this Framework Decision, each Member State shall designate a central authority. However, for the transmission of information under Article 4 and for replies to requests as referred to in Articles 6 and 7, Member States may designate one or more central authorities.
1. For the purposes of this Framework Decision, each Member State shall designate a central authority. However, for the transmission of information under Article 4 and for replies to requests for information under Article 7, Member States may designate one or more central authorities.
Amendment 7 Article 4, paragraph 1
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure all convictions handed down within its territory are accompanied, when transmitted to the national criminal record, by the nationality of the convicted person if they are a national of another Member State.
1. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure all convictions handed down within its territory, after they have been entered in the criminal record, are accompanied, when transmitted to the national criminal record, by the nationality or nationalities of the convicted person if they are a national of another Member State.
If the interested party is a national of several Member States, the relevant information shall be transmitted to each of these Member States, even if the convicted person is a national of the Member State within whose territory they have been convicted.
If the convicted person is known to be a national of several Member States, the relevant information shall be transmitted to each of these Member States, even if the convicted person is a national of the Member State within whose territory they have been convicted.
Amendment 9 Article 4, paragraph 3
3.The transmission of information on convictions shall also include the length of time the conviction is to remain in the register of the convicting Member State, in accordance with that the convicting Member State's national legislation at the time of transmission to the Member State of the person's nationality.
deleted
Amendment 10 Article 4, paragraph 4
4. Any subsequent measures taken in application of the convicting Member State's national legislation which involve an alteration or deletion of information contained in criminal records, including those affecting the length of time the information is to be kept, shall be immediately transmitted by the central authority of the convicting Member State to the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality.
4. Any subsequent alteration or deletion of information contained in criminal records shall be immediately transmitted by the central authority of the convicting Member State to the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality.
Amendment 11 Article 5, paragraph 1
1. The central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality shall store all information transmitted under Article 4, in order to be able to retransmit it in accordance with Article 7.
1. The central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality shall store the information transmitted under Article 4(2) and (4) and Article 11, in order to be able to retransmit it in accordance with Article 7.
Amendment 12 Article 5, paragraph 3
3. The Member State of the person's nationality may only use information which has been updated in accordance with paragraph 2. The obligation provided for by paragraph 2 may not lead to less favourable treatment in national proceedings than if the person had been convicted by a national court.
3. The Member State of the person's nationality may only use information which has been updated in accordance with paragraph 2.
Amendment 13 Article 6, paragraph 1
1. When information from the national criminal record of a Member State is requested, the central authority may, in accordance with national law, submit a request to the central authority of another Member State for information and related data to be extracted from the criminal record.
1. When, in the context of criminal proceedings against someone or for any other reason outside the framework of criminal proceedings, information from the national criminal record of a Member State is requested, the central authority may, in accordance with national law, submit a request to the central authority of another Member State for information and related data to be extracted from the criminal record.
Amendment 14 Article 6, paragraph 1a (new)
1a.Where information is requested from the register of criminal records in the Member State of the person's nationality for any purpose outside the framework of criminal proceedings, the requesting Member State shall specify its reasons for making the request.
Amendment 15 Article 6, paragraph 2
2. When a person asks for information on their own criminal record, the central authority of the Member State in which the request is made may, in accordance with national law, submit a request to the central authority of another Member State for information and related data to be extracted from the criminal record, provided the interested party is or has been a resident or a national of the requesting or requested Member State.
2. When a person asks for information on their own criminal record, the central authority of the Member State in which the request is made shall, in accordance with national law, submit a request to the central authority of another Member State for information and related data to be extracted from the criminal record, provided the interested party is or has been a resident or a national of the requesting or requested Member State.
Amendment 16 Article 7, paragraph 1, point (a)
a) national convictions
a) national convictions entered in the register of criminal records;
Amendment 17 Article 7, paragraph 1, point (d)
d) any convictions handed down in third countries and subsequently transmitted to it.
d) any convictions handed down in third countries and subsequently transmitted to it and entered in its register of criminal records.
2. When information extracted from criminal records is requested under Article 6 from the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality for any other purpose than that of criminal proceedings, that State shall respond in accordance with national law for national convictions and convictions handed down in third countries and subsequently transmitted to it.
2. When information extracted from criminal records is requested under Article 6 from the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality for any other purpose than that of criminal proceedings, that authority shall respond in respect of national convictions and convictions handed down in third countries and subsequently transmitted to it which have been entered in its register of criminal records in accordance with national law.
The central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality shall immediately ascertain from the central authority of the convicting Member State whether and to what extent the information on convictions handed down in the latter and transmitted to the former may be transmitted to the central authority of the requesting Member State.
In the case of information transmitted by the convicting Member State, the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality shall pass on the information received. When transmitting information pursuant to Article 4, the central authority of the convicting Member State may inform the central authority of the Member State of the person's nationality that the information on convictions handed down in the former and transmitted to the latter may be transmitted to the central authority of another Member State requesting it only with the consent of the convicting Member State.
The central authority of the convicting Member State shall reply to the central authority of the person's nationality early enough to enable the latter to meet the reply deadlines provided for in Article 8.
Where the consent of the convicting Member State is required, its central authority shall reply to the central authority of the person's nationality early enough to enable the latter to meet the reply deadlines provided for in Article 8.
Amendment 21 Article 7, paragraph 4
4. When information extracted from criminal records is requested from the central authority of a different Member State to the Member State of the person's nationality, the latter shall transmit information on national convictions to the central authority of the requesting Member State. If the request is not related to criminal proceedings, it shall respond in accordance with national law.
4. When information extracted from criminal records is requested from the central authority of a different Member State to the Member State of the person's nationality, the Member State to which the request is made shall transmit information on the convictions entered in its criminal records to the central authority of the requesting Member State. If the request is not related to criminal proceedings, the central authority of the Member State to which the request is made shall respond in accordance with national law.
Amendment 22 Article 9, paragraph -1 (new)
-1.The processing of personal data for the purposes of this Framework Decision shall comply with at least the following basic principles:
a) data processing shall be permitted by law, and shall be necessary and proportionate in relation to the purposes of collection and/or further processing;
b) data shall be collected only for specified and legitimate purposes and further processed in a way compatible with those purposes;
c) data shall be accurate and updated;
d) special categories of data concerning racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, party or trade union membership, sexual orientation or health shall be processed only if absolutely necessary for the purpose of a specific case and in accordance with appropriate safeguards.
Amendment 23 Article 9, paragraph 1
1. Personal data provided under Article 7(1) and (4) for the purposes of criminal proceedings may be used by the requesting Member State, solely for the purposes of the particular proceedings they were requested for, in accordance with the annexed form.
1. Personal data provided under Article 7(1) and (4) for the purposes of criminal proceedings may be used by the requesting Member State in accordance with the principles referred to in paragraph -1 and, in particular, solely for the purposes of the particular proceedings they were requested for, in accordance with the annexed form.
Amendment 24 Article 9, paragraph 2
2. Personal data provided under Article 7(2) and (4) for any purposes other than that of criminal proceedings may be used by the requesting Member State, in accordance with its national law, solely for the purposes of the particular proceedings they were requested for and within the limits set out by the requested Member State in the relevant form.
2. Personal data provided under Article 7(2) and (4) for any purposes other than that of criminal proceedings may be used by the requesting Member State, in accordance with its national law and with the principles referred to in paragraph -1 and, in particular, solely for the purposes of the particular proceedings they were requested for and within the limits set out by the requested Member State in the relevant form.
Amendment 25 Article 9, paragraph 3
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, personal data provided under Article 7(1), (2) and (4) may be used by the requesting Member State for preventing an immediate and serious threat to public security.
3. Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, personal data provided under Article 7(1), (2) and (4) may be used by the requesting Member State if such use is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing an immediate and serious threat to public security; in such a case, the requesting Member State shall provide the requested Member State with an ex post notification setting out the fulfilment of the conditions of necessity, proportionality, urgency and seriousness of the threat.
Amendment 26 Article 9, paragraph 4
4. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that personal data transmitted to a third county under Article 7(3) are subject to the same usage restrictions as those applicable in Member States under Article7(1),(2) and (3).
4. In addition, Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that personal data transmitted to a third country under Article 7(3) are subject to the same usage restrictions as those applicable in Member States under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article.
Amendment 27 Article 9, paragraph 5
5. This article does not apply to personal data obtained by a Member State under this Framework Decision and originating from that Member State.
5. Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall not apply to personal data obtained by a Member State under this Framework Decision and originating from that Member State.
Amendment 28 Article 9, paragraph 5 a (new)
5a.Each Member State shall ensure that national data protection authorities are systematically informed of the exchange of personal data under this Framework Decision and, in particular, of the use of personal data in the circumstances referred to in Article 9(3).
The data protection authorities of the Member States shall monitor the exchange referred to in paragraph 1 and cooperate with one another for that purpose.
Amendment 29 Article 9 a (new)
Article 9a Rights of the data subject
1.A data subject shall be informed of the fact that personal data concerning him or her are being processed. The provision of that information shall be delayed when necessary in order not to hamper the purposes for which the data are being processed.
2.A data subject shall have the right to obtain without undue delay the information as to which data are being processed in a language which he or she understands, as well as to rectify and, when appropriate, erase data processed in breach of the principles referred to in Article 9(-1).
3.The information referred to in paragraph 1 may be refused or delayed if strictly necessary: (a) to protect security and public order; (b) to prevent a crime; (c) to avoid hampering the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences; (d) to protect the rights and guarantees of third parties.
Amendment 30 Article 11, paragraph 2, point (a)
a) information on the convicted person (surname, first name, date of birth, place of birth, pseudonym or alias if applicable, gender, nationality, legal form and registered office for legal persons)
a) information on the convicted person (surname, first name, former name, date of birth, place and country of birth, pseudonym or alias if applicable, gender, nationality, legal form and registered office for legal persons);
Amendment 31 Article 11, paragraph 2, point (b)
b) information on the nature of the conviction (date and place, name and type of convicting authority)
b) information on the nature of the conviction (date and place, reference number where known, and name and type of convicting authority);
Amendment 32 Article 11, paragraph 2, point (c)
c) information on the facts giving rise to the conviction (date, place, type, legal status, applicable criminal law)
c) information on the facts giving rise to the conviction (date, type, legal status, applicable criminal law);
Amendment 33 Article 11, paragraph 6
6. The technical alterations referred to in paragraph 5 shall be carried out within three years from the date the format and the ways in which information on convictions may be exchanged electronically are adopted.
6. The technical alterations referred to in paragraph 5 shall be carried out within one year from the date the format and the ways in which information on convictions may be exchanged electronically are adopted.
Amendment 34 Article 14, paragraph 5
5. This Framework Decision has no impact on the application of more favourable provisions included in bilateral or multilateral agreements concluded between Member States.
5. This Framework Decision has no impact on the application of more favourable provisions included in bilateral or multilateral agreements or conventions concluded between Member States.
European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing a Regional Strategy Document 2007-2013 and a Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation(1) (DCI),
– having regard to the draft Commission decision establishing a Regional Strategy Document 2007-2013 and a Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia (CMT-2007-1122),
– having regard to the opinion delivered on 8 June 2007 by the committee referred to in Article 35(1) of the above-mentioned Regulation (hereinafter referred to as 'the DCI Management Committee'),
– having regard to Article 8 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(2),
– having regard to Rule 81 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas on 8 June 2007 the DCI Management Committee voted in favour of the draft Regional Strategy Document 2007-2013 and the Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia (CMT-2007-1122),
B. whereas, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Decision 1999/468/EC and Point 1 of the Agreement between the European Parliament and the Commission on procedures for implementing Council Decision 1999/468/EC(3), Parliament received the results of the voting,
C. whereas Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulates that 'the primary and overarching objective of cooperation under this Regulation shall be the eradication of poverty in partner countries and regions in the context of sustainable development',
D. whereas Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulates that 'measures referred to in Article 1(1)(4) shall be designed so as to fulfil the criteria for Official Development Assistance (ODA) established by the [Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] OECD/DAC',
E. whereas, in its 'Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System' (DCD/DAC (2002)21), the OECD/DAC defines ODA as financial flows to countries on the DAC List of ODA Recipients for which, inter alia, 'each transaction is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective'(5),
F. whereas Articles 19(3) and (8) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 stipulate respectively that 'strategy papers shall, in principle, be based on a dialogue with the partner country or region which involves civil society and regional and local authorities' and that 'the Commission and the Member States shall consult each other, as well as other donors and development actors including representatives of civil society and regional and local authorities, at an early stage of the programming process in order to promote complementarity among their cooperation activities',
1. Takes the view that, in its draft Strategy Document 2007-2013 and draft Multiannual Indicative Programme 2007-2010 for Asia, the Commission exceeds its implementing powers laid down in the basic act by including in its Focal Sector 1 ('support to regional integration') the following elements, which are not in compliance with Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, as the primary objective of these elements is not the eradication of poverty and they do not fulfil the criteria for ODA established by the OECD/DAC:
–
in the area of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), and in particular the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), one of the stated priorities is to 'facilitate dissemination of information and sharing of resources and to enhance public awareness of ASEM/ASEF';
–
in the area of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), one of the proposed programmes is the South Asia Civil Aviation Programme; in it, the Commission includes as an objective the promotion of the adoption of European safety regulations;
–
in the area of support to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the stated objectives of the 'institutional support and region-to-region dialogue' programme include 'support[ing] possible ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations and implementation' and 'rais[ing] the visibility of EC contribution to ASEAN';
–
also in the area of support to ASEAN, the overall objective of 'cooperation and policy reform in the security field' programme is 'to support cooperation and reform in the security field, in order to develop a more coherent system of Border Management in place at selected main ports of entry/exit of the ASEAN Member Countries (...). More specifically it is meant to strengthen the capacities of the ASEAN Border Management system both at regional cooperation level and at selected Border Crossing Points';
2. Takes the view that, in its draft Strategy Document 2007-2013 and draft Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia, the Commission exceeds its implementing powers laid down in the basic act by including in its Focal Sector 2 ('higher education and research institutes') – for which it earmarks about 15% of the funds in the Multiannual Indicative Programme – the following elements, which are not in compliance with Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, as the primary objective of these elements is not the eradication of poverty and they do not fulfil the criteria for ODA established by the OECD/DAC:
–
in the area of 'higher education', one of the specific objectives is to 'promote better understanding of European higher education in Asian developing countries', and the proposed activities include: 'mobility schemes for students and for academics; networking and transfer of best practice between EU and Asian universities' and 'workshops, higher education fairs, stakeholders' meetings, promotional activities, production of working papers, supporting mutual recognition of qualifications, surveys'; there are no provisions to ensure that the fields of study eligible under the programme will be selected in the light of the development needs of the region, or that the selection of the beneficiaries of the programme will support the poorer strata of the population and not widen the gap between rich and poor, nor are there specific provisions to prevent a 'brain drain';
–
in the area of 'support to research institutes', the stated objective is to 'enhance mutual understanding with a view to contributing to the development of the Asian region'; specific activities include: 'bringing together think-tanks and policy makers from both regions, broadening and intensifying the range of seminars and conferences'; the Commission states that for this purpose funds will be allocated to 'support the work of specialised institutes focusing on Asia-EU relations' and that activities will focus on strengthening research-related capacities, promoting public debate on EU-Asia relations and twinning between Asian and European institutes, think-tanks and similar circles'.
3. Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft decision establishing a Regional Strategy Document 2007-2013 and a Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia, and submit to the DCI Management Committee a new draft decision fully respecting the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006;
4. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States.
OECD/DAC Fact sheet of October 2006: 'Is it ODA?', p. 1.
Fact-finding mission to the regions of Andalusia, Valencia and Madrid
118k
37k
European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on the results of the fact-finding mission to the regions of Andalucia, Valencia and Madrid conducted on behalf of the Committee on Petitions
– having regard to Article 194 of the EC Treaty, which grants the right of petition to all EU citizens and residents of the EU,
– having regard to Article 6 of the EU Treaty, which declares that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and that it shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies,
– having regard to Rule 108(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. having regard to the contents and recommendations of the report of the third fact-finding mission to Spain , approved by the Committee on Petitions on 11 April 2007, which investigated the allegations contained in a very large number of petitions concerning the abuse of the legitimate rights of European citizens to their property and detailed concerns in relation to sustainable development, environmental protection, water provision and quality, and public procurement generally in connection with insufficient control of the urbanisation procedures by local and regional authorities,
B. having regard to its resolution adopted on 13 December 2005 on the alleged abuse of the Valencian Land Law or Ley Reguladora de la Actividad Urbanistica (LRAU - law on development activities) and its effect on European citizens(1) ,
C. whereas there are reported cases of corrupt practice as regards large-scale urbanisation projects for which local officials and elected politicians have been arrested and convicted,
D. whereas Spain has recently enacted new national framework legislation on land law, which is due to come into effect on 1 July 2007,
E. whereas the Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to apply the EU directives on public procurement in relation to urbanisation programmes in Valencia,
1. Considers that the obligation to cede legitimately acquired private property without due process and proper compensation, and the obligation to pay arbitrary costs for unrequested and often unnecessary infrastructure development, constitute a violation of an individual's fundamental rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (see, for instance, Aka v. Turkey(2)) and as contained in the EU Treaty;
2. Deeply regrets that such practices are widespread in various autonomous regions of Spain, in particular in the Valencia region and other parts of the Mediterranean coastal area, but also, for instance, in the Madrid region;
3. Expresses its severe condemnation of, and opposition to, massive urbanisation projects initiated by construction companies and real-estate developers which bear no relation to the real requirements of the towns and villages affected, are environmentally unsustainable and have a disastrous impact on the historical and cultural identity of the areas affected;
4. Condemns the tacit approval by some town halls for building developments which are subsequently declared illegal and which as a result lead to the destruction, or threatened destruction, of property which had been bought in good faith by European citizens through regular commercial developers and sales agents;
5. Recognises the Commission's efforts to ensure Spain's compliance with the directives on public procurement, but considers that the Commission should pay special attention to the documented cases of infringements of directives on environmental, water and consumer policy issues;
6. Considers it imperative that adequate measures are taken to ensure the appropriate application and enforcement of the Water Framework Directive(3) with regard to large urbanisation projects;
7. Urges the Council and the Commission, as well as the Member State concerned, to ensure the correct application of Community law and fundamental rights for the benefit of all EU citizens and residents;
8. Calls upon the Spanish authorities and regional governments, in particular the Valencian Government, which are under an obligation to respect and apply the provisions of the EC Treaty and EU laws, to recognise the individual's legitimate right to his legally acquired property and to establish in law more precisely defined criteria regarding the application of Article 33 of the Spanish Constitution concerning the public interest, in order to prevent and forbid the abuse of people's property rights by decisions of local and regional authorities;
9. Calls into question the methods of designation of, and frequently excessive powers given in practice to, town planners and property developers by certain local authorities at the expense of local communities and the citizens who have their homes and legally acquired property there;
10. Urges local authorities to consult their citizens and involve them in urban development projects in order to encourage acceptable and sustainable urban development where this is necessary, in the interest of local communities and not in the sole interest of property developers, estate agents and other vested interests;
11. Strongly condemns the covert practice of certain property developers of undermining by subterfuge the legitimate ownership of property by European citizens by interfering with land registration, and calls upon local authorities to establish proper legal safeguards against this practice;
12. Calls upon regional authorities to establish special administrative commissions involving local ombudsmen, to which independent investigation services should report, which should have powers of arbitration in relation to disputes concerning urbanisation projects, and which should be accessible free of charge to those directly affected by urbanisation programmes, including those who are victims of illegal property deals concerning unauthorised urban development;
13. Considers that, where compensation is required for loss of property, it should be awarded at a suitable rate and in conformity with the case law of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights;
14. 14 Calls on the Commission to initiate an information campaign directed at European citizens buying real estate in a Member State other than their own;
15. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Spanish authorities and regional governments.
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1).
Towards an arms trade treaty
118k
37k
European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on an arms trade treaty: establishment of common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons
– having regard to its resolutions of 15 March 2001 on the UN Conference on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects(1), of 15 November 2001 on small arms(2), of 19 June 2003 on implementation of the United Nations programme to combat the illegal trade in light weapons(3) and of 26 May 2005 on small arms and light weapons(4), as well as its annual resolutions on the implementation of the European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports,
– having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2006(5) on small arms and light weapons, urging the international community to start negotiations on an international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) within the UN directly after the 2006 UN Programme of Action Review Conference in order to establish a legally binding instrument to regulate arms transfers at global level,
– having regard to Rule 103(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. welcoming the adoption of Resolution A/RES/61/89 by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on 6 December 2006 marking the formal start of a process towards an ATT, and noting the overwhelming support which that resolution received from 153 States, indicative of a strong global political conviction that the time is ripe to end the irresponsible arms trade,
B. noting that, as a first step, the UN Secretary-General is to seeking the views of UN members on the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms,
C. whereas approximately 100 governments have submitted their views, and whereas the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs has indicated that, while submissions received before 20 June 2007 will be included in the report of the UN Secretary-General to be presented to the UNGA First Committee on Disarmament and International Security in October 2007, States that miss the 20 June 2007 deadline will still be able to have their submissions included as addenda to the report,
D. whereas the above-mentioned UNGA resolution of 6 December 2006 also mandates the UN Secretary-General to establish a group of governmental experts (GGE) to examine, commencing in 2008, the feasibility, scope and draft parameters for a comprehensive, legally binding instrument establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms,
E. whereas a positive outcome of this consultation process is crucially important for the purposes of laying the foundations of the future negotiations on the ATT,
F. reaffirming that, until those negotiations have been successfully concluded, irresponsible arms transfers will continue to cause unacceptable human suffering and exacerbate armed conflict, instability, terrorist attacks, bad governance and corruption, as well as grave violations of the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law, and undermine sustainable development,
G. convinced that, pending the outcome of those negotiations, States should not continue to allow previously agreed arms embargoes to be contemptuously ignored and mocked by parties to armed conflicts and unscrupulous arms suppliers,
H. welcoming and supporting the ongoing campaigning efforts of civil society organisations,
1. Calls on all 153 States which voted for the above-mentioned UNGA resolution of 6 December 2006, which included all the EU Member States, to send their submissions supporting an ATT to the UN Secretary-General without further delay;
2. Urges the Council to devise a programme of activities using various international fora, including NATO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, to encourage States to send in their submissions;
3. Urges all States to emphasise in their submissions that the ATT should codify existing obligations under international law with respect to arms transfers, and especially those covering human rights and humanitarian law;
4. Strongly recommends that, in order for the ATT to be effective, States base their submissions on the following parameters:
(i)
States are responsible for and must regulate all arms transfers that fall within their jurisdiction;
(ii)
States must assess all international arms transfers in the light of the following three categories of restriction under existing law:
a)
express prohibitions, whereby States must not transfer arms in certain situations based on existing prohibitions on the manufacture, possession, use and transfer of arms;
b)
prohibitions based upon the likely use of the weapons, in particular where the arms are likely to be used to commit serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law;
c)
criteria and emerging norms that must be considered when assessing arms transfers, including the question whether the arms will be used for terrorist attacks or violent and/or organised crime, adversely affect sustainable development or regional security or stability, or involve corrupt practices;
(iii)
States must agree a monitoring and enforcement mechanism providing for prompt, impartial and transparent investigation of alleged violations of an ATT and appropriate penalties for offenders;
5. Calls on all States to support the work of, and engage with, the GGE, so as to ensure that it will make significant progress towards a meaningful ATT;
6. Remains convinced that the success of the ATT will be critically dependent on greater openness and a new willingness to exchange information about arms transfers, including information on end-users, and that this will require the use of mechanisms, such as an improved version of the UN Register of Conventional Arms, to create a compensating and mutual guarantee of global transparency;
7. Calls upon all States, pending the adoption of an ATT, to take efficient measures to stop the irresponsible brokering and transportation of arms, ammunition and associated military and security equipment of all types, including components and dual-use items, as well as the transfer and licensing of foreign production of such equipment to parties who are subject to international arms embargoes or who persistently commit serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law;
8. Calls in this context on all Member States to transpose the provisions of the Council's Common Position 2003/468/CFSP of 23 June 2003 on the control of arms brokering(6) into national law in order to maximise the efficiency of efforts to halt irresponsible arms brokering;
9. Categorically denounces trade in arms and ammunition in violation of UN Security Council arms embargoes and recognises that the transport of such goods primarily takes place by air; calls upon EU Member States to enhance their cooperation with other States in this area; calls upon the competent international organisations and the appropriate regional organisations to recommend, in coordination with the air transport industry, appropriate preventive measures;
10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of the UN, the President of the UNGA, the Secretary-General of NATO, the OSCE, the African Union, the Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons, the Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the group of NGOs known as the Arms Trade Treaty Steering Committee.
– having regard to the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989 and, in particular, Articles 37 and 40 thereof,
– having regard to the United Nations' Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice or 'Beijing' rules' of 1985, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 40/33 of 29 November 1985,
– having regard to the United Nations' Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency or 'Riyadh Guidelines' of 1990, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 45/112 of 14 December 1990,
– having regard to the United Nations' Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990,
– having regard to the Council of Europe's European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights of 25 January 1996 and, in particular, Articles 1 and 3-9 thereof,
– having regard to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Recommendation to Member States concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice of 24 September 2003(1),
– having regard to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Recommendation on social reactions to juvenile delinquency of 17 September 1987(2),
– having regard to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers' Recommendation on social reactions to juvenile delinquency among migrant families of 18 April 1988(3),
– having regard to the EU Treaty and, in particular, Article 6 and the provisions of Title VI concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters,
– having regard to the EC Treaty and, in particular, Title XI on social policy, education, vocational training and youth and, in particular, Article 137 thereof,
– having regard to the Framework Programme for Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (AGIS), which expired on 31 December 2006, and to Council Regulation (EC) No 168/2007 of 15 February 2007 establishing a European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights(4),
– having regard to its position of 30 November 2006 on the proposal for a Council decision empowering the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to pursue its activities in areas referred to in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union(5),
– having regard to its position of 22 May 2007 on the Council's common position on the adoption of a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 a specific programme to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (DAPHNE III Programme) as part of the general programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice'(6),
– having regard to the communication from the Commission entitled 'Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child' (COM (2006)0367),
– having regard to its resolution of 8 July 1992 on a European Charter of Rights of the Child(7) and, in particular, paragraphs 8.22 and 8.23 thereof,
– having regard to Council Decision 2001/427/JHA of 28 May 2001 setting up a European crime prevention network(8),
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 March 2006 entitled 'The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency. Ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of the juvenile justice system in the European Union'(9),
– having regard to the conclusions of the conference held in Glasgow from 5 to 7 September 2005 under the aegis of the UK Presidency on the subject of 'Young people and crime: a European perspective',
– having regard to the most recent annual reports issued by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction,
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0212/2007),
A. whereas juvenile delinquency is inherently more dangerous than adult offending as it affects a particularly vulnerable section of the population during the formative years of personal development, exposing juveniles at a very early stage to the risk of social exclusion and stigmatisation,
B. B whereas non-attendance at school is one of the factors which increase the risk of juvenile delinquency,
C. whereas national, European and international studies show that there has been an alarming increase in juvenile delinquency over the last two decades,
D. whereas juvenile delinquency is becoming a matter for concern on account of the huge scale it has now assumed, owing to the fact that delinquency is starting at a younger age, the number of offences committed by children under the age of 13 is increasing and that the acts committed by young people are becoming increasingly brutal,
E. whereas current methods of recording and presenting statistical data regarding juvenile delinquency do not correspond to actual needs and present-day circumstances, making it urgently necessary to obtain reliable statistics at national level,
F. whereas it is difficult to classify precisely the reasons for which young people offend, the factors leading to antisocial and finally criminal forms of behaviour being different in each individual case, conditioned as they are by the experiences of each child or adolescent and the elements playing the most central role in their development: family, school, circles of friends and general economic and social circumstances,
G. whereas the main factors contributing to juvenile delinquency are a lack of structures, communication and appropriate models within the family, often as a result of parental absence, psychopathological problems associated with physical and sexual abuse by people within the family environment, the failure of education systems to pass on social values, poverty, unemployment, social exclusion and racism; whereas additional significant factors are the strong tendency towards copying which young people develop during the formative years of their personal development , personality disorders associated with the consumption of alcohol and drugs and the portrayal by the mass media, by certain Internet sites and by video games of models of mindless, excessive and unwarranted violence,
H. whereas deviant behaviour amongst young people does not systematically originate within the family,
I. whereas the increase in the consumption of cannabis and other drugs and/or of alcohol by adolescents may be correlated with the increase in juvenile delinquency,
J. whereas migrants and in particular juveniles are much more exposed to social surveys, creating the impression that the problem of juvenile delinquency occurs mainly among migrants and not throughout society as a whole, an impression which is not only inaccurate but also dangerous for society,
K. whereas the two 'modern' forms of juvenile delinquency involve the formation of 'juvenile gangs' and increasing violence at school, these being particularly widespread in certain Member States and particularly difficult to investigate and deal with,
L. whereas increasingly widespread developments such as violent organised juvenile gangs have prompted certain Member States to open a debate on the need to revise criminal law relating to juveniles,
M. whereas in certain Member States the environs of and even the school playground itself (including those in affluent neighbourhoods) have become lawless areas (drug-dealing, acts of violence sometimes involving the use of knives, extortion by various means, the development of dangerous games and the phenomenon of "happy slapping", involving the posting on websites of photographs of violent scenes taken with a mobile telephone),
N. whereas recent years have seen a progressive revision of national criminal law relating to juveniles and this revision should be geared to preventive measures, judicial and extrajudicial measures and re-education and rehabilitation measures, including therapy where necessary; stressing, however, that it is very often unfeasible to implement these new measures in practice owing to a lack of suitable, modern facilities and trained specialist personnel, to limited funding and sometimes to a lack of will on the part of those involved or to inherent faults in the system,
O. whereas the flood of images of extremely violent scenes and of pornographic material carried on the various media, such as games, television and the Internet, and the exploitative media portrayal of juvenile victims and perpetrators in many cases border on violations of the fundamental rights of children and are instrumental in trivialising violence,
P. noting that, according to the statistics published in certain Member States, between 70% and 80% of juvenile delinquents who are punished when they commit their first offence do not re-offend;
Q. having regard to the articles and studies published in certain Member States which reveal an increase in the number of acts of violence perpetrated by adolescents on their parents and the powerless state in which the latter find themselves,
R. having regard to the fact that organised crime networks sometimes employ juvenile delinquents for their activities,
S. whereas a special working group was set up, within the framework of the European Crime Prevention Network founded in 2001, in order to combat juvenile delinquency and which has begun to draw up a detailed comparative study in the 27 Member States as a basis for future EU policy developments in that field,
1. Stresses that juvenile delinquency can be effectively combated only by adopting an integrated strategy at national and European level which will mesh three guiding principles: prevention, extrajudicial and judicial measures and the social inclusion of all young people;
Policies at national level
2. Stresses that it is crucially important for all stakeholders in society to be directly involved in the planning and implementation of an integrated national strategy i.e., the State as central administration, regional and local authorities, educational institutions, the family, NGOs and especially youth NGOs, civil society and every individual; maintains that it is essential to have adequate financial resources available in order to implement effective measures to combat juvenile delinquency;
3. Maintains that, in order to effectively combat juvenile delinquency, an integrated and effective school, social, family and educational policy must be implemented which will help to ensure that social and civic values are passed on and that young people adjust to society at an early age; considers that there is also a need for a policy geared to greater economic and social cohesion and to reducing social inequalities and countering social exclusion and poverty, with particular reference to child poverty;
4. Considers it necessary that families, educators and society should convey values to young people from their infancy;
5. Considers that preventing juvenile delinquency also requires state policies in other areas, including housing, employment, vocational training, leisure and youth exchanges;
6. Recalls that families, schools and society in general must work together to combat the growing phenomenon of juvenile violence;
7. Emphasises the specific role that the family plays in all stages of this fight against juvenile delinquency and requests the Member States to develop adequate support for parents; notes, in certain cases, the need for parents to be involved to a greater extent and to be made more aware of their responsibilities;
8. Encourages the Member States to ensure that their national policies include provision for one-year parental leave which would enable families that so wish to devote particular attention to the initial upbringing of their child (which is of such great importance to a child's emotional development);
9. Calls on the Member States to give particular assistance to families with financial and social problems; takes the view that measures to cover essential needs in terms of housing, food, guaranteed access to basic education and medical care for all family members, in particular children, together with action to ensure access on equal terms to the employment market and to social, economic and political activities for family members will ensure a healthy and equitable family environment for the child's development and its initial steps towards social integration;
10. Calls on the Member States to provide resources for the expansion of an efficient psychosocial advice service, including contact points for problem families affected by juvenile delinquency;
11. Stresses the particular importance of schools and school communities in shaping the character of children and adolescents; stresses that, if the education system fails to provide suitable channels for intervention, assistance and contact with students, two fundamental characteristics of present-day schools, multiculturalism coupled with an increased distinction between social classes, may lead to violence within schools;
12. Calls on the Member States in this context to issue the education authorities with the necessary guidelines regarding an up-to-date approach to conflict management at school by means of conciliation procedures involving pupils, parents, teachers and local authorities;
13. Considers it essential to provide special training for teachers in the management of heterogeneous classes, enabling them to develop an educational approach based not on moralising but on prevention and solidarity, avoiding the stigmatisation and marginalisation of both juvenile perpetrators and victims among their pupils;
14. Calls on the Member States in addition to include within their educational policies the provision of special counselling and psychological support for children encountering problems of social integration, the availability of medical care in each school and the appointment of social workers, sociologists/criminologists, child psychologists and experts in issues relating to juvenile delinquency, each serving a small number of educational institutions, close checks on alcohol and drug consumption among pupils, measures to combat all forms of discrimination against members of the school community, the appointment of a community ombudsman acting as an intermediary between the school and the community and cooperation between various school communities in drawing up and implementing programmes to prevent violence;
15. Calls on the Member States and the relevant national and regional authorities to implement strictly and fully Community and national legislation on the monitoring of television broadcasting and other content possibly of a particularly violent nature or unsuitable for juveniles; calls on the Member State authorities to reach agreement with the media on a 'road map' upholding the rights of the child and in particular those of juvenile offenders, involving a ban on the broadcasting of extremely violent images at certain times of the day and prohibiting the revelation of the identity of those involved in juvenile delinquency;
16. Recommends that the Member States improve the quality of youth centres and enhance their role as a meeting place for young people and observes that the admission of juvenile offenders to such centres would facilitate their social reintegration and encourage a feeling of being a member of society;
17. Stresses that the media can play an important role in preventing juvenile delinquency by providing information and increasing public awareness as well as by means of high quality broadcasts, focusing on the positive contribution that young people make to society while at the same time monitoring broadcasts involving violence, pornography or drugs under 'road map' agreements in order to protect the rights of the child;
18. Stresses furthermore (in connection with the fight against juvenile delinquency) the value of introducing measures in the Member States which will provide alternative forms of punishment to confinement, and also educational measures at the discretion of the national courts, such as community service, reparation and mediation with victimsand vocational training, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the delinquent's age, personality and level of maturity;
19. Urges the Member States to adopt new innovatory legal measures in response to the problem, such as the direct involvement, in criminal proceedings, of the parents or guardians of juveniles from prosecution up to the implementation of sentences, accompanied by education and intensive psychological support measures, placing juveniles with foster families where considered necessary, together with support, in the form of advice and information, for parents, teachers and pupils in connection with violent behaviour by juveniles at school;
20. Points out that, in the case of juvenile delinquency, the conduct and duration of judicial proceedings, the choice of the measure to be adopted and the subsequent implementation thereof must be guided by the overriding interest of the child and observance of the procedural law of each Member State; stresses in this connection that imprisonment must be ordered only as a last resort and that any prison sentence must be served in facilities suitable for juvenile delinquents;
21. Calls on the Member States, in the framework of an integrated approach to juvenile delinquency, to earmark separate budget appropriations specifically for measures to prevent juvenile delinquency, increase funding for social and workplace integration for young people and for the improvement and modernisation of central and regional facilities for juvenile offenders and for the provision of specialist and ongoing training for all individuals involved in a professional capacity and all organisations concerned;
Towards a European strategy
22. Recommends that the Member States, in cooperation with the Commission, draw up and adopt immediately a number of minimum standards and guiding principles common to all Member States in relation to juvenile delinquency, focusing on the three basic pillars of (firstly) prevention, (secondly) judicial and extrajudicial measures and (thirdly) rehabilitation and social integration or reintegration, on the basis of the principles internationally established under the Beijing rules and the Riyadh guidelines, the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international conventions in this field;
23. Maintains that the objective of a common European approach should be to define models for intervention in order to deal with and manage juvenile delinquency, while recourse to custodial measures and punishment should constitute a last resort and be implemented only when judged to be absolutely necessary;
24. Notes that the inclusion and participation of young people in all issues and decisions concerning them is vital if common solutions are to be found that will prove successful; considers, therefore, that care should be taken when appointing youth court jurors to ensure not only that they have experience in youth education but also that they are trained in problems linked to violence and young people;
25. Calls on the Commission to lay down specific criteria for all Member States for the collection of national statistics in order to ensure that they are comparable and therefore usable during the planning of a range measures at European level; calls on the Member States to take an active part in the Commission's work by circulating and providing information from all of the competent national, regional and local authorities and from associations, NGOs and other civil society organisations operating in this field;
26. Calls upon the Commission and the Member States" national and local authorities to learn from best practice in operation within the Member States which activate the whole of society and include positive action and intervention on the part of parents' associations and NGOs in schools and local residents, and to assess the experiments that have been conducted in the Member States as regards cooperation agreements between police authorities, educational establishments, local authorities, youth organisations and social services at local level (with due regard to the rule of shared confidentiality), together with national strategies and national youth programmes; calls upon the Member States to learn from best practice currently in operation within those States in order to combat the worrying increase in drug consumption by juveniles and in related delinquency, and from the most effective solutions to be applied in the event of problematic consumption, with particular regard to healthcare;
27. Welcomes national initiatives that include positive integration measures such as the 'out-of-school youth worker scheme' now being launched in regions such as La Rioja;
28. Calls on the Commission and the Member States as an initial measure to develop existing European resources and programmes encompassing measures to cope with and prevent juvenile delinquency and facilitate satisfactory social reintegration of perpetrators and victims, examples being:
–
the special 2007-2013 programme for 'Preventing and Combating Crime', basically seeking to prevent crime and protect victims,
–
the specific 'Criminal Justice' programme for 2007-2013, promoting cooperation in the field of criminal justice based on mutual recognition and trust and improved contacts and exchange of information between the relevant national authorities involved,
–
the DAPHNE III programme to combat violence against juveniles and children,
–
the 2007-2013 'Youth in Action' Programme, one of the main priorities of which is support for young people with fewer opportunities or from less privileged backgrounds,
–
the European Social Fund and Equal Programme initiatives to promote social integration and combat discrimination and facilitate access to the employment market for those with fewer opportunities,
–
the EU-funded Urbact initiative programme seeking an exchange of best practice between European cities regarding a more sustainable living environment and encompassing measures to improve urban safety for juveniles and facilitate social integration of juveniles with fewer opportunities, with a view to increasing their social involvement and participation,
–
cross-border initiatives such as the 'Let bind safe net for children and youth at risk' project focusing on measures to assist children and juveniles who are at risk or socially marginalised, which could benefit from the participation of partners from as many Member States as possible,
–
the European helpline for missing children, including victims of juvenile delinquency;
29. Stresses the need for close cooperation and networking between all judicial and police authorities at national and Community levels as regards the investigation and resolution of cases of missing children who are the victims of juvenile delinquency, taking as a basis the specific objectives of the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child as presented in the Commission's Communication;
30. Stresses that one means of preventing and combating juvenile delinquency is to develop a communication policy that will raise public awareness of the issues, put an end to violence in the mass media and promote audiovisual media whose scheduling is not exclusively centred on violent programmes; calls, in this connection, for European standards placing restraints on the promotion of violence in both broadcast and print media to be laid down;
31. Notes that the Television Without Frontiers Directive (Directive 89/552/EEC(10)) sets strict limits regarding the broadcasting of violent images or, more generally, images unsuitable for the education of children, a measure designed to prevent violence by and against juveniles; calls on the Commission to take further steps in this direction, extending existing obligations to cover mobile telephony and the Internet, something which should be one of the fundamental political priorities in connection with the abovementioned Commission communication on the rights of the child;
32. Welcomes the entry into force of the self-regulatory framework for European companies concerning the safer use of mobile telephones by juveniles and children and accordingly stresses the need for the Commission to make specific proposals binding at European level to ensure safety awareness and vigilance with regard to Internet navigation and the use of mobile telephones;
33. Calls on the Commission to continue its work on setting up a free Europe-wide telephone hotline for children and young people with problems, since such hotlines can make a significant contribution to preventing juvenile delinquency;
34. Calls on the Commission to propose, once the necessary studies have been completed at European level, an integrated Community framework programme with Community preventive measures, support for NGO initiatives and international cooperation and the funding of pilot programmes at regional and local levels, which will be based on best national practice, will attempt to promote these practices throughout Europe and will also cover social and educational infrastructure requirements;
35. Stresses that there are two basic lines of Community action which should be taken into consideration forthwith:
–
funding for preventive measures under existing Community programmes and the creation of a new budget heading for integrated actions and networks to combat juvenile delinquency,
–
the publication of a study and, subsequently, a Commission communication on the extent of the problem in Europe and suitable preparations to be made, through a network of national experts, for the drafting of an integrated framework programme to combat juvenile delinquency;
36. Calls on the Commission in this context to draw up a programme of co-funded measures, to include:
–
consideration of best prevention practices and of effective, innovative solutions based on a multi-sectoral approach,
–
measuring and analysing the possible long-term effectiveness of recently implemented systems for the treatment of juvenile offenders, such as restorative justice,
–
exchanging best practice at international, national and local levels, taking into account the very positive experiences had with the European anti-violence programme Daphne, whose many efficient projects against violence can be cited as examples of best practice,
–
ensuring that these services and practices focus on the overriding interests of children and adolescents, on the protection of their rights and on teaching them to perform their duties and to obey the law;
–
developing a European model for the protection of young people, focusing on the three basic pillars of prevention, judicial and extrajudicial measures and social reintegration, and also on the promotion of values of respect and equality and the rights and obligations of everyone,
–
drawing up educational and vocational training programmes for juveniles in order to facilitate their social integration and achieve genuine equal opportunities through lifelong learning for everyone; efficient education for everyone from the outset and the implementation of the Barcelona objectives, which are a precondition for the effective prevention of violence; support for existing initiatives undertaken by youth organisations in that regard,
–
organising a coordinated programme of continuous training for national ombudsmen, police forces and members of the judiciary, competent national bodies and supervisory authorities,
–
networking the responsible services of the local and regional authorities, youth organisations and the educational community;
37. Recommends that the Commission, in preparing the way for the European Juvenile Delinquency Observatory and the related framework programme, propose forthwith the following measures for the promotion and dissemination of experience and know-how:
–
a joint survey and dissemination of the results of national policies,
–
the organisation of conferences and platforms (forums) with the participation of national experts,
–
promotion of communication and information between the competent authorities and Community bodies via the Internet and the creation of a web page specialising in these matters,
–
the establishment of an international centre of excellence;
o o o
38. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
External dimension of the area of freedom, security and justice
149k
77k
European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on an area of freedom, security and justice: Strategy on the external dimension, Action Plan implementing the Hague programme (2006/2111(INI))
– having regard to Articles 2, 6 and Title VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) dealing with the strengthening of the European Union as an area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ),
– having regard to the Presidency Conclusions and the objectives defined by successive European Councils since 1999 in the field of the external dimension of the AFSJ, including the Council of 14 and15 December 2006,
– having regard to the proposal from the Commission on a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union (COM(2004)0328),
– having regard to the proposal from the Commission on a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (COM(2005)0475),
– having regard to the Communication from the Commission on a Strategy on the External Dimension of the area of freedom, security and justice (COM(2005)0491) and to the Commission's progress report on the implementation of that strategy (SEC(2006)1498),
– having regard to the Council's Strategy for the External Dimension of Justice and Home Affairs: Global Freedom, Security and Justice, adopted on 1 December 2005 (hereafter called "the Strategy") and to the Council's report on the implementation of that Strategy for the year 2006, endorsed at the 2768th JHA Council of 4 and 5 December 2006,
– having regard to the JHA external relations Multi-Presidency Work Programme (5003/1/7) adopted on 23 January 2007, to the Council's Action-Oriented Paper on improving cooperation on organised crime, corruption, illegal immigration and counter-terrorism between the EU and the Western Balkans (9360/06), the Action-Oriented Paper on increasing EU support for combating drug production in and trafficking from Afghanistan, including transit routes (9305/06) (both adopted by the JHA Council on 1 and 2 June 2006) and to the Action-Oriented Paper on Implementing with Russia the Common Space of freedom, security and justice (15534/06), adopted on 11 November 2006,
– having regard to its previous annual debates on AFSJ and resolutions focused on the external dimension thereof (terrorism, CIA, data protection, migration, trafficking, fighting drugs, money laundering),
– having regard to its recommendation of 14 October 2004 to the Council and to the European Council on the future of the area of freedom, security and justice as well as the measures required to enhance the the legitimacy and effectiveness thereof (1),
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0223/2007),
A. whereas the external dimension of the AFSJ is growing as the internal area of freedom, security and justice progressively takes shape under the pressure of an increasingly interconnected world and of the inherent international character of threats such as terrorism, organised crime and challenges such as migration flows; and whereas the external projection of values underpinning the AFSJ is essential in order to safeguard the respect of the rule of law, fundamental rights, security and stability inside the EU,
B. whereas, by adopting and implementing a coherent strategy for the external dimension of the AFSJ, the EU increases its credibility and its influence in the world and whereas the Strategy can only be accomplished in close cooperation with third countries, including allies such as the United States, and international organisations,
C. whereas this strategy is an important step towards establishing an internal AFSJ by creating a secure external environment as well as advancing the EU's external relations by promoting the rule of law, democratic values, respect for human rights and sound institutions,
D. whereas the reinforcement of a true balance between security and justice should be reflected during the preparation and implementation of all the various policies carried out for the purpose of attaining a real and sustainable area of freedom, security and justice,
E. whereas the political coherence and efficiency of the EU's external action is currently hindered by:
–
the complexity of the internal institutional framework within which external agreements and programmes are decided according to the procedures of the first, second and third pillars,
–
the insufficient involvement of Parliament, despite the existing obligations of the Council and Commission to consult and inform Parliament,
–
the power-sharing arrangements between the Community institutions and the 27 Member States,
F. whereas the EU has a number of policy instruments at its disposal to help implement the Strategy on the external dimension of the AFSJ, such as bilateral agreements (association agreements, partnership and cooperation agreements, stabilisation and association agreements), the EU's enlargement and pre-accession process, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Action Plans, regional cooperation, individual agreements (with the United States, Japan, China, etc), operational cooperation, development policy and external aid,
Presents the following recommendations to the Council and Commission for their consideration: Improving democratic accountability in the external dimension of the AFSJ
1. Urges the European Council to follow Parliament's present and future recommendations dealing with the EU's external strategy in the AFSJ; recalls that Parliament has an essential role to play in strengthening the accountability of the EU's external action;
2. Urges the Council Presidency and the Commission:
–
to consult Parliament in respect of each international agreement based on Articles 24 and 38 TEU when the agreements affect the fundamental rights of Union citizens and the main aspects of judicial and police cooperation with third countries or international organisations,
–
to keep Parliament regularly informed of the negotiations on agreements dealing with the AFSJ and to make sure that Parliament's views are duly taken into consideration, as provided for by Articles 39 and 21 TEU and by Article 300 TEC;
3. Urges the Council to activate the passerelle clause in Article 42 TEU, simultaneously with the constitutional process going forward, which would bring the provisions concerning police and judicial cooperation on criminal matters within the scope of the Community framework, leading to greater efficiency, transparency and accountability, as well as democratic and judicial control; therefore urges the Commission to submit to the Council before October 2007 a formal proposal for a decision activating Article 42 TEU; considers that internal coherence could be improved by the entry into force of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, in particular by the establishment of the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and an external diplomatic service;
4. Calls on the Council to expedite in particular the adoption of framework decisions with regard to the storage, use and exchange of information on criminal convictions and to the codification of procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU, such as the above-mentioned Commission proposal (COM(2004)0328);
As far as the main objectives of the Strategy are concerned
5. Welcomes the principles set out in the Strategy, especially the need for a partnership with third countries in order to tackle common problems and meet shared policy objectives; stresses the need to coordinate the broad range of instruments at the EU's disposal in order to deliver a tailored and coherent response; emphasises, in addition, the need to coordinate the actions of the Member States and the Commission in order to ensure complementarity and to avoid duplication; considers, given the importance attached by the EU and the Member States to the construction of the AFSJ, that a high level of third-country cooperation in these fields should have a positive impact on their relations with the EU;
6. Highlights the need for the EU to use its conventional relations and instruments with third countries as an incentive for them to adopt and implement relevant international standards and obligations on JHA issues;
7. Recalls the need to rationalise the work of the Community institutions and the use of existing instruments, and to coordinate the actions of the Member States and actions at EU level in order to ensure a coherent and effective response in the EU's relations with third countries and to avoid duplication; stresses the need for balanced development of the internal and external dimensions of AFSJ;
8. Stresses the need for Parliament to improve the coherence of its external relations activities, which involve a wide array of actors; therefore, calls for the streamlining of activities pertaining to human rights, democratic governance and the rule of law in third countries and in the external dimension of security;
9. Calls on the Council to further clarify its policies as regards the external dimension of the AFSJ and to ensure coordination between geographic Council working groups and groups dealing with justice, freedom and security matters;
10. Notes that it is essential to improve cross-pillar coordination between, and to avoid the duplication of, the various instruments belonging to the AFSJ, the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the Community; stresses that the effectiveness of such coordination should be subject to constant review by Parliament; welcomes the steps taken towards improved coherence in integrated civil-military cooperation of the ESDP, particularly in the field of crisis management;
11. Stresses that the planning process of ESDP operations should take into account various flanking or follow-on measures provided by Community instruments in areas pertaining to the rule of law, arms and drugs trafficking, trafficking of women and children, the prevention and the fight against terrorism and organised crime and post-conflict stabilisation, particularly with regard to the Stability Instrument and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument;
12. Believes that the time is ripe to overcome political impediments to deeper transatlantic cooperation in the broader dimension of freedom and security, on a basis of respect for fundamental rights, for example in the areas of the fight against drug trafficking, organised crime and terrorism, in particular in view of the future civilian ESDP operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan, and in the areas of women's rights and the exchange and protection of personal data; recalls, in this connection, Parliament's calls for the closure of the jail at Guantánamo, stressing that its existence is sending out a negative signal on how to combat terrorism;
13. Urges the promotion, by Member States individually, collectively, and in all appropriate bilateral and international fora, of the diplomatic and peaceful resolution of conflicts around the world, while avoiding the use or the perception of the use of double standards in the pursuit of Europe's foreign, security and human rights policies;
14. Calls for better cooperation between the EU and international organisations, in particular with the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and stresses the need for enhanced regional dialogue and cooperation on justice, freedom and security issues;
15. Calls on the Commission to strengthen its efforts to support regional cooperation on justice, freedom and security issues through existing bodies, such as the African Union, by encouraging new initiatives in areas where regional cooperation is weak, such as the Middle East and Eastern Europe;
16. Calls on the Commission to continually monitor implementation against the objectives and priorities set in the Strategy and to report on it every 18 months; calls on the Commission to regularly assess the effectiveness of the use of funding in the fields covered by the Strategy; calls on the Council to review progress and priorities on a regular basis, since the external dimension of the AFSJ is growing rapidly;
Strengthening security and human rights
17. Urges the Council, the Commission and the Member States:
–
to make the promotion of democratic standards, human rights, political freedoms and sound institutions an indispensable dimension of relations between the EU and third countries; stresses that this is central to the overall goals of the external dimension of the AFSJ,
–
to keep the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as the basis for all the negotiations and agreements of the EU and its Member States with third countries,
–
to integrate, in dialogues with third countries on the AFSJ, evidence drawn from human rights international organisations and the verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights,
–
to ensure that fundamental rights form an integral part of any instrument, programme or operational measure linked to the fight against terrorism, organised crime, migration, asylum and border management,
–
to include a human rights clause in agreements with third countries and to assess the effectiveness of these human rights clauses and other AFSJ clauses,
–
to include in every Action Oriented Paper, a section on the human rights situation in the third country concerned; considers that the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights should help the EU institutions in assessing the compliance of EU agreements with human rights;
18. Advises the Commission, the Member States and the Council to consider the possibility of supplementing activities funded in the field of freedom, security and justice with third countries and regions by providing specific funding for human rights protection and compliance projects;
19. Expresses its concern over the lack of commitment to fundamental rights in the case of certain third countries with which the EU has close links, especially the countries benefiting from the neighbourhood policy and the Russian Federation, where breaches of the freedom of the press and freedom of expression, in particular, occur, and calls for a more intensive dialogue with those countries on that issue;
20. Is also concerned about compliance with human rights standards by the EU itself, noting the recent example of the CIA-led rendition programmes and all the related questionable practices of several Member States;
21. Calls on the EU and Member States to fully observe the principle of non-extradition to countries where the persons extradited would suffer torture and/or the death penalty; calls on the Council and the Commission to urge the countries with which it has close relations to abolish such practices and to ensure that all persons have a right to a fair trial;
22. Expresses its deep concern at the inadequate legal safeguards in place for EU citizens in cases of personal data being made available to third countries, notably in cases such as PNR, SWIFT and the collection of telecommunication records by the FBI; reiterates its request to the Commission to carry out an inquiry into which categories of personal data belonging to Union citizens are being accessed and used by third countries in their own jurisdictions; stresses that data sharing must take place on a proper legal basis, with clear rules and criteria, in line with Community legislation on the adequate protection of privacy and civil liberties; believes that data sharing with the US must take place in the proper legal context of transatlantic cooperation, and on the basis of EU-US agreements, while bilateral agreements are not acceptable;
23. Regrets the lack of democratic oversight in EU-US relations created by the High Level Contact Group which is composed of representatives of the Commission, the Council and US governmental representatives of the Departments of Justice and of Homeland Security and excludes the European Parliament, national parliaments as well as the US Congress from this dialogue;
24. Recommends a single data protection policy covering both the first and the third pillar; recalls that discrepancies between them affect not only citizens' rights to the protection of their personal data, but also the efficiency of law enforcement and mutual trust between the Member States; to that effect, calls on the Council to adopt, as soon as possible, the proposal for a Council framework decision on the protection of personal data (COM(2005)0475);
Providing Union citizens with a high level of security against terrorism and organised crime
25. Considers that EU counter-terrorism policy should comply fully with the principles of democratic legitimacy, proportionality, efficiency and respect for human rights, in line with the conclusions of Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 14 February 2007 on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners(2);
26. Calls on the Commission and the Council to apply, in the context of the fight against international terrorism, the conclusions of the Temporary Committee on Alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners, as adopted by Parliament on 14 February 2007; recommends, in particular, that all the Community institutions should exercise vigilance in order to ensure that the Member States' security concerns under no circumstances undermine respect for the human rights of all individuals, including terrorist suspects;
27. Calls on the Community institutions and the Member States to take all possible measures to limit cooperation with third countries that protect and/or fund terrorist organisations; and stresses that a state must fully renounce terrorism before it may benefit from better relations with the EU; urges those states that have not done so to sign and/or ratify all of the UN conventions on terrorism;
28. Emphasises the multifaceted nature of the responses available to the EU, in the field of external action, to combat terrorism and emphasises the need to coherently use all available means; calls on Member States to further work towards a common UN definition of terrorism;
29. Recalls the need to assess the effectiveness of international initiatives in the field of anti-terrorism measures (e.g. current revision of the US Patriot Act); emphasises the importance of a proper Community policy on terrorism, as the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures will improve significantly if the EU speaks with one voice when negotiating such measures with third countries;
30. Recalls the need to enhance cooperation with all leading regional States in fields concerning the fight against terrorism, terrorist recruitment and financing and the protection of critical infrastructure, in a context of respect for fundamental rights and the values of the Union;
31. Calls on the Council to enhance the dialogue with other third countries, to support the development of institutional and capacity building, to further develop and implement the national action plans to counter corruption effectively and to insert counter-terrorism clauses in agreements signed with third countries; considers that greater funding and the use of the newly created Community instruments are needed in this area;
32. Urges those States that have not done so to sign and/or ratify instruments such as the UN Convention Against Corruption, the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the three Protocols thereto against the Smuggling of Migrants, Trafficking in Persons and the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;
33. Calls on the Council to require the EU's third-country partners to conclude, if they have not already done so, unified extradition agreements using as a model the agreements negotiated with the US on extradition and mutual legal assistance in penal matters for the extradition of alleged terrorist and criminal suspects to stand trial;
34. Stresses the need to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime in order to prevent the misuse, for terrorist and criminal purposes, of data and telecommunications networks accessed from computer systems in third countries;
35. Calls on the Commission and the Council to create standardised procedures for monitoring the production, storage, trade, transport, import and export of arms, explosives and weapons in order to prevent their misuse both within the EU and in third countries;
Strengthening police and judicial cooperation and borders management
36. Calls for more effective police and judicial cooperation, including improved common use of national resources such as liaison officers; stresses that, while the development of institutional capacity and operational cooperation are important in those fields, the EU's activities should be carried out in support of universal standards in relation to human rights;
37. Recommends that Europol should soon be given the power to organise and coordinate operational actions and investigations, to participate in joint investigation teams and to deploy its own liaison officers in priority regions, such as the Western Balkans;
38. Recommends that the EU should negotiate, on the basis of Article 30 TEU, standard police cooperation agreements with the US, ENP countries and other partners; demands that Parliament, as the legitimate democratic representative of the citizens concerned by such an agreement, be actively involved in the dialogue with the US Congress during the negotiations on the future agreement;
39. Supports the progress made as regards the information exchange between the EU and Russia but recalls that improvements are still possible, especially in the field of organised crime and terrorism;
40. Observes that significant improvements are necessary in EU-Russia cooperation in order to reduce the sources of instability in the EU and the ENP area, such as frozen conflicts in Moldova and Georgia and the violent radical tendencies among the Russian minorities in the EU Member States;
41. Urges the Council Presidency and the Commission to conclude international private law conventions which are necessary to safeguard the interests of European citizens in third countries and to work towards the reinforced credibility of the Union and its Member States in this process;
42. Welcomes the agreements on extradition and on judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the EU and the US, which can be considered as a true success; notes that Congress has begun the ratification process for those agreements, and calls on all the EU Member States to do the same; welcomes, in addition, the Eurojust-US cooperation agreement;
43. Calls on the US and all other countries which impose entry visa requirements on selected EU Member States to immediately lift the visa requirement and to treat all citizens of EU Member States equally; regrets the inclusion of an additional "information sharing clause" (a PNR clause) in the proposed changes to the US Visa Waiver Programme;
44. Considers that the EU and the US are crucial and loyal allies in the fight against terrorism and that an international agreement must be concluded in order to ensure that SWIFT complies with 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(3); calls for that international agreement to enshrine the necessary safeguards against any misuse of data for economic and commercial purposes; points out that SWIFT should cease its current practice of reproducing all data on its US mirror site;
45. Insists on the fact that effective border controls are crucial to the fight against illegal immigration, and can prove useful in certain cases for combating organised crime and terrorism;
46. Recommends that Frontex should play an operational role in the management of the external borders through an increase in its operational capacities and the provision of sufficient financial, human and technical resources, in application of the principle of solidarity and mutual assistance between Member States that all should share the burden of managing the Union's external borders;
47. Calls for further support to be given to the new Member States in their continued efforts to secure the new eastern external borders of the EU;
48. Supports the increased role of Eurojust and the harmonisation of the powers of its national members, which should enhance its ability to efficiently coordinate and initiate investigations and prosecutions;
Strengthening international solidarity as regards migration, readmission and asylum policies
49. Recommends that the Council adopt a common EU migration policy, including relevant measures to meet effectively the challenges of both legal and illegal immigration; in this context calls for the implementation of the conclusions adopted eight years ago at the Tampere European Council and confirmed by the Lahti informal European Council, of the Hague Programme, and of the conclusions of the December 2006 European Council with regard to the need to apply the global immigration strategy adopted in 2005;
50. Points out that immigration can bring about considerable benefits if properly managed, in solidarity and partnership with third countries, and that the integration of immigrants should be a key component of future EU migration policy; stresses that the EU's actions, aimed at improving the capacity of third countries to manage migration flows and their borders, must be carried out within an effective development policy, taking into account the specific economic and social situation and tackling the real sources of both legal and illegal migration, such as poverty and inadequate human rights in the countries concerned, and should include both aid to assist their capacity to manage migratory flows and aid for effective development and co-development;
51. Calls on the Council to introduce co-decision and qualified majority voting in the fields of legal migration and integration in order to improve decision-making and to complete the process begun in 2005 when the Community method was extended to illegal migration and border controls;
52. Calls on the Council and the Commission to make all possible efforts to ensure that the authorities of the countries of origin and transit cooperate effectively with the EU in order to prevent illegal immigration and combat the organisations involved in the trafficking of people; also calls on the Council and the Commission to undertake a regular assessment of the degree of cooperation of the third countries concerned as regards illegal immigration; stresses, in this connection, the importance of the third-country monitoring and evaluation mechanism for the fight against illegal immigration created by the Council in 2003 following the initiative of the European Council of 19 and 20 June 2003, held in Thessaloniki;
53. Calls for the establishment, without undue delay, of a common European asylum system and urges the Council to remove any barriers to its creation;
54. Considers the conclusion of readmission agreements as a priority within the wider strategy of combating illegal immigration; recalls the need to have clear, transparent and fair common rules on return; is concerned that readmission agreements signed on behalf of the EU do not explicitly exclude asylum seekers from the scope of the agreements and may, therefore, involve the readmission of asylum-seekers whose claims have not yet been determined on their merits, or whose claims have been rejected or deemed inadmissible pursuant to the application of the "safe third country" concept; calls for safeguards to ensure that the principle of non-refoulement is upheld;
55. Recommends negotiating directives on visa facilitation with third countries where possible and on the basis of reciprocity, with a view to developing a real partnership on migration management issues; calls on the Council to encourage the Member States to reduce the cost of visas in order to encourage democratic developments in ENP countries and to avoid creating, in the name of security, further barriers to the legitimate ordinary traveller;
56. Supports the Regional Protection Programmes developed by the Commission in close cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the third countries involved, and recalls that it is important to ensure that those who need protection are able to secure it as quickly as possible, regardless of which country or region they are in;
o o o
57. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, as well as to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia
124k
40k
European Parliament recommendation to the Council of 21 June 2007 concerning the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on action to combat racism and xenophobia (2007/2067(INI))
– having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council, tabled by Martine Roure on behalf of the PSE Group, concerning the progress of the negotiations on the framework decision on action to combat racism and xenophobia (B6-0076/2007),
– having regard to its position of 4 July 2002 on combating racism and xenophobia(1),
– having regard to Joint Action 96/443/JHA of 15 July 1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia)(2), ("the Joint Action")
– having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (COM(2001)0664)(3),
– having regard to the proposal for a 2005 Council framework decision entitled "Luxembourg Compromise"(4),
– having regard to the proposal for a Council framework decision of January 2007(5),
– having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 and in particular Article 20(2) thereof,
– having regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965,
– having regard to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime of 28 January 2003, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems(6),
– having regard to Rule 114(3) and Rule 94 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0151/2007),
A. whereas the annual reports of the European Monitoring Centre against Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), its comparative reports on racist crime and its two recent reports on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia demonstrate that racist crime is a constant and persistent problem in all the Member States: it is estimated that over 9 million people were victims of a racist crime in 2004,
B. whereas 2007 has been declared the European Year of Equal Opportunities for All and whereas particular emphasis should be placed in the course of this year on combating all forms of discrimination,
C. whereas it is necessary to maintain a balance between respect for freedom of expression and the fight against racism and xenophobia,
D. whereas, although a criminal policy in this area is desirable, it must take into account the fact that within a culture based on rights and freedoms, criminal law is always the last recourse to be used as sparingly as possible; whereas, also, legislative policy in this area must be weighted in the light of all the values at stake and in particular in the light of the conflict between freedom of expression and the right of every human being to equal consideration and respect,
E. whereas freedom of expression and association should be protected, unless it is exercised in order to advocate the use of force, violence or hatred, is intended to incite or give rise to unlawful acts and is likely to give rise to such acts,
F. whereas, although all the Member States have legislation designed to combat racism and xenophobia, there are major differences between the laws applicable; whereas such diversity points to the need for a certain degree of harmonisation at European level in order to ensure that effective action can be taken against cross-border and Europe-wide racism and xenophobia,
G. whereas racism and xenophobia must be vigorously combated throughout the European Union, primarily through education and through unrelenting social and political discourse exposing the arguments in their favour and isolating their advocates,
H. whereas, after six years of negotiations, the Council reached a political agreement at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting of 19 April 2007 on a draft framework decision on action to combat racism and xenophobia,
I. whereas this political agreement is the outcome of several years of negotiation and must serve as the starting point for the introduction of more substantial EU legislation in the field,
J. whereas Parliament adopted its above-mentioned position on 4 July 2002, whereas that position was, however, based on the Commission's initial 2001 proposal and whereas the political agreement of 19 April 2007 is the product of laborious negotiation and has consequently substantially modified the Commission's initial text; whereas, therefore, Parliament should be consulted again on the basis of this new text,
K. whereas the adoption of the framework decision will result in the repeal of the Joint Action, and whereas the framework decision should not be any less substantial than the Joint Action,
1. In view of the proposal for a framework decision on which a political agreement was reached at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting of 19 April 2007, addresses the following recommendations to the Council:
a)
send out a strong political message in support of a citizens" Europe and provide a high level of protection for fundamental rights by finalising the text as soon as possible and ensuring that it is publicised,
b)
make education towards peace, non-violence and respect for fundamental rights, and an interfaith and intercultural dialogue at EU level, the main instruments of the fight against racism and xenophobia,
c)
ensure that the framework decision contributes European added value over and above the Joint Action,
d)
together with the Commission, apply more actively existing anti-discrimination and anti-racist legislation and Treaty provisions, and monitor closely the future transposition and implementation of the framework decision in each Member State, and report back to Parliament; ensure that the Commission starts infringement proceedings against those Member States which fail to implement the legislation,
e)
recognise that some Member States have criminalised the denial or flagrant trivialisation of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes,
f)
insert in the final text of the framework decision the definition of racist and xenophobic offences which is already included in the above-mentioned Commission proposal pursuant to which "directing, supporting or participating in the activities of a racist or xenophobic group with the intention of contributing to the organisation's criminal activities" would be punishable as a criminal offence,
g)
exclude the notion of a public order offence, since it is not based on a precise definition of that concept, and define what constitutes threatening, abusive or insulting conduct which Member States may decide is or is not punishable,
h)
incorporate a non-regression clause such as the one contained in Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(7), in order to ensure that the implementation of the framework decision does not lead to a weakening of existing forms of protection,
i)
ensure that implementation of the framework decision will not undermine any obligation imposed pursuant to the above-mentioned International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
j)
set up, under the aegis of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, a unit for the purpose of monitoring similar offences in the Member States, its task being to record, store and classify data,
k)
ensure that the framework decision is satisfactorily implemented by allowing the Commission report to take account of the opinions of the Fundamental Rights Agency and the non-governmental organisations concerned, in accordance with the model established in Directive 2000/43/EC,
l)
introduce a comprehensive legal framework enabling discrimination to be combated in all its forms, through the swift adoption of a comprehensive directive on the fight against discrimination (pursuant to Article 13 of the Treaty) which should provide for effective, proportionate and deterrent penal sanctions for all forms of discrimination, as well as administrative sanctions, rehabilitative sanctions such as mandatory education and community service, or fines, which, in the case of public figures and representatives of the authorities, should be more severe owing to the fact that their status should be considered to be an aggravating circumstance,
m)
take into account the fact that there should be no hierarchy among the grounds for discrimination listed in Article 13 of the Treaty and that, accordingly, these forms of discrimination deserve equal attention from the Council; include within the scope of criminal liability hate crimes and violent crimes based on those grounds or a combination of those grounds (multiple discrimination),
n)
undertake to carry out, within no more than three years after the time limit for transposition of the framework decision, a revision of the provisions of the framework decision, on the basis of an evaluation report to be forwarded to it by the various Member States on the application of Article 1 in particular, with the aim of reducing the scope of derogations,
2. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.
Decision-making in the common European asylum system
134k
51k
European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on asylum: practical cooperation, quality of decision-making in the common European asylum system (2006/2184(INI))
– having regard to Article 63(1) and (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community,
– having regard to Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status(1),
– having regard to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted(2),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national(3) (Dublin II Regulation),
– having regard to Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers(4),
– having regard to the Hague Programme of 4 and 5 November 2004,
– having regard to its position of 27 September 2005 on the draft Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status(5),
– having regard to the Commission Communication on strengthened practical cooperation: new structures, new approaches: improving the quality of decision-making in the common European asylum system (COM(2006)0067),
– having regard to the Commission Communication on adaptation of the provisions of Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice with a view to ensuring more effective judicial protection (COM(2006)0346),
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0182/2007),
A. whereas international conventions, including the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, must be fully observed and the principle of non-refoulement must always be upheld,
B. whereas the first phase of the introduction of the common asylum system was completed with the adoption of the four instruments provided for in Article 63(1) of the EC Treaty; whereas there are both political and technical difficulties which will have to be overcome before the second phase of the system can be launched, the aim of which is to introduce a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for persons entitled to asylum or subsidiary protection; and whereas it is to be hoped that the deadline for completing this phase, 2010, will be met,
C. whereas it had already lent its backing to the definition of 'refugee', when it appeared in Council Directive 2004/83/EC and that definition is therefore also valid for this resolution,
D. whereas, when it comes to implementing joint standards, the adoption of directives is only a first step, and whereas this phase must necessarily be followed by the proper implementation in all Member States of the provisions adopted at Community level; whereas scrutiny of that implementation process by the Commission constitutes a highly significant task for which appropriate resources must therefore be made available,
E. whereas the instruments adopted thus far in the area of asylum policy have only set minimum standards, and bearing in mind that the tendency to agree on a lowest common denominator must be overcome in order to avoid a race to the bottom, lowering the protection and the quality of reception, of procedures, and of protection,
F. whereas in the Hague Programme of 4 and 5 November 2004, the European Council called on the Council and the Commission to establish suitable structures involving the national asylum services of the Member States, with a view to facilitating practical cooperation, and whereas stepping up this practical cooperation and exchange of information and details of proven procedures between the Member States represents an important means of achieving the goal of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status",
G. whereas strengthening mutual trust is a cornerstone of the process of establishing a common asylum system, and whereas practical and regular cooperation between the various administrative levels in the Member States is the best method of establishing such trust; whereas strengthening mutual trust is necessary to ensure quality and also to increase public confidence in the management of asylum, thereby facilitating a less adversarial and more efficient process,
H. whereas the effective implementation of asylum policy is contingent on efforts to achieve a number of complementary objectives, such as improving the quality of decision-making, the prompt and secure processing of applications for protection and the organisation of information campaigns in countries of origin and transit which make clear the scope for legal immigration, the arrangements for securing refugee status or humanitarian protection, the dangers involved in trafficking in human beings, in particular women and unaccompanied minors, and the consequences both of illegal immigration and of denial of refugee status,
I. whereas, with a view to improving the processing of asylum applications, and thus reducing the number of court proceedings and procedural delays, it may make sense to draw on support from relevant organisations, for example UNHCR, which has developed a method intended to support authorities in their efforts to improve the quality of their decision-making (Quality Initiative),
J. whereas, as the Justice and Home Affairs Council stated on 27 and 28 April 2006, efforts must be made to introduce a uniform procedure with a view to preventing delays and thus making a practical contribution to improving the effectiveness of the procedures,
K. whereas, despite the existence of a common set of basic asylum-related measures adopted since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, at national level the Member States continue to implement measures or take decisions which have implications for the other Member States, in particular as regards the granting of international protection,
L. whereas Article 29 of Directive 2005/85/EC provides for the drawing-up of a minimum common list of third countries regarded as safe countries of origin, and noting that on the one hand this list has still not been drawn up and on the other hand that the Council did not take into account Parliament's opinion when adopting that Directive, for which reason an action for annulment of Directive 2005/85/CE is now pending before the Court of Justice of the European Communities (the Court of Justice); whereas such a list should be adopted under the codecision procedure; whereas the inclusion of a country on that list does not mean automatically that asylum seekers from that country will be basically refused asylum, but rather that, according to the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 (Geneva Convention), there is an individual assessment of every single application,
M. whereas it is a matter for regret that the Council did not see fit to employ the codecision procedure in connection with the drawing-up of the list of safe countries of origin, and whereas the judgment which the Court of Justice will hand down on this issue is awaited with interest,
N. whereas the Member States must have high quality information about current dangers in countries of origin at their disposal if they are to guarantee reliable and fair procedures which ensure that asylum seekers" rights are respected,
O. whereas violence and the threat of violence against women constitute a breach of the right to life, safety, freedom, dignity and physical and emotional integrity, as well as being a serious threat to the physical and mental health of the victims of such violence,
P. whereas although there are technical and political problems which hamper the sharing of sensitive information about countries of origin, a joint database on countries of origin must surely ultimately be set up, so that all persons involved in the procedure can rely on the same information when dealing with an individual application,
Q. whereas if decision-making procedures are to be improved the level of training of the civil servants who take the decisions will have to be raised,
R. whereas the procedure best suited to enabling the Court of Justice to guarantee the unity of Community law is the preliminary ruling procedure laid down in Article 234 of the EC Treaty, and whereas a key component of that procedure is the principle that any national court may ask the Court of Justice for a ruling; whereas, however, on the basis of the derogation from that principle laid down in Article 68 of the EC Treaty, the Court of Justice is unfortunately empowered to interpret asylum-related provisions only if consulted by the national court of final instance,
1. Welcomes the efforts made to improve practical cooperation in the common European asylum system; considers that improving quality in procedures and decisions is in the interests of both the Member States and asylum-seekers;
2. Reaffirms the need for a proactive common EU asylum policy, based on the obligation to admit asylum seekers and on respect for the principle of non-refoulement; recalls, in this respect, the fundamental role of a strong Common Foreign and Security Policy, promoting and safeguarding democracy and fundamental rights;
3. Emphasises once again that the ultimate objective of introducing a common asylum system must be to ensure a high quality of protection, of assessment of individual asylum claims, and of procedures resulting in duly substantiated and fair decisions; points out that improvement in the quality of decision making must ensure that those in need of protection may enter the EU safely and have their claims properly processed, and ensure strict adherence to international standards of human rights and refugee law, in particular to the principle of non-refoulement;
4. Condemns the clearly inadequate resources available to the Commission to monitor the implementation of the various directives which deal with asylum-related matters, and urges the Member States to facilitate the Commission's task by systematically submitting to it a table of equivalences setting out exactly what measures have been taken to implement which provisions of those directives;
5. Calls on the Council and the Commission to work to bring about the introduction in all Member States of a single procedure which makes for fair and effective decision-making, in order to ensure that refugee status is granted as quickly as possible to all those who are entitled to it;
6. Points out, with regard to the conditions and procedures for granting international protection and, in particular, subsidiary protection, that as long as asylum-related legal provisions are based on minimum standards and on the lowest common denominator, differences between the Member States will continue to exist and 'asylum shopping' will remain an issue;
7. Emphasises that one of the objectives of the asylum-related instruments adopted is to curb so-called 'secondary' movements; therefore urges the Member States to take practical steps to achieve the highest possible degree of convergence among their respective asylum policies;
8. Takes the view that one of the improvements to be made to the EU asylum system should consist, for the sake of greater solidarity, in a fairer share of the burden carried in particular by those Member States at the external borders of the EU, and already awaits with interest the Commission's assessment of the Dublin II Regulation and any proposals it may make in this area;
9. Considers that due note should be taken of the fact that civil servants responsible for decisions granting refugee status must have proper training on the basis of a European curriculum, with the possibility of obligatory qualifications or an obligatory level of qualification being introduced;
10. Calls for information campaigns to be carried out in countries of origin and transit with a view to making clear to potential migrants both the risks inherent in illegal immigration and the consequences of denial of refugee status, and the scope for legal migration and the possibility to apply for asylum in a justified case, as well as the dangers involved in trafficking in human beings, in particular women and unaccompanied minors;
11. Calls - once judicial remedies have been exhausted - for measures applicable to persons who have not been granted refugee status or whose refugee status has been revoked to be implemented quickly and fairly with full respect for the human dignity and fundamental rights of the persons who have to be repatriated; calls furthermore in this respect for the establishment in the shortest possible term of a EU repatriation procedure;
12. Calls for the measures applicable to persons who have been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection to be implemented quickly and fairly, in order that decent living conditions, effective integration in social and political life and shared active involvement in decisions taken by the host community may be fostered;
13. Calls on the Commission to overcome as quickly as possible the technical and political problems involved in introducing a joint database containing information about countries of origin; considers that an EU database should work as an open system, so that all persons involved in the procedure can rely on the same information when dealing with an individual application; hopes that a pragmatic solution can be found to the problem of multilingualism;
14. Notes on the one hand the previous Commission's efforts, pursuant to the provisions of Article 29 of Directive 2005/85/EC, to draw up a list of safe countries of origin, but recalls on the other hand the pending judgment of the action for annulment which was brought before the Court of Justice concerning that Directive, for which reason the drafting of such a list is currently suspended; and calls on the Council to take into account these contrasting elements and to make decisions accordingly; points out, furthermore, that the safe third country concept does not exempt Member States from their obligations under international law, in particular the provisions laid down in the Geneva Convention concerning the principle of non-refoulement and the individual assessment of every single application for asylum;
15. Takes the view that coordinating activities in connection with practical cooperation on asylum-related matters must remain the task of the Commission, which must be provided with resources appropriate to that task; calls on the Commission to advocate that option in the report which it will submit in early 2008 concerning progress with the first phase of activities and, if it chooses another option, to justify why the establishment of a new structure in the form of a 'European Support Office' is considered necessary, whereas the cost-benefit ratio should be taken into account; takes the view that if the Commission envisages the creation of a European Support Office, it should be under a strict obligation to include guarantees of its transparency and accountability;
16. Calls on the Member States to cooperate fully with UNHCR, to provide it with the appropriate support and to carry out a "Quality Initiative" exercise and publish the results of that initiative, so as to familiarise people with and encourage the use of best practices with regard to the processing of applications for international protection;
17. Considers it unacceptable that asylum seekers should be held in conditions which deprive them of their individual freedom;
18. Stresses the need to establish reception centres with separate facilities for families, women and children and suitable facilities for elderly and disabled asylum-seekers; calls for reception conditions to be assessed as part of measures implementing Directive 2003/9/EC; stresses, in this connection, the need for full use to be made of the opportunities afforded by the new European Refugee Fund;
19. Welcomes the measures planned by the Commission to support those Member States which are under severe pressure, so that they can cope with problems relating to the reception of asylum seekers and the assessment of asylum applications; welcomes, in particular and above all, the proposal to send teams of experts comprising members from different Member States;
20. Emphasises that it is the Commission's task to monitor the application of asylum-related directives and that the resources made available to it for this purpose currently fall well short of those needed to carry out such a comprehensive task successfully; takes the view that the credibility of the Union in this area and the future of the common asylum policy are at stake;
21. Encourages the Commission to make it easier to access financial instruments such as the European Refugee Fund and the ARGO Programme so as to enable Member States to obtain funding swiftly in an emergency;
22. Points out that the body of Community law created in the area of asylum policy must be uniformly interpreted and applied throughout the Union; takes the view that harmonisation in the area of asylum policy will be facilitated and speeded up if the Court of Justice can in future be consulted by courts other than national courts of final instance, as is currently the case; calls on the Council, therefore, to restore to the Court of Justice its full powers in the area of preliminary rulings granted to it pursuant to Title IV of the EC Treaty; welcomes the Court of Justice Discussion Paper on the treatment of questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the area of freedom, security and justice(6) and encourages discussion on the need for a procedure that is adapted to the specific nature of cases in the field of asylum and immigration;
23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
– having regard to the Commission Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis (COM(2006)0744) and the EC Consumer Law Compendium – Comparative Analysis(1),
– having regard to the public hearing, and to the expert studies presented at that hearing, on consumer confidence in the digital environment, which took place at the European Parliament on 24 January 2007,
– having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Articles 95 and 153 thereof,
– having regard to its resolutions of 23 March 2006 on European contract law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward(2) and of 7 September 2006 on European contract law(3),
– having regard to current Community legislation in the area of consumer protection, e-commerce and the development of the information society,
– having regard to the German Presidency Charter entitled "Consumer sovereignty in a digital world",
– having regard to the Commission Communication on fighting spam, spyware and malicious software (COM(2006)0688),
– having regard to the Commission Communication on the Review of the EU Regulatory Framework for electronic communications networks and services (COM(2006)0334),
– having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0191/2007),
A. whereas digital technology is a part of everyday life, the information and communication technology (ICT) industry plays a major role in providing platforms, devices, software, information services, communication, entertainment, and cultural goods, the boundary between goods and services is becoming blurred, various forms of ICT are converging, methods of purchase are diversifying and consumers are increasingly generating content for or adding value to products; whereas, moreover, in this complex new structure, it is increasingly difficult to identify who is providing a particular part of a service and to understand the impact of specific technology and new business models,
B. whereas European consumer and business confidence in the digital environment is low and whereas in certain aspects of e-commerce Europe is lagging behind the United States and Asia,
C. whereas, despite the potential of digital communication, only 6 % of consumers engage in cross-border e-commerce in goods, services and content, although this figure is rising,
D. whereas, despite the potential of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), such systems are regularly used by only 3 % of retailers, and 41 % of retailers do not know about the possibilities of using these tools,
E. whereas the development of the EU digital market would considerably increase the EU's competitiveness in global trade,
F. whereas net neutrality deserves in-depth investigation and close monitoring at the European level in order to unleash and fully exploit its potential to boost consumer choice and make it possible also for new businesses to have equal access to the internal market,
G. whereas the fragmentation of part of the electronic market within the EU endangers the rights laid down in the acquis communautaire,
H. whereas the digital divide is social and geographical, and whereas those left behind by digital developments are often in disadvantaged and rural areas,
I. whereas European consumers and businesses enjoy little legal certainty for cross-border e-commerce within the EU in comparison with national transactions and transactions outside the EU,
J. whereas one single electronic transaction is subject to many legal provisions setting divergent requirements, which does not provide either business operators or consumers with clear and easily enforceable rules,
K. whereas the future of the information society very much depends on the challenge of ensuring adequate protection of personal data as well as a high level of security in the electronic environment,
1. Calls on the Commission to support a suitable framework for the development of e-commerce that would boost the current low level of consumer confidence, create a more attractive business environment, improve the quality of legislation, reinforce consumer rights and the position of small business operators on the market, and stop the fragmentation of the internal market in the digital environment; in that respect, welcomes the communication from the Commission on the EU Consumer Policy strategy 2007-2013 - Empowering consumers, enhancing their welfare, effectively protecting them (COM(2007)0099);
2. Calls on the Commission, in addition to seeking to improve the quality of consumer legislation, to focus on developing appropriate rules for cross-border e-commerce in the form of standards to which holders of the European trustmark for cross-border e-commerce would adhere voluntarily;
3. Calls on the Commission to propose a strategy for increasing consumer confidence in the digital environment as a whole, building on experience gathered as part of the "e-confidence" initiative(4);
4. Is convinced of the need to implement in practice and without delay the 'e-inclusion' initiative; therefore calls on the Commission to urge the Member States which are signatories to this pan-European initiative to take action to this end;
5. Is convinced that there should be a broader definition of "consumer" which is better suited to the information society;
6. Is convinced that small business operators deserve specific protection to enhance their position on the market in the information society;
7. Emphasises that factors exist that give rise to a lack of consumer confidence in the digital environment, and therefore considers it necessary to pursue an active policy and to support specific mechanisms to help boost consumer confidence by ensuring that transactions in the digital environment can be safely carried out in a proper manner;
8. Calls on the Commission, pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation)(5), to conclude consumer protection cooperation agreements with third countries (particularly those within the OECD), which would improve the enforceability of consumer rights in the digital environment;
9. Welcomes the Commission's initiative to review and update the consumer acquis, and particularly the strong focus on e-commerce;
Increasing consumer confidence in the digital environment
10. Considers that a new e-confidence strategy would contribute to raising consumer confidence, particularly by means of progress in the following areas:
–
creating a grant programme and making use of existing financial programmes for projects aimed at increasing consumer confidence in the digital environment, including educational and information campaigns and projects verifying online services in practice (such as "mystery shopping"),
–
creating an electronic learning module relating directly to consumer protection and the rights of users in the digital environment in connection with the Dolceta (Development of On-Line Consumer Education Tools for Adults) project, which would at the same time take into consideration the specific interests of young consumers in the digital environment,
–
supporting educational and information projects designed to raise small and medium-sized enterprises' awareness of their obligations when they provide or supply goods, services or content across a border in the digital environment,
–
strengthening traditional consumer protection instruments to ensure that they are used effectively in the digital environment as well, especially by broadening the objectives of the European Consumer Centres,
–
removing obstacles faced by entrepreneurs operating across borders in the digital environment, for example by standardising EU rules governing cross-border electronic invoicing ('e-invoicing'),
–
creating a pan-European forum of experts to exchange best national practice and to also present a long-term legislative and non-legislative strategy for increasing consumer confidence in the digital environment,
–
carrying out impact studies on all legislative proposals relating to the internal market in order to assess the effects which those proposals would have on consumers in the digital environment,
–
coordination of, and support for, European self-regulatory codices in accordance with best practice and with the most important aspects of effective self-regulation (including assessment of their influence on improving the position of consumers on the market in the digital environment),
–
introducing the requirement for an external audit to be carried out in respect of certain specific types of electronic services where there is a greater need to ensure that those services are fully secure, to protect personal information and data (in the case, for example, of internet banking), and so on,
–
supporting the mandatory use of the most secure kinds of technology for online payments,
–
creating a European early-warning system, including a database, to combat fraudulent activities in the digital environment; this database should provide the possibility for consumers to report fraudulent behaviour using a simple online form,
–
calling for the launch of a European information campaign on the counterfeiting of medicines sold on the internet, stressing the serious public health danger this represents;
11. Highlights the importance of timely and effective transposition of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive)(6) by all Member States as a key instrument guaranteeing consumer protection in cross-border transactions;
12. Considers also that a relaunched e-confidence initiative should not only deal with consumer protection but also set out a coordinated approach to the issue of the digital environment as a whole, including analyses of non-market factors such as the protection of privacy, access by the general public to information technologies ("e-inclusion"), internet security, and so on;
13. Insists that the European population's right to access the digital environment is paramount and recalls in this respect the importance of implementing appropriate financial and legal tools in order to promote e-inclusion, notably by enforcing and if necessary extending universal service obligations in the field of electronic communications, as well as by making financial resources available for investments in the development of digital communication infrastructure;
14. Is convinced that interested parties (representatives of industry and of consumer organisations) must be consulted on future steps;
e-commerce culture
15. Calls on the Commission to begin formulating voluntary European standards designed to facilitate cross-border e-commerce, namely European standards designed to bridge language differences and variations between the laws in force within the various Member States - this being a factor which constitutes a serious obstacle preventing both consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises from fully exploiting the internal market's potential in the digital environment;
16. Calls on the Commission to support the creation of optional standardised contracts and voluntary standardised general terms and conditions of trade for e-commerce in order to ensure a balanced relationship, in view of the fact that neither consumers nor businesses are usually legal and technical experts, but nevertheless to leave the option for parties to contract freely, based on the fundamental civil law principle of the freedom to contract;
17. Calls on the Commission to establish the requirement for entrepreneurs who voluntarily use standardised contracts and standardised general commercial terms and conditions to highlight provisions which differ therefrom;
18. Calls on the Commission to propose that the rules governing electronic communications be amended to improve transparency and publication of information to end-users;
European trustmark for cross-border e-commerce
19. Calls on the Commission, when the obstacles to the integration of the retail side of the internal market have been removed, to assess the possibilities for establishing a definition of conditions and a logo for a European trustmark in order to guarantee greater certainty in the area of cross-border e-commerce, and in this connection to ensure a general legal framework for voluntary trustmarks, as it was called on to do in Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)(7); recommends that this should involve:
–
an inexpensive system,
–
non-competition with existing trust or quality marks,
–
costs being borne only in the event of dispute,
–
the self-regulatory principle (the mark is not awarded institutionally, but traders use it if they publicly demonstrate that they have provided compulsory information within a defined timescale, used recommended contracts, dealt with complaints without delay, used ADR systems or conformed to other European standards),
–
penalties for improper use;
20. Notes, however, the following problems with implementing effective trustmark schemes:
–
the unwillingness of stakeholders to invest in the marketing and promotion of such schemes;
–
the increased possibilities for fraudulent use in the absence of proper supervision;
21. Is convinced that the most effective ways of encouraging consumer confidence are:
–
sector-specific schemes, strongly supported and policed by a trade body with pan-industry support from small and large enterprises;
–
sector-specific codes of conduct for service providers, as encouraged by Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market(8) ("the Services Directive");
–
independent consumer references posted on websites to assist new consumers when making choices;
and asks the Commission to facilitate the exchange of best practice in relation to such schemes;
22. Notes that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive covers the fraudulent use of trustmarks or other marks, as well as false consumer references; asks Member States to ensure that their national consumer protection centres are alerted to such abuses;
23. Calls on the Commission to assess the experience already gained with existing and successful trustmarks, in particular those operating in more than one Member State, such as the Euro-Label, and to make use of that experience when devising the EU trustmark for cross-border e-commerce (including verification as to whether the dissemination of trustmarks in the new Member States might be hindered by a lack of adequate resources for financing the introduction of such marks);
24. Firmly believes that trustmarks offer small and medium-sized enterprises in particular a significant opportunity for building up consumer trust in the digital environment;
European charter of users" rights in the information society
25. Calls on the Commission, after consulting consumers' organisations, to present a European charter of users" rights that would clarify the rights and obligations of information society players, including consumers, notably users" rights relating to digital content (i.e. users" rights and obligations when using digital content), users" rights guaranteeing basic interoperability standards, and the rights of particularly vulnerable users (i.e. improving the accessibility of internet pages for disabled persons); in the event of it being temporarily impossible to prepare the charter due to the dynamic development of this area, calls on the Commission to present a guide explaining the rights and obligations of information society players under the current acquis;
26. Calls on the Commission to establish basic users" freedoms and rights in the information society; considers that, in this respect, some users" freedoms and rights should be established within the framework of the forthcoming Communication on Content Online in the Single Market;
27. Takes the view that the online environment and also digital technology enable consumers to be offered a wide range of new products and services, and that intellectual property forms the very basis of such services; considers that consumers - in order to profit fully from such services and have their expectations fulfilled - need clear information on what they can and cannot do with regard to digital content, digital rights management and technological protection matters; is convinced that consumers should be entitled to interoperable solutions;
28. Calls on the Commission to disseminate the European charter of users' rights, and to encourage Member States and organisations concerned to disseminate it widely to all internet users, so that those users are aware of their rights and are able to enforce them;
Fragmentation of the internal market in the digital environment
29. Calls on the Commission to propose measures to stop the fragmentation of the internal market in the digital environment (i.e. refusal of access to goods, services and content offered in a cross-border context), which significantly affects consumers mainly in new and small Member States solely on the basis of nationality, place of residence or whether they own a payment card issued in a particular Member State, and to keep Parliament regularly informed on progress made in this area;
30. Firmly believes that it is unacceptable that certain entrepreneurs who supply goods or provide services and content via the internet in several Member States deny consumers access to their websites in certain Member States and force consumers to use their websites in the State in which the consumer is resident or whose nationality he or she holds;
31. Calls on the Commission to propose a provision for access to products delivered cross-border, in line with Article 20 of the Services Directive;
32. Calls on the Commission to closely monitor the effectiveness of Article 20 of the Services Directive, in particular with regard to objective criteria;
33. Welcomes the fact that the Commission is investigating how the practice of territorial licensing or exclusive territorial contracts conflicts with the internal market, and encourages it and calls on it to comprehensively inform the Parliament about the findings of these investigations;
34. Stresses the importance of ensuring that European entrepreneurs in the digital environment have good reason to offer goods, services and content across borders throughout the entire internal market;
35. Notes that interoperability is a crucial economic factor and stresses the importance of industry-driven, accessible, interoperable standards at a technical and legal level so as to enable economies of scale, ensure non-discriminatory access to devices, services and content for consumers, promote the fast deployment of technologies and contribute to avoiding market fragmentation; stresses that true interoperability of devices, services and content at least at the consumer (end-user) level should be promoted;
Strengthening consumers" legal protection in the digital environment
36. Is convinced that greater consumer confidence in the digital environment would be made possible by a clearer and improved consumer acquis communautaire geared towards horizontal legal instruments and the harmonisation of certain aspects of consumer contract law; calls on the Commission to present, to Parliament and the Council, a report on the implementation of the e-commerce directive, identifying questions related to consumer confidence;
37. Welcomes the suggestion made by the Commission in its Green Paper on the Review of the Consumer Acquis to include digital files within the scope of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees(9);
38. Is convinced that the application of the regime on unfair contract terms should be reinforced in the field of end-user licence agreements and should include technical contract terms;
39. Calls on the Commission to propose that the rules regulating distance contracts be extended to cover contracts concluded between consumers and professional traders in online auctions and contracts for tourist services (airline tickets, hotel accommodation, car rental, leisure time services and so on) ordered individually over the internet;
40. Calls on the Commission to simplify and standardise the requirements for mandatory information provided by the vendor to the purchaser in e-commerce transactions and in the context of such information to prioritise essential mandatory information;
41. Calls on the Commission to make the supply chain in the digital environment more transparent in such a way as to ensure that the consumer always knows the identity of the supplier and whether the supplier is an intermediary or an end supplier;
42. Firmly believes it to be unacceptable that consumers are redirected from the vendor's website to other websites without being properly warned, since this causes the true identity of the actual supplier of the goods, services or content to be concealed from the consumer;
43. Calls on the Commission to strengthen consumer protection in cases where the consumer assumes all contractual risks, for example by paying in advance, and particularly in electronic contracts;
44. Calls on the Commission to speed up its consideration of action on collective redress mechanisms for cross border business-to-consumers (B2C) disputes in the digital environment;
45. Recalling the positive experiences of SOLVIT and of the network of European Consumer Centres, calls for the creation of a European e-consumer information system which would offer all European e-consumers detailed guidance and information about consumer and business rights and obligations in the digital environment and practical orientation regarding ADR possibilities, both at a general level and, where relevant, in individual cases as well;
46. Calls on the Commission to ensure that consumers are effectively protected against security and privacy attacks in the digital environment through both regulatory and technical measures;
47. Calls on the Commission to monitor in detail trends in consumer protection in e-commerce carried out by means of mobile telephones, with emphasis to be placed inter alia on the protection of young consumers;
48. Calls on the Member States to cooperate in striving to achieve the objective of a high level of consumer protection in the digital environment throughout the entire internal market;
49. Calls on the Commission to notify Parliament of the progress made as regards consumer protection in the digital environment, including practical steps taken towards fulfilment of this resolution, at regular intervals (ideally once per year);
o o o
50. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.
– having regard to its earlier resolutions on the situation in Cuba and, in particular, those of 17 November 2004(1) and 2 February 2006(2),
– having regard to its previous resolutions on the Annual Reports on Human Rights in the World for 2004, 2005 and 2006, and to the EU's policy on the matter of 28 April 2005(3), 18 May 2006(4) and 26 April 2007(5) respectively,
– having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2006 on the follow-up to the Sakharov Prize(6),
– having regard to the declaration of the Council Presidency of 14 December 2005 on the Damas de Blanco and to its earlier declarations of 26 March 2003 and 5 June 2003 on the situation in Cuba,
– having regard to the Council Common Position 96/697/CFSP(7) on Cuba, which was adopted on 2 December 1996 and has been periodically updated,
– having regard to the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 18 June 2007 on Cuba,
– having regard to Rule 115 of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas protecting the universality and indivisibility of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, remains one of the European Union's main objectives,
B. whereas dozens of independent journalists, peaceful dissidents and defenders of human rights, who are members of the democratic opposition and, in most cases, linked to the Varela project are still being held in jail, some of them seriously ill and many of them close relatives of the Damas de Blanco,
C. whereas Parliament awarded the 2005 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to the Damas de Blanco; whereas the refusal of the Cuban authorities to allow the Damas de Blanco to travel to the seat of Parliament to receive their award violates one of the basic human rights, namely the right freely to leave and return to one's own country, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
D. whereas Parliament decided to send a delegation to Cuba to ascertain the situation of the Sakharov Prize laureates; deploring the Cuban authorities' refusal to issue visas to the members of that delegation,
E. whereas, furthermore, Parliament's 2002 Sakharov laureate, Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, has been systematically denied the freedom to leave Cuba and to accept the invitations issued by Parliament and by other EU bodies,
F. having regard to the need for Cuba to launch a process of political transition to multi-party democracy, with participation and decision-making open to all Cubans on the basis of an open-ended dialogue that excludes no-one,
G. whereas, as the Council has recognised, no tangible results have been achieved on human rights in Cuba, despite the goodwill shown by the Council in 2005 when it suspended the complementary measures to the common position,
H. whereas the political dialogue between the EU and the Cuban Government, according to the Council's conclusions, must neither forget nor neglect the direct 'intensive dialogue with civil society and the peaceful opposition', and should follow the EU's 'views on democracy, universal human rights and fundamental freedoms', as well as its 'worldwide policy of support to human rights defenders',
I. whereas the most recent revision of the Council's common position implied that the high-level visits to Havana should include meetings with both the Cuban authorities and the peaceful democratic opposition and civil society, and that the human rights situation should be an obligatory subject of discussion,
J. regretting the UN Human Rights Council decision to discontinue monitoring human rights abuses in Cuba,
1. Regrets the fact that, despite a first temporary transfer of power in 48 years from Fidel Castro to a collective leadership headed by his brother Raúl Castro, the political, economic and social system in Cuba remains essentially unchanged;
2. Regrets the absence of any significant signs on the part of the Cuban authorities in response to the EU's calls for full respect for fundamental freedoms, especially freedom of expression and political association;
3. Regrets the failure to respond to the call of Parliament and the Council for the immediate release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, and insists that imprisoning Cuban dissidents for their ideals and their peaceful political activity is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
4. Urges the Council and Commission to continue to take whatever action is necessary in order to demand the release of political prisoners and ensure that an immediate stop is put to the harassment of political opponents and defenders of human rights;
5. Urges the EU institutions to give their unconditional support and full encouragement to launching a peaceful process of political transition to a multi-party democracy in Cuba, in line with Council Common Position 96/697/CFSP;
6. Welcomes the agreement recently reached by the Cuban opposition groups under the document 'Unidad por la Libertad' ('Unity for Freedom'); calls on the Commission to prepare an action plan for the dissemination of that document among the Cuban people;
7. Recalls that reconciliation and mutual understanding must include all Cubans who are willing to work peacefully for freedom, democracy and harmony;
8. Urges the EU institutions to continue their dialogue with Cuba's civil society and offer their support for peaceful change in Cuba, through development cooperation instruments including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights(8);
9. Stresses that Council Common Position 96/697/CFSP remains entirely valid, as do its objectives; deeply regrets the fact that the high-level visits of the EU institutions and the Member States that have taken place to date have involved talks with all the authorities of the Cuban regime but no direct meetings with the representatives of the peaceful democratic opposition or political prisoners' relatives;
10. Confirms its decision to send an official delegation of Parliament to Cuba, and urges the Cuban authorities to alter their position and allow the entry of such a delegation;
11. Urges the Cuban authorities immediately to allow the Damas de Blanco to leave the island so that they can accept Parliament's invitation, and instructs its President to take all possible steps to ensure that the prize winners can indeed receive the Sakharov Prize in person;
12. Renews its invitation to Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, and demands that the Cuban authorities permit him to travel to Europe so that he can address the Community institutions;
13. Demands that the Cuban authorities permit members of the political opposition, human rights activists and all citizens to travel abroad freely and return freely to Cuba.
14. Notes that the Council has decided to invite a Cuban delegation to Brussels in order to resume a comprehensive and open political dialogue with the Cuban authorities; hopes that when that visit is prepared the Council will address in its talks with the Cuban Government the invitations of the EU institutions to the Damas de Blanco and Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas as well as Parliament's desire to send a delegation to Cuba;
15. Considers it extremely important that any strengthening of political and economic relations - including development aid - between the EU and the Cuban authorities, which might derive from a comprehensive and open political dialogue, be linked to concrete and verifiable improvements of the human rights conditions of all Cuban citizens, starting with the release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience;
16. Condemns any policy of sex discrimination and repression such as that effective in Cuba to date and welcomes the educational campaigns on sex discrimination that are currently implemented by the Cuban national centre for sex education;
17. Recalls that the next revision of the Council Common Position is scheduled for June 2008;
18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EUROLAT Assembly, the Cuban Government and National Assembly of People's Power, and the Damas de Blanco and Oswaldo Payá Sardiñas, winners of Parliament's Sakharov Prize.
Regulation (EC) No 1889/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 1).
Ethiopia
178k
41k
European Parliament resolution of 21 June 2007 on the situation in Ethiopia
– having regard to its previous resolutions on the post-election crisis and serious human rights violations, in particular those of 7 July 2005 on the human rights situation in Ethiopia(1), of 13 October 2005 on the situation in Ethiopia(2), of 15 December 2005 on the situation in Ethiopia and the new border conflict(3), of 16 November 2006 on Ethiopia(4) and of 10 May 2007 on the Horn of Africa: EU regional political partnership for peace, security and development(5),
– having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas on 11 June 2007 an Ethiopian court found 38 senior opposition figures guilty of charges related to mass protests following disputed elections two years ago, ranging from "outrage against the constitution" to aggravated high treason,
B. whereas sentencing is expected next month and most of the accused could face the death penalty,
C. whereas among those found guilty were Hailu Shawel, President of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy, Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, former Chair of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, Dr Yacob Hailemariam, UN Special Envoy and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Dr Berhanu Nega, Mayor-elect of Addis Ababa, and Ms Birtukan Mideksa, former judge, all of whom have been declared "prisoners of conscience" by Amnesty International,
D. whereas the 38 prisoners, who all refused to plead guilty, were among the estimated 30 000 people arrested in a government crackdown on demonstrators protesting against fraud and vote-rigging by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi's government in the 2005 polls,
E. whereas the Commission of Inquiry established by the Ethiopian Parliament at the end of November 2005 to investigate the violence of June and November 2005 concluded that 193 civilians were killed and 763 injured by government security forces; whereas the Commission's report found that some of the victims were killed with a single bullet wound to the head and that sharpshooters targeted certain opposition leaders; and whereas, according to the same report, protesters were unarmed and the security forces used excessive force,
F. whereas the report also states that a 14-year-old boy was killed during the demonstrations, that his brother, who ran out to help him, was shot from behind and that Etenesh Yimam, the wife of an opposition candidate, was gunned down outside her house in front of her children,
G. whereas the opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) blamed the deaths on the security forces, but Mr Meles accused the opposition of starting the violent protests,
H. whereas the President and Vice-President of the Commission of Inquiry were forced to flee following pressure by the government to reverse the Commission's findings, and whereas testimony to these events was given by Commission Vice-President Woldemichael Meshesha to the European Parliament, during a hearing held on 5 June 2007,
I. whereas journalists continue to be arrested and prevented from exercising their profession,
J. whereas in January 2007 police forces allegedly beat and severely injured students in the towns of Dembi Dollo and Ghimbi, causing the death of three of them, and detained between 30 and 50 students,
K. whereas individuals accused of international terrorism, including EU citizens, have been arbitrarily detained and subject to rendition,
L. whereas political and democratic stability in Ethiopia is crucial to the development of the countries of the Horn of Africa,
M. whereas Ethiopia needs a reconciliation process to restore the derailed democratic gains and pave the way for sustainable development that is respectful of fundamental human rights, political pluralism, minority rights, particularly those of ethnic Oromo, and the rule of law,
N. whereas Ethiopia is a signatory to the Cotonou Agreement(6), Article 96 of which stipulates that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is an essential element of ACP-EU cooperation,
O. whereas members of the UN Security Council met on 16 June 2007 in Addis Ababa with African Union (AU) and Ethiopian officials, as well as with the AU Peace and Security Council,
1. Calls on the Ethiopian Government to release immediately and unconditionally all political prisoners, including elected members of parliament, CUD leaders, human rights activists, journalists, teachers, students, trade union activists and ordinary citizens;
2. Deplores the recent decision by an Ethiopian court to find guilty 38 opposition leaders, human rights activists and journalists, and strongly condemns the fact that this occurred without defence proceedings in a judicial process that does not respect international standards for free and fair trials and has been widely condemned by international human rights organisations;
3. Urges the Ethiopian judicial authorities to reconsider their verdict, and calls on the Ethiopian Government to repeal possible death and/or prison sentences and to guarantee the independence of the judicial system;
4. Welcomes the release of 28 defendants on 10 April 2007, including seven journalists, one of whom, Serkalem Fasil, was six months pregnant when arrested and was denied adequate medical care;
5. Calls for the establishment of an international independent Commission of Inquiry, and urges the Ethiopian Government to allow it to pursue the original findings of the Commission independently and to give it unlimited access to the sources and documents that are relevant to the investigation;
6. Condemns the arrests of independent journalists and asks the Ethiopian Government to guarantee freedom of the press;
7. Urges the Ethiopian Government promptly to investigate the incidents involving students in Dembi Dollo and Ghimbi and to hold those responsible accountable;
8. Asks the Ethiopian Government to disclose the total number of persons detained and to allow all detainees access to their families, legal counsel and medical care;
9. Condemns the arbitrary detention and rendition of individuals accused of international terrorism, including EU nationals, and calls on the Ethiopian Government immediately to disclose information about these "renditions";
10. Calls on the Ethiopian regime to respect human rights, the rule of law and democratic freedom, including the right to assembly and freedom of expression, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, and to implement the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
11. Urges the Ethiopian Government to engage in a serious dialogue with the opposition and civil society with a view to national reconciliation, allowing a real democratisation process to take place;
12. Calls on the Commission, the Council, the African Union and the United Nations to encourage and support an all-inclusive inter-Ethiopian dialogue, with the participation of political parties and civil society, in order to work out a lasting solution to the current political crisis;
13. Calls on the Commission and the Council to make a clear request to the Ethiopian Government to release all political prisoners immediately and unconditionally;
14. Calls on the Commission, the Council and the Member States to condemn the use of the death penalty in Ethiopia;
15. Requests the Commission and the Council to share with the European Parliament the reports produced by those who, on behalf of the Commission and Council, have been observing the current trials, including the Briton Michael Ellman and others;
16. Calls on the Commission and the Council strongly to condemn the Ethiopian Government for the brutal repression that followed the May 2005 elections and for the serious breaches of human rights and democracy perpetrated by the authorities ever since, and to monitor the situation in Ethiopia;
17. Calls on the Commission and the Council to pursue a coherent post-electoral policy in Ethiopia;
18. Calls on the European Council to consider the application of targeted sanctions against senior government officials;
19. Calls on the Commission and the Council to support victims of human rights atrocities and relatives of political prisoners;
20. Requests the Commission and the Council to take concrete action to put the derailed democratic process back on track and to avoid further deterioration of the human rights situation in Ethiopia, which may have far-reaching consequences in the region if it is not addressed properly and without delay;
21. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support, through cooperation instruments, the development of free media broadcasting in Ethiopia;
22. Calls on the Commission and the Council to take a coordinated stance consistent with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement; stresses that the development cooperation programmes under the Cotonou Agreement should depend on respect for human rights and good governance;
23. Calls on the UN to appoint a "special rapporteur" to conduct an investigation in Ethiopia into judicial independence and arbitrary detentions, the human rights situation, including minority rights, post-election violence and killings, and charges of treason and outrage against the constitutional order directed at opposition leaders, journalists and civil-society activists;
24. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the co-presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, the African Union Commission and the Pan-African Parliament, the Ethiopian Government and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
– having regard to the first formal session of the UN Security Council on Burma held on 29 September 2006,
– having regard to the statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of 25 May 2007 calling for 'restrictions on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political figures' to be lifted,
– having regard to the 12th ASEAN Summit held in the Philippines on 9-15 January 2007,
– having regard to the eighth ASEM Foreign Ministers" meeting held in Germany on 28-29 May 2007,
– having regard to the letter of 15 May 2007 to General Than Shwe, signed by 59 former Heads of State, calling for 'the immediate release of the world's only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi',
– having regard to its resolutions of 12 May 2005(1), 17 November 2005(2) and 14 December 2006(3) on Burma,
– having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 481/2007 of 27 April 2007(4) renewing restrictive measures against Burma,
– having regard to the 17th anniversary of the victory of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in the parliamentary elections of 27 May 1990,
– having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas the NDL leader, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Sakharov Prize winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has spent 11 of the last 17 years under house arrest,
B. whereas on 25 May 2007 the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) extended the illegal detention of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for another year,
C. whereas the SPDC continues to subject the people of Burma to appalling human rights abuses, such as forced labour, persecution of dissidents, conscription of child soldiers and forced relocation,
D. whereas 30% of Burma's population, an estimated 15 million people, are subsisting below the poverty line,
E. whereas the National Convention – first convened in 1993 to draft a constitution but suspended many times since then – will resume on 18 July 2007 for a final session but lacks legitimacy and international credibility due to the absence of democratically elected representatives, most notably from the NLD,
F. whereas ASEAN has started to take a more robust stance against the abuses by the military regime in Burma and insists that Burma improve its human rights record and embrace democracy,
G. whereas on 15 May 2007 Russia and Burma concluded an agreement to build a nuclear research reactor in Burma, despite international concerns about safety standards, security and dual use,
1. Demands the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;
2. Deplores the fact that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has suffered years of house arrest, including solitary confinement and, since 2003, has only been allowed to leave for urgent medical treatment and briefly to meet the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs;
3. Condemns the SPDC's unremitting oppression of the Burmese people and its persistent persecution and imprisonment of pro-democracy activists; draws particular attention to the case of U Win Tin, a 78-year old journalist detained as a political prisoner for almost two decades now for writing a letter to the UN on the ill-treatment of political prisoners and the poor conditions in which they are held;
4. Insists on the immediate release of U Win Tin and all political prisoners – estimated to number over 1 200 – held by the SPDC;
5. Deplores the fact that, despite the condition of the country, regional and international criticism and forty-five years of rule, the SPDC has failed to make any substantial progress towards democracy;
6. Urges the legitimisation of the National Convention, through inclusion of the NLD and other political parties and groups, and that the National Convention adopt a roadmap to democracy that reflects the genuine wishes of the Burmese people instead of consolidating the military's stranglehold on power;
7. Welcomes the Chairman's statement made at the 12th ASEAN Summit, in which ASEAN leaders encouraged Burma 'to make greater progress towards national reconciliation', called 'for the release of those placed under detention and for effective dialogue with all parties concerned' and agreed 'on the need to preserve ASEAN's credibility as an effective regional organisation by demonstrating a capacity to manage important issues within the region';
8. Regrets, however, that the 2006 fact-finding mission to Burma by the Malaysian Foreign Minister, mandated by the 11th ASEAN Summit, has not yet resulted in more robust measures against the military junta in Burma and trusts that these will be forthcoming;
9. Urges the Council and the Commission to continue their constructive relationship with ASEAN countries and to ensure that the EU-ASEAN free trade negotiations are used as a vehicle to increase pressure on the SPDC to establish a civilian and democratic government;
10. Regrets that the Burmese Foreign Minister, Nyan Win, was permitted to attend the eighth ASEM Foreign Ministers" meeting in Germany this year, only days after the military junta in Burma had extended the illegal house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi for another year; recalls that Nyan Win is on the list of Burmese individuals subject to the EU travel ban and calls on the EU Member States to implement the EU travel ban more rigorously;
11. Insists that the International Atomic Energy Agency subject any nuclear research reactor in Burma to comprehensive safeguards, in order to ensure that any civilian nuclear programmes are not diverted to military purposes, and calls on the Burmese regime to fulfil its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;
12. Urges China and India to use their considerable economic and political leverage with the Burmese regime to bring about substantial improvements in that country and, in any case, to cease the supply of weaponry and other strategic resources;
13. Calls on businesses which invest in Burma to ensure that their projects are carried out in a manner which respects genuine human rights and, if human rights abuses do occur, to suspend their activities in Burma; expresses disappointment that some countries have seen fit to increase substantially their investments in Burma, regardless of the dire human rights situation there;
14. Welcomes the renewal of EU targeted sanctions but recognises that they have failed to achieve the desired impact on those directly responsible for the suffering of the Burmese people; calls on the Council to ensure that all Member States rigorously apply existing restrictive measures;
15. Calls on the Council to expand the scope of the sanctions and to enlarge the list of those targeted, so that it includes all SPDC ministers, deputies, members, supporters and workers, in addition to their family members, and businessmen and other prominent individuals associated with the regime;
16. Notes that, in accordance with the Council Common Position 2006/318/CFSP of 27 April 2006(5) renewing restrictive measures against Burma, support is limited to humanitarian aid and assistance for those most in need; insists that all aid destined for Burma must be delivered through genuine NGOs and must reach the people for whom it is intended, with the least possible involvement of the SPDC;
17. Suggests in this context that all possible efforts be made to enhance contacts and to design programmes focusing on Burmese civil society, notably women's groups and ethnic minorities;
18. Regrets that China and Russia, supported by South Africa, vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution on Burma on 12 January 2007 and calls on the UN Security Council to redouble efforts to obtain unanimous backing for a binding resolution requiring the release of political prisoners, including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;
19. Welcomes the appointment of Ibrahim Gambari as Special Advisor to the UN Secretary-General on Burma, which comes at a critical juncture in the UN's approach to Burma, and calls on the SPDC to fully cooperate with the UN and not to obstruct its work;
20. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the governments of the ASEAN nations, the National League for Democracy of Burma, the State Peace and Development Council of Burma, the Government of the People's Republic of China, the Government of India, the Government of Russia, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.