European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (15061/2007 – COM(2007)0464 – C6-0445/2007 – 2007/0165(AVC))

P6_TA(2008)0036 A6-0025/2008

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2007)0464),

–   having regard to the text of the Council (15061/2007),

–   having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 310 and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, second sentence of the EC Treaty (C6-0445/2007),

–   having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0025/2008),

1.  Gives its assent to conclusion of the Protocol;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the State of Israel.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab Republic of Egypt, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (13199/2007 – COM(2007)0487 – C6-0438/2007 – 2007/0180(AVC))

P6_TA(2008)0037 A6-0026/2008

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2007)0487),

–   having regard to the text of the Council (13199/2007),

–   having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 310 and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, second sentence of the EC Treaty (C6-0438/2007),

–   having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0026/2008),

1.  Gives its assent to conclusion of the Protocol;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/40/EC on minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (eighteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (COM(2007)0669 – C6-0394/2007 – 2007/0230(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0038 A6-0012/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0669),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0394/2007),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0012/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the installation of lighting and light-signalling devices on wheeled agricultural and forestry tractors (codified version) (COM(2007)0192 – C6-0108/2007 – 2007/0066(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0039 A6-0022/2008

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0192),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0108/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0022/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on statutory plates and inscriptions for motor vehicles and their trailers, and their location and method of attachment (codified version) (COM(2007)0344 – C6-0193/2007 – 2007/0119(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0040 A6-0016/2008

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0344),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0193/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0016/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on rear registration plate lamps for motor vehicles and their trailers (codified version) (COM(2007)0451 – C6-0252/2007 – 2007/0162(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0041 A6-0017/2008

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0451),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0252/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0017/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the suppression of radio interference produced by agricultural or forestry tractors (electromagnetic compatibility) (codified version) (COM(2007)0462 – C6-0256/2007 – 2007/0166(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0042 A6-0018/2008

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0462),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0256/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0018/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the driver-perceived noise level of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version) (COM(2007)0588 – C6-0344/2007 – 2007/0205(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0043 A6-0019/2008

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0588),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0344/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0019/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (codified version) (COM(2007)0667 – C6-0397/2007 – 2007/0235(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0044 A6-0020/2008

(Codecision procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0667),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0397/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0020/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a Council directive on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco (codified version) (COM(2007)0587 – C6-0392/2007 – 2007/0206(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0045 A6-0021/2008

(Consultation procedure: codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0587),

–   having regard to Article 93 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0392/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 – Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–   having regard to Rules 80 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0021/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the consultative working party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

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

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of an Agreement between the Community and the Swiss Confederation in the audiovisual field, establishing the terms and conditions for the participation of the Swiss Confederation in the Community programme MEDIA 2007, and a Final Act (COM(2007)0477 – C6-0328/2007 – 2007/0171(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0046 A6-0512/2007

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2007)0477),

–   having regard to Article 150(4) and Article 157(3), in conjunction with Article 300(2), first sentence, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0328/2007),

–   having regard to Rules 51 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0512/2007),

1.  Approves the conclusion of the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Swiss Confederation.

European Parliament decision of 19 February 2008 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Claudio Fava (2007/2155(IMM))

P6_TA(2008)0047 A6-0007/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the request by Claudio Fava for defence of his immunity in connection with civil proceedings brought against him before the Marsala Civil Court, of 29 May 2007, announced in plenary sitting on 6 June 2007,

–   having heard Claudio Fava in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

–   having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986(1) of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,

–   having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0007/2008),

1.  Decides to defend the immunity and privileges of Claudio Fava;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the report of its committee responsible, immediately to the appropriate authorities of the Italian Republic.

(1) Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391.

European Parliament decision of 19 February 2008 on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of Witold Tomczak (2007/2130 (IMM))

P6_TA(2008)0048 A6-0008/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the request by Witold Tomczak for defence of his immunity in connection with the criminal case conducted by the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland, made on 21 May 2007, announced in plenary sitting on 24 May 2007,

–   having heard Witold Tomczak on 4 October 2007 in accordance with Rule 7(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage,

–   having regard to the judgments of 12 May 1964 and 10 July 1986(1) of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,

–   having regard to Article 105 of the Polish Constitution,

–   having regard to Rules 6(3) and 7 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0008/2008),

A.   whereas Witold Tomczak was elected to the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish Parliament) on 21 September 1997 and on 23 September 2001; whereas after the signature of the Accession Treaty on 16 April 2003 he became an Observer; whereas he was a Member of the European Parliament from 1 May 2004 until 19 July 2004; whereas he was elected to the European Parliament on 13 June 2004 and his term of office in the Polish Parliament expired on 16 June 2004,

B.   whereas Witold Tomczak is charged with insulting two police officers in the performance of their duties in Ostrów Wielkopolski on 26 June 1999 in breach of Article 226(1) of the Polish Penal Code; whereas after a number of failures by Witold Tomczak to appear at the hearings, the District Court in Ostrów Wielkopolski decided on 10 January 2005, in accordance with Article 377(3) of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, to proceed with the trial in absentia,

C.   whereas, in accordance with Article 9 of the Act of 23 January 2004 on elections to the European Parliament, "A person shall be eligible for elections to the European Parliament held in the Republic of Poland if he or she [...] has not been convicted of an offence committed intentionally and prosecuted by indictment ..."; whereas Article 142, paragraph 1(1) of that Act states that "The forfeiture of a seat of a Member of the European Parliament shall be a result of forfeiture of eligibility"; whereas no such provisions exist in the Act of 12 April 2001 on elections to the Sejm and Senat of the Republic of Poland (the Polish parliament),

D.   whereas Witold Tomczak had previously (on 29 April 2005) asked Parliament to defend his immunity in these criminal proceedings; whereas Parliament decided in plenary on 4 April 2006 not to defend his immunity, even though Mr Tomczak had sent a letter prior to the plenary sitting by which he purported to withdraw his earlier application for defence of his immunity,

E.   whereas Witold Tomczak claims that the judge presiding in the case is not objective, and that the possibility of holding the trial in absentia infringes the principle of the presumption of innocence,

F.   whereas Witold Tomczak complains that the District Court is not granting him access to the files in the case and that the criminal proceedings against him are biased because he sought to challenge the legality of the actions of local police and the local prosecutor,

G.   whereas, on the basis of the information obtained, Witold Tomczak is not protected by parliamentary immunity in respect of any of the claims which have been drawn to the attention of the President of the European Parliament,

1.  Decides not to defend the immunity and privileges of Witold Tomczak.

(1) Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 195 and Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure and others [1986] ECR 2391.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the Council common position adopted with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernized Customs Code) (11272/6/2007 – C6-0354/2007 – 2005/0246(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0049 A6-0011/2008

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council common position (11272/6/2007 - C6-0354/2007)(1),

–   having regard to its position at first reading(2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2005)0608),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A6-0011/2008),

1.  Approves the common position;

2.  Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;

3.  Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

4.  Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 298 E, 11.12.2007, p. 1. (2) OJ C 317 E, 23.12.2006, p. 82.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 February 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (COM(2006)0866 – C6-0033/2007 – 2006/0290(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0050 A6-0488/2007

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0866),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 135 and 280 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0033/2007),

–   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 opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0488/2007),

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 19 February 2008 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No .../2008.)

European Parliament resolution of 19 February 2008 on transparency in financial matters (2007/2141(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0051 A6-0010/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission's Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative (COM(2006)0194),

–   having regard to the Commission's Communication on the follow-up to the Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative (COM(2007)0127),

–   having regard to Article 255 of the EC Treaty,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0010/2008),

A.   whereas transparency enables citizens to participate more closely in the decision-making process and guarantees that the EU institutions enjoy greater legitimacy and are more effective and more accountable to the citizen in a democratic system,

B.   whereas transparency contributes to strengthening the principles of democracy and respect for fundamental rights as laid down in Article 6 of the EU Treaty and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

C.   whereas greater transparency within the EU institutions would increase public understanding of how EU funds are used while at the same time improving the possibilities for evaluating the effectiveness of EU spending,

Disclosure of information concerning the beneficiaries of EU funds (practical implementation)

1.  Recalls that the first subparagraph of Article 30(3) of the Financial Regulation, as amended on 13 December 2006(1) provides, under the heading of the principle of transparency, that"

"The Commission shall make available, in an appropriate manner, information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the budget held by it when the budget is implemented on a centralised basis and directly by its departments, and information on the beneficiaries of funds as provided by the entities to which the budget implementation tasks are delegated under other modes of management.";

2.  Is of the opinion that transparency is closely related to whether the information provided on beneficiaries is easily accessible, reliable and suitable for further research, comparison and assessment, and hence that the implementation of the term 'appropriate manner' as referred to in the Financial Regulation should take due account of these needs;

EU funds under central management

3.  Recalls that, as regards transparency in relation to the 20% of EU funding managed directly and centrally by the Commission (grants and public contracts), information including identification of beneficiaries is available for inspection on two websites:

4.  Requests the Commission to indicate the addresses of the two websites containing information on the beneficiaries of EU funding managed directly and centrally by it explicitly in all documents relating to the EU budget and/or projects and programmes under its responsibility;

EU funds under shared, decentralised or joint management

5.  Notes that, under Article 53b of the Financial Regulation, where the Commission implements the budget by shared management, the Member States shall, under paragraph 2(d) of the same Article:"

ensure, by means of relevant sector-specific regulations and in conformity with Article 30(3), adequate annual ex post publication of beneficiaries of funds deriving from the budget

6.  Points out that, similarly, according to Articles 53c and 53d, third countries and international organisations to which implementation tasks are delegated "shall ensure in conformity with Article 30(3) adequate ex-post publication of beneficiaries of funds deriving from the budget";

7.  Recalls that in the draft Commission declaration on transparency annexed to the results of the conciliation proceedings concerning the revised Financial Regulation, the Commission undertook:"

to ensure in the sector-specific implementing Regulation that the disclosure of information of beneficiaries of funds deriving from the Agricultural Funds (FEADER(2) and FEAGA(3)) is comparable to that provided in the sector-specific implementing Regulations for the Structural Funds. In particular adequate annual ex post publication, for each beneficiary, of the amounts received from these funds, subdivided by main categories of expenditure, will be ensured

8.  Observes that the Commission's website http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/funding/index_en.htm currently includes links to the databases of the 14 Member States providing information on beneficiaries of common agricultural policy payments under shared management; regrets however that the information is so diverse and scattered and of such varying quality that information can hardly be found; calls on the Commission to learn from the very accessible website http://www.farmsubsidy.org/ which works very well and is set up without public funding;

9.  Notes the Commission's reservation that, since the links on its webpage are based on information provided by the Member States, which may vary widely in degree of coverage and detail, it cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the data or information provided, and that it does not accept responsibility or liability for any use made thereof;

10.  Insists that the Commission must accept responsibility for ensuring complete and reliable data, and hence take the necessary action vis-à-vis Member States' authorities to make sure such data are delivered;

General remarks on disclosure of beneficiaries

11.  Believes that, as a general principle, the Commission web pages disclosing information on the beneficiaries of EU funding of whatever category, whether contracts, grants, agriculture or structural fund expenditure (or other types of funding) should be organised in such a way as to make it possible not only to obtain information on individual beneficiaries but also to carry out searches based on specific criteria in order to obtain an overall picture under various headings, which can then be checked against the Commission's implementation figures;

12.  Calls on the Commission to accept political responsibility for publishing information on beneficiaries of EU funding under all modes of management;

13.  Stresses that it is not sufficient simply to publish information in a raw state, but that it must be rationally organised, classified and presented in order to be of practical value;

14.  Points out that individual beneficiaries may receive EU funds from several programmes or sectors of EU activity; recognises that it may be instructive, therefore, to be able to identify all the amounts paid to an individual beneficiary across all sectors; asks the Commission to examine the feasibility of creating an overall search-engine capable of retrieving data concerning individual beneficiaries across the whole spectrum of the EU's activities involving contracts, grants, subsidies, research programmes, agricultural or structural funds, centralised/decentralised management, etc;

15.  Calls on the Commission to take into account the remarks in this resolution and to introduce a fully operational system of information for the wider public on all beneficiaries of EU subsidies and the outstanding recoveries before the next European elections in 2009;

Declaration of financial interests of public office-holders in the EU institutions

16.  Points out that the EU institutions at present have divergent approaches to declarations of their Members' financial interests ranging from a public register (European Parliament) to no declarations at all;

17.  Is of the opinion that all institutions should consider whether the current principles and rules are sufficient and notes the possible need to revise the rules of the European Parliament to make the public disclosure of financial interests on the internet obligatory;

18.  Notes that the Commission has commissioned a study, linked to its European Transparency Initiative, of the rules and standards of professional ethics for holders of public office in the EU institutions and in national parliaments, national governments, constitutional courts (supreme courts), courts of audit and central or national banks of the 27 Member States of the EU, as well as Canada and the United States of America, and that for the EU institutions the study will examine and compare the rules and standards of professional ethics in the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Court of Auditors, the European Court of Justice, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank;

19.  Is aware of the Commission's wish to create a "common ethical space" among the EU institutions;

20.  Recalls that, following the recommendations developed by the Committee of Independent Experts in its 2nd Report of 10 September 1999 and the Commission's White Paper on administrative reform of 1 March 2000, the Commission drew up a proposal for an Advisory Committee on Standards in Public Life(4), one of whose tasks would be to provide guidance in advance to public office-holders to help them avoid situations entailing a potential conflict of interests;

21.  Considers that it would be inappropriate to create a single advisory body for all EU office-holders, bearing in mind the specific situation of Members of the European Parliament, whoare directly elected by the citizens;

22.  Believes, nevertheless, that each institution should adopt rules of professional ethics for its Members appropriate to the specific nature of the institution and based on its current practices relating to all relevant financial interests;

23.  Recommends that the rules of professional ethics of each institution should also touch upon the overall political, financial and legal responsibility of its Members;

24.  Recalls that, in response to Parliament's recent discharge resolutions, the European Court of Justice recently adopted a code of conduct(5) for its judges; notes that the European Court of Auditors is also examining related matters in the context of its "peer review" on its future role;

25.  Agrees with the European Ombudsman (complaint 3269/2005/TN) that the disclosure of the names of individual lobbyists holding meetings with Commissioners is essential;

Recoveries, waivers of recoveries

26.  Notes that the term "recovery" covers four different types of procedure:

27.  Reiterates its regret, as expressed in paragraph 36 of its resolution of 24 October 2006 on the recovery of Community funds(6), that information regarding recoveries of Community funds is excluded from the European Transparency Initiative; calls on the Commission to make available to the budgetary authority and ultimately to the public the names and amounts of recoveries due under or credited to the EU budget, as well as the final destination of these sums;

28.  Notes that according to the 2006 Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors on implementation of the budget for the financial year 2006(7) (paragraph 2.24) 'the information on recoveries and financial corrections presented [by the Commission] [...] in the 2006 Annual Activity Reports does not contain sufficient explanations'; therefore asks the Commission to provide reliable and complete information on correction of errors and evidence on what corrections it made;

29.  Considers that the Commission should submit to Parliament, at regular intervals, and, possibly, publish on its website, an overview of outstanding amounts to be recovered broken down by the total owed per Directorate-General (DG) and the length of time for which each amount has been outstanding;

30.  Welcomes the fact that a summary of waivers of recoveries of established amounts receivable in 2006 was published as an annex to Commission Communication (COM(2007)0274) setting out a synthesis of the Commission's management achievements in 2006; notes that the total of waivers of recoveries (amounts above EUR 100 000) was EUR 23 038 784 for the EC budget and EUR 6 549 996 for the European Development Fund budget;

31.  Points out that the Commission services establish 10 000 recovery orders per year and that its DG BUDGET prepares quarterly balances of amounts outstanding which are sent to the relevant DGs to effect recovery;

32.  Welcomes the publication in the 2006 provisional accounts (volume 1, pp. 67-71) of a chapter on the recovery of expenditure in the notes to the economic outturn account; notes that the total value of recovery orders issued in 2006 was EUR 634 000 000; hopes that the Commission will in future make further improvements along these lines with a view to increasing transparency;

Composition of expert groups advising the Commission

33.  Notes that the Commission has set up a register (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/) of expert groups, defined as formal and informal advisory bodies established either by Commission decisions or informally by the Commission services to assist the Commission and its services in preparing legislative proposals and policy initiatives;

34.  Welcomes the undertakings given by Vice-President Kallas at the request of its Committee on Budgetary Control, that with effect from 2008:

35.  Notes that the register of expert groups does not cover:

36.  Disagrees with the general exclusion of these groups from the register and expects the Commission to take action to make sure that the register contains all expert groups, including information on members of comitology committees, individual experts, joint entities and social dialogue committees, to ensure the application of the same transparent approach to the membership of these expert committees, unless legitimate compelling grounds are given individually on a case by case basis;

37.  Calls upon the Commission to conduct a thorough review of the composition of its expert groups before the end of 2008 and to take action to ensure a balanced representation of interest groups in the membership of expert groups;

38.  Insists that the Commission must, before the end of 2008, develop an open, transparent and inclusive process for selecting members of new expert groups, and must inform Parliament no later than February 2009 of the new selection criteria;

Governance within the institutions and their annual activity reports

39.  Recognises that an important element of good governance of corporate entities or EU institutions is the availability to stakeholders and the general public of information on financial management in a form which the average reader can easily understand;

40.  Acknowledges that the position has been transformed since the entry into force in 2003 of the revised Financial Regulation by the obligation to prepare annual activity reports, which in practice provide a detailed insight into the inner workings of the institutions;

41.  Congratulates the Commission on the publication of the annual activity reports (2004, 2005, 2006) of its Directors-General and other services and the Synthesis Report of the Commission: Policy achievements in 2006 (COM(2007)0067) on its website http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/index_en.htm;

42.  Notes that according to the Commission, the Synthesis Report and the annual activity reports are the apex and pillars of the Commission's accountability architecture (COM(2006)0277), and, because the Directors-General and the Commission as a college assume their political responsibility for management in these reports, strongly urges the Commission to take serious measures to give a full insight into how 80% of EU funds are used (shared management), as otherwise its own accountability will be deemed deficient;

43.  Urges therefore the Commission to support the issuing of National Declarations of Assurance by the Member States which would allow it to assume full political responsibility for the whole of the EU's financial management; also urges the Commission to rely more on the work of national audit offices and external audits;

44.  Welcomes the fact that the European Court of Justice, European Court of Auditors, European Economic and Social Committee, Committee of the Regions and the European Ombudsman all submit an annual activity report to the discharge authority;

45.  Takes the view that the annual activity reports of the other institutions, including the Council and the European Parliament, should be placed on their public websites in the interests of greater transparency;

Blacklisting of fraudsters

46.  Recalls that one of the questions examined by the Commission in its preparatory work on transparency (SEC(2005)1300) was whether fraud could be better deterred by being more transparent about the results of investigations and whether the Commission should establish and publish a "blacklist" of confirmed fraud cases in order to name and shame;

47.  Notes that while the blacklisting of fraudsters is dealt with extensively in the Commission's staff working document (SEC(2005)1300), it was not included in either the Commission's Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative or in the follow-up communication;

48.  Asks the Commission to consider how a public "blacklist" of confirmed fraud cases and the entities behind them could be set up to name and shame as well as inform the public about the results of the Community's anti-fraud endeavours;

49.  Points out that for the protection of EU financial interests the Commission, at the request of the European Parliament in 1997, introduced an early warning system (EWS) with five graded levels of warning to assist Commission services in identifying entities presenting financial and other risks; notes that this system covers both "centralised management" (contracts and grants managed directly by the Commission services) and "decentralised management" (managed by third countries); however, EWS does not yet cover EU funds managed in partnership with Member States ("shared management", mainly the common agricultural policy and the structural funds), nor funds delegated to international organisations ("joint management");

50.  Notes that, according to the key findings of the European Court of Auditors in the 2006 annual report, compliance errors (e.g. the tendering procedure was missing or not valid) were the main cause of irregularities in the field of structural policies, and because protection of the EU's financial interests is an essential goal, asks the Commission and the European Court of Auditors to report to the discharge authority on the types of irregularities or fraud which occur most commonly during tendering procedures and on the reasons for them;

51.  Notes that for reasons of data protection, in order to safeguard the legitimate interests of the entities concerned, and in the absence of any provision in the Financial Regulation authorising publication, EWS registrations are strictly confidential;

52.  Recalls that under Article 95 of the Financial Regulation, a central database of excluded candidates and tenderers is to be set up (in compliance with the Community rules on the protection of personal data) and managed in common with all the institutions and agencies and that it is intended to be operational from 1 January 2009;

53.  Reiterates the urgent need for a code of ethics for OLAF, with a view to guaranteeing the presumption of innocence in the case of beneficiaries who have been the object of a long and prejudicial investigation procedure and are cleared by the courts but receive no compensation for the damage to their reputation or the losses incurred;

54.  Notes that the Member States are required to communicate information concerning excluded candidates and tenderers to the competent authorising officer; notes further that access to the database will not be public, being limited to the EU institutions, executive agencies and regulatory agencies (Article 95(2) of the Financial Regulation);

o
o   o

55.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, Council and other institutions.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1). (2) European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development. (3) European Agriculture Guarantee Fund. (4) Proposal for an Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions establishing an Advisory Group on Standards in Public Life (SEC(2000)2077). (5) OJ C 223, 22.9.07, p. 1. (6) OJ C 313 E, 20.12.2006, p. 125. (7) OJ C 273, 15.11.2007, p. 1. (8) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution of 19 February 2008 on Protection of the Communities" financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual reports 2005 and 2006 (2006/2268(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0052 A6-0009/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolutions on previous annual reports of the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),

–   having regard to the report of 12 July 2006 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled "Protection of the Communities" financial interests – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2005" (COM(2006)0378), including the annexes (SEC(2006)0911 and SEC(2006)0912) thereto,

–   having regard to the report of 6 July 2007 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled "Protection of the financial interests of the Communities – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2006" (COM(2007)0390), including the annexes (SEC(2007)0930 and SEC(2007)0938) thereto,

–   having regard to the OLAF Annual Activity Report for 2005(1),

–   having regard to the OLAF Annual Activity Report for 2006(2),

–   having regard to the Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee for the period December 2005 to May 2007(3),

–   having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2005(4),

–   having regard to the annual report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2006(5),

–   having regard to Articles 276(3) and 280(5) of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(6),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities(7),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A6-0009/2008),

A.   having regard to the substance of Article 280(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty,

B.   whereas Article 53(b)(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(8) (the Financial Regulation) provides as follows:"

2.  Without prejudice to complementary provisions included in relevant sector-specific regulations, and in order to ensure in shared management that the funds are used in accordance with the applicable rules and principles, the Member States shall take all the legislative, regulatory and administrative or other measures necessary for protecting the Communities' financial interests. To this effect they shall in particular:

To that effect, the Member States shall conduct checks and shall put in place an effective and efficient internal control system, (…).

Amount of irregularities notified

1.  Welcomes the fact that the reports on the protection of the Communities" financial interests, and in particular the report concerning the financial year 2006, have become more analytical; notes, however, that the statistics rely on very diverse national structures with different administrative, judicial, supervisory and inspection systems;

2.  Calls for the annual reports on the protection of the Communities" financial interests and the reports drawn up by the European Parliament on the basis of those reports to be included on the Council's agenda, and for the Council subsequently to forward its observations to Parliament and the Commission;

3.  Notes that in the areas of own resources, agricultural expenditure and the Member States" structural actions, irregularities notified in 2006 totalled EUR 1 143 million (compared to EUR 1 024 million in 2005, EUR 982,3 million in 2004, EUR 922 million in 2003 and EUR 1 150 million in 2002); the amounts notified by the Member States to the Commission in 2006 can be broken down as follows:

notes, too, that in the area of pre-accession funds irregularities notified in 2006 totalled EUR  12,32 million (EUR  17,6 million in 2005);

4.  Considers that many factors can influence the annual variations in the financial impact of irregularities;

5.  Stresses that a large number of irregularities being notified to the Commission does not necessarily imply a high level of fraud; it may also demonstrate that the supervisory arrangements in place are effective and that there is close cooperation between Member States and the Commission; welcomes the fact that, in its annual report for 2006, the Commission emphasised the importance of such cooperation;

General analysis

6.  Notes that, as far as own resources are concerned, the amount affected by irregularities rose by 7% from EUR  328 million in 2005 to EUR  353 million in 2006; the products most affected by irregularities were televisions (EUR  69 million in 2005; EUR  62,3 million in 2006) and cigarettes (EUR  30,9 million in 2005;  EUR 27,6 million in 2006); the number of cases in Italy (+122%) and the Netherlands (+81%) rose sharply; EUR  113,4 million (32%) was recovered in 2006;

7.  Notes that, as far as agricultural expenditure is concerned, the amount affected by irregularities fell from EUR  105 million in 2005 to EUR  87 million in 2006; Spain, France and Italy were responsible for 57,2% of the irregularities, or a total of EUR  64,9 million, while the sectors most affected were rural development, beef and veal, and fruit and vegetables;

8.  Welcomes the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy(9) (CAP), which aims to provide a simplified and more effective legal framework for Member States to recover irregular payments; calls on the Commission to evaluate the application of that act and to submit a report to Parliament;

9.  Is encouraged that the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS), through which 68% of operations are processed, is functioning well and has made it possible to detect a large proportion of irregularities;

10.  Notes with concern that the level of recovery of sums unduly paid remains low and varies between Member States and, since the chances of recovery decrease with time, calls on the Commission to step up its efforts to improve the recovery rate of sums unduly paid;

11.  Takes the view that, when in a specific Member State recovery remains systematically low, the Commission should apply corrective measures;

12.  Assures the Commission of its full support in the rigorous application of the legislation on suspension of payments and urges that CAP funding should also be subject to the same procedure as the measures already initiated(10) for the non-transfer of funds where the Commission does not have an absolute guarantee of the reliability of the management and control systems of the Member State which is the beneficiary of those funds;

13.  Calls on the Commission to evaluate the efficiency and transparency of monitoring systems relating to payment of farmers in the context of its annual report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests;

14.  Welcomes the work of the Task Force Recovery(11) , which has been able to settle a large number of the irregularities from previous years (1971 to 2006: EUR 3 061 million); consequently, the Member States have recovered EUR 898 million, and EUR 1 200 million has been settled using the "clearance of accounts" procedure; stresses, however, that the Member States should be much more vigilant in order to avoid irregularities and to recover money;

15.  Notes the adoption by the Commission of its second report on the shortcomings in the implementation of the 'blacklist' system (Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95(12)) and calls for a wider debate, within the EU institutions, on the way forward, with a substantial increase in penalties for Member States that fail to fulfil their obligations with regard to the repayment of sums unduly paid being the most obvious approach;

16.  Points out that the amount affected by irregularities relating to structural actions increased by 17%, from EUR 601 million in 2005 to EUR 703 million in 2006 (Structural Funds EUR 517 million, Cohesion Fund EUR  186 million); these irregularities related mainly (75%) to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF); Germany, Spain, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom accounted for approximately 85% of the amount affected (EUR 438,1 million) relating to the Structural Funds in 2006; in many cases the beneficiaries had invoiced for non-eligible expenditure; the details were uncovered following the checking of documents;

17.  Regrets that, of the 95 projects funded using Structural Funds audited over the current programming period, 60 were affected by material errors in declared project expenditure, representing an increase in the number of irregularities over the previous year; considers that a greater number of projects should be audited so that the conclusions obtained permit the formulation of clear recommendations for improving financial management;

18.  Notes that EUR 266,5 million out of a total of EUR 703 million has still to be recovered for 2006, while for previous years EUR 762 million still needs to be recovered; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament's competent committees twice a year on the progress made and the specific measures taken in order to speed up the recovery of the outstanding amounts;

19.  Notes that, as far as pre-accession funds are concerned, the financial impact decreased from EUR 26,5 million in 2005 to EUR 12,3 million in 2006; the most frequent errors were invoicing for non-eligible expenditure and failure to comply with contractual or regulatory conditions; EUR 11 million has been recovered since the funds were introduced, but EUR 14 million still remains to be recovered;

20.  Remains convinced that Member States and EU institutions, including the Court of Auditors (ECA), must come to a political understanding on a 'tolerable error rate' if a positive declaration of assurance is ever to be achieved;

Weaknesses

21.  Calls on the Commission to include in the 2008 annual report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests an analysis of the Member States' structures involved in combating irregularities; that analysis should answer, among others, the following questions in order to give Parliament a clearer picture of the implementation of the legislative framework of the anti-fraud network:

22.  Calls on the Commission to indicate, as regards the own resources sector, which further actions it will undertake to put a stop to the fraudulent importing of televisions, cigarettes and counterfeit goods in general; in this context, welcomes the fact that OLAF has been able to open an office in China; urges the Commission to step up the fight against counterfeiting; calls on the Commission to report back in the context of the annual report on the protection of the Communities' financial interests for 2007, which will be published in July 2008, on the initiatives and action taken on the basis of Parliament's resolution of 11 October 2007 on the implications of the agreement between the Community, Member States and Philip Morris on intensifying the fight against fraud and cigarette smuggling and the progress made in implementing the recommendations of Parliament's Committee of Inquiry into the Community Transit System(13);

23.  Considers it wholly unacceptable that for many years Germany and Spain have not been forwarding information to the Commission, in electronic form, on irregularities concerning agricultural expenditure; notes, furthermore, that these two countries are responsible for 38 % (EUR 33,2 million) of the irregularities and that Germany is no longer providing details of the individuals and companies involved, despite an obligation to do so; consequently, urges the Commission to start infringement procedures against these two Member States and to withhold 10 % of agricultural payments pending the procedure; calls on the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control to send a letter to the Permanent Representations concerned requesting an explanation;

24.  Considers that a period of 39 months between the time when an irregularity is committed and the time when it is notified to the Commission is unacceptable, as such a delay makes recovery more difficult; asks the Commission what measures it has taken to call the Member States to order; notes that the Member States" actions indicate a degree of complacency;

25.  Asks what measures the Commission has taken to reduce the number of irregularities in the rural development, beef and veal, and fruit and vegetables sectors;

26.  Calls on the Commission to take a firm stance should Greece fail to comply with the action plan for introducing the IACS(14); would like to be informed about the total amount of the grants/aid from the Community budget paid to Greece to set up the IACS until now and whether this amount can be recovered if the system is not fully operational by September 2008;

27.  Notes that, concerning structural actions, 84% of all irregularities were recorded in Italy (2006: EUR 228,2 million), Spain (2006: EUR 85,7 million), the United Kingdom (2006: EUR 59,8 million), Portugal (2006: EUR 37,2 million) and Germany (2006: EUR 27,2 million); notes, furthermore, that neither Germany nor Spain uses the electronic module of the Anti-Fraud Information System and that Germany does not send data on the individuals and companies involved; calls on the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control to send a letter to the Permanent Representations concerned requesting an explanation;

28.  Considers that, in this context, the 2000-2006 programming period proved that overly complicated rules and ineffective supervisory and control systems contributed to the irregularities ascertained; points out, furthermore, that beneficiaries often received payments late; consequently, welcomes the improvements which Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund(15) has brought; calls, in general, for regional and local authorities to be more involved in the programming and implementation of the funds;

29.  Points out that in paragraph 11 of its resolution of 15 June 2006 on protection of the financial interests of the Communities and the fight against fraud - 2004 annual report(16), Parliament stated: "(...) in the 2005 reporting period, particular attention should be paid to irregularities concerning structural actions"; notes, however, that the situation seems to have worsened;

30.  Considers that the Commission should attach particular importance to criminal networks specialising in the misappropriation of EU funds;

31.  Calls on the Commission to provide Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control with a detailed analysis of the system or systems used by organised crime, whether run on mafia lines or not, to undermine the Communities' financial interests;

32.  Expresses its deepest concern over the following finding of the President of the ECA: "The supervisory and control systems in the Member States were generally ineffective or moderately ineffective, and the supervision of their operation by the Commission was only moderately effective"(17);

33.  Calls, therefore, on the Member States to guarantee the quality of their supervisory and control systems by adopting, at an appropriate political level, a national declaration on management concerning all Community spending in shared management; calls on the Commission to give active support to this idea and to report on the progress achieved in its annual report on the protection of the Communities" financial interests;

34.  Calls on the Commission to take the appropriate measures, possibly including infringement procedures, against those Member States which do not assist the Commission services in carrying out on-the-spot checks as provided for by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96;

35.  Calls on the Commission, in this context, to consider the inclusion of binding and precautionary elements in future EC legislation concerning shared management so that irregular payments can be recovered at the end of the recovery procedure, for example by a Member State placing a surety with the Communities in order for recipients to use European funds;

36.  Points out that, concerning structural actions, more than EUR 1 000 million remains to be recovered for 2006 and previous years;

37.  Emphasises the direct responsibility of Member States in recuperating funds the payment of which is affected by irregularities; reiterates its encouragement to the Commission to suspend interim payments to Member States in cases of serious irregularity; recognises the need to react appropriately to the insufficiency of management and control systems in the Member States and recalls that fraud and irregularities are prejudicial to the work of the European Union, particularly to structural projects;

38.  Welcomes the fact that, as part of the European Transparency Initiative, information will be published about recipients of Structural Funds, and urges that a binding obligation be introduced in Member States to publish information about projects and recipients of funding from all Community funds under shared management;

39.  Calls on the Member States to notify the Commission annually of the financial loss resulting from amounts definitively lost, which the Commission should include in its annual report;

40.  Calls also on the Member States" competent authorities to inform the Commission, including OLAF, once a year, of court judgments on the fraudulent use of Structural Funds;

41.  Calls on the Commission to take a position on the negative assessment of its work by the ECA and to explain what steps it has taken to improve, in the Member States, a situation which jeopardises the protection of the Communities" financial interests;

42.  At the same time calls on the Commission to report back more often to the Member States, giving details of how it used the reported information as well as how it followed up the reported irregularities;

43.  Notes that, concerning the use of pre-accession funds, Bulgaria (2006: EUR 1,7 million), Poland (2006: EUR  2,4 million), Romania (2006: EUR  5,5 million) and Slovakia (2006: EUR  1,9 million) accounted for 94% of irregularities; notes that, in this context, the Commission has stressed the need for a common interpretation and uniform application of guidelines and working documents; asks the Commission, therefore, to indicate what measures it has taken in this regard;

44.  Calls on the Commission to make it possible for the Member States to identify more clearly, from the outset, those irregularities that are suspected of involving fraudulent misappropriation, since the Member States still have difficulties knowing precisely what constitutes an irregularity or a fraud and what needs to be reported to the Commission/OLAF, although they do comply with the quarterly reporting requirements;

45.  Calls on the Commission to assist Member States in using OLAF's Anti-Fraud Information System/CIGinfo (instrument of communication of information concerning cigarette seizures); believes this single administrative homepage could improve the exchange of data (especially on irregularities) between OLAF and the Member States once the national and the European systems are compatible;

46.  Welcomes the fact that the Committee on Budgetary Control has already twice met its counterparts from the national parliaments; believes that annual meetings of the budgetary control committees of national parliaments and the European Parliament could be most useful for improving the Member States' control and monitoring systems and obtaining a national declaration on management;

47.  Wishes to see the closest possible cooperation between the ECA and the national and regional audit bodies with a view to increasing the use of their reports to monitor the utilisation of EU funds in the Member States;

OLAF activity reports

48.  Notes that OLAF was restructured in 2006, taking into account the ECA´s Special Report 1/2005; considers that OLAF's operations should be assessed by Parliament as part of the procedure to revise the OLAF Regulation;

49.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the database referred to in Article 95 of the Financial Regulation is fully operational as of 1 January 2009;

50.  Notes that OLAF received 802 new notifications in 2005, and 826 in 2006; welcomes the fact that the evaluation system has made it possible to reduce the number of investigations opened to 254 cases, and the fact, moreover, that, according to the statistics, the majority of completed investigations were followed-up by administrative, disciplinary, financial, judicial or legislative action; notes that the financial impact of all ongoing cases and closed cases was EUR 6 600 million at the end of 2005 and EUR 7 400 million at the end of 2006, and that the sectors most affected were Structural Funds (2006: EUR 1 606,7 million), cigarettes (2006: EUR 1 320,1 million), customs (2006: EUR 989,8 million) and VAT (2006: EUR 727,8 million);

51.  Calls on the Commission to prepare the appropriate legal base for the publication of the names of companies and individuals who have defrauded the Community;

52.  Welcomes the way in which OLAF informed Parliament of the follow-up to its closed investigations; notes, however, that the prosecution offices concerned refused to take follow-up action on 20 cases (out of the 134 cases in which judicial follow-up had been requested) because of the statute of limitations or lack of evidence;

53.  Is disappointed, however, that OLAF has not relaunched the dialogue on written information which Parliament's competent committee regularly receives, as requested in Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 15 June 2006;

54.  Notes that, as in previous years, the majority of cases were registered in Belgium, Germany and Italy;

55.  Draws attention to its abovementioned resolution of 11 October 2007;

56.  Notes that in 2006 an amount exceeding EUR 450 million was identified for recovery in connection with OLAF investigations, and that this amount came from cases closed in 2006 (approximately EUR 114 million) and from ongoing follow-up measures (approximately EUR 336 million, mainly from the agricultural sector (EUR 134,6 million) and Structural Funds (EUR 146,3 million));

57.  Welcomes the cooperation between OLAF, Europol, Eurojust and certain international organisations, one of the purposes of which is to combat organised crime; stresses, at the same time, that such cooperation must be transparent and must not affect the independence of OLAF;

58.  Understands that the Commission wishes to limit the number of language versions of its reports for reasons of economy; insists, nonetheless, that both Annex 2 to the annual reports on the protection of the Communities' financial interests and the activity reports must be available at least in English, French and German;

Revision of the OLAF Regulation

59.  Reminds the Commission that, in paragraph 30 of its abovementioned resolution of 15 June 2006, Parliament advocated that "(...) all OLAF's investigatory powers be grouped together in a single regulation;"; at the same time emphasises that the Council's working party on fight against fraud also seems to be in favour of streamlining the current legal bases(18); calls therefore on OLAF to submit, as a matter of urgency, an analysis of the interoperability of the different legal bases granting investigative powers to it in the context of the 2007 OLAF annual activity report, with a view to possibly integrating the findings of this analysis into the future revision of the OLAF Regulation; in this context points to the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon(19) also amends Article 280 of the EU Treaty dealing with combating fraud;

60.  Notes that the European Court of Human Rights ruled on 27 November 2007 in the case of Tillack v. Belgium (application No 20477/05) that the Belgian state had violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights when searching the journalist's premises; notes however that neither OLAF's nor the Commission's prior administrative investigations were the subject of the ruling; in this context, is of the opinion that, in general, every appropriate measure must be taken to protect the rights of persons under investigation;

Combating VAT fraud

61.  Is extremely concerned at the financial losses caused by "carousel" transactions; notes, for instance, that the German Economic Research Institute puts lost national VAT receipts for 2003 to 2005 at between EUR 17 000 million and EUR 18 000 million a year; that, extrapolating across the board, Member States estimate that they lose about 10% of their VAT receipts each year; and that one-third of these losses are attributed to cross-border "carousel" transactions;

62.  Notes, furthermore, that the House of Lords estimates lost national VAT receipts in the United Kingdom for 2005 to 2006 at between GBP 3 500 million and GBP 4 750 million, which is at least GBP 9,6 million per day; cites the report which states: "The current mechanism for intra-Community VAT transactions is not sustainable."(20);

63.  Points out that only actual receipts can be taken into account for collection of VAT own resources;

64.  Is very concerned that many Member States are still reluctant to step up cooperation both between competent national services and between the Commission, including OLAF, and the national services;

65.  Welcomes the Commission's communication to the Council concerning some key elements contributing to the establishment of the VAT anti-fraud strategy within the EU (COM(2007)0758); calls, accordingly, on its competent committee to take active steps to monitor its implementation;

66.  Criticises the fact that the Council has still not adopted a position on the proposal for a regulation on mutual administrative assistance for the protection of the financial interests of the Community against fraud and any other illegal activities(21), which was the subject of first reading in Parliament on 23 June 2005(22); calls on its President to contact the Council Presidency with a view to making progress on this issue;

67.  Considers that improved cooperation between the services concerned and with the Commission (OLAF) is essential to tackling cross-border 'carousel' fraud; considers that, in this context, the VAT information exchange system and cooperation in the field of data analysis, with the assistance of the Commission (OLAF), should be strengthened;

o
o   o

68.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the OLAF Supervisory Committee and OLAF.

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/aar2005/doc/olaf_aar.pdf. (2) http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/doc/olaf_aar.pdf. (3) http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/reports/sup-com_en.html. (4) OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ C 273, 15.11.2007, p.1. (6) OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (7) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2. (8) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1525/2007 (OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 9). (9) OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 (OJ L 322, 7.12.2007, p. 1.) (10) Member of the Commission Danuta Hübner stated in a written answer to the Committee on Budgetary Control that "in 2006 ERDF payment claims have been held back by Spain pending the results of audits of remedial measures. Other examples are interruptions of ESF payments in 2005 for all programmes in England, for Objective 3 programmes and some regional programmes in France, and for programmes in the Calabria and Sicily regions of Italy, and in 2006 for EQUAL in Spain and Italy". (11) The Task Force Recovery (TFR) has been created as announced in the Commission Communication "Improving the recovery of Community entitlements arising from direct and shared management of Community expenditure" (COM(2002)0671 final). The TFR is a joint OLAF/AGRI initiative chaired by OLAF. (12) Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95 of 22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF (OJ L 145, 29.6.1995, p. 1). (13) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0432. (14) The annual report of the Court of Auditors concerning the financial year 2006: "5.11. For the fifth consecutive year the Director General's declaration contains a reservation concerning insufficient implementation of the IACS in Greece. For 2006 the Court has confirmed continuing failure to implement key controls, namely: claims handling, inspection procedures, animal database integrity and the Land Parcel Identification System." (15) OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1989/2006 (OJ L 411, 30.12.2006, p. 6). (16) OJ C 300 E, 9.12.2006, p. 508. . (17) Presentation to the Committee on Budgetary Control on 12 November 2007. (18) Letter to the OLAF Director of 2 April 2007. (19) OJ C 306, 17.12.2007, p. 127. (20) Point 52 of the report by the House of Lords - European Union Committee, Stopping the Carousel: Missing Trader Fraud in the EU, HL Paper 101, 25 May 2007. (21) COM(2004)0509, subsequently amended by COM(2006)0473. (22) OJ C 133 E, 8.6.2006, p. 105.

European Parliament resolution of 19 February 2008 on the EU's Strategy to deliver market access for European companies (2007/2185(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0053 A6-0002/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled "Global Europe: A stronger partnership to deliver market access for European exporters" (COM(2007)0183),

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

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled "Global Europe: Europe's trade defence instruments in a changing global economy. A Green Paper for public consultation" (COM(2006)0763),

–   having regard to its resolution of 28 September 2006 on the EU's economic and trade relations with India(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2006 on the annual report from the Commission to the European Parliament on third country anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard action against the Community (2004)(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2006 on the assessment of the Doha Round following the WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 12 October 2006 on economic and trade relations between the EU and Mercosur with a view to the conclusion of an Interregional Association Agreement(4),

–   having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2006 on EU-US transatlantic economic relations(5),

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 October 2005 on prospects for trade relations between the EU and China(6),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document accompanying the Communication from the Commission entitled "Economic reforms and competitiveness: key messages from the European Competitiveness Report 2006" (SEC(2006)1467),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: A policy framework to strengthen EU manufacturing - towards a more integrated approach for industrial policy" (COM(2005)0474),

–   having regard to the Presidency conclusions of the European Council, held on 23 and 24 March 2006,

–   having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2006 on the input to the Spring 2006 European Council in relation to the Lisbon Strategy(7),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled "EU − China: Closer Partners, growing responsibilities" (COM(2006)0631) and the accompanying working document entitled "Closer Partners, Growing Responsibilities: A policy paper on EU-China trade and investment: Competition and Partnership" (COM(2006)0632),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled "Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme – Modern SME Policy for Growth and Employment" - (COM(2005)0551),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0002/2008),

A.   whereas the European Union is a key player in world trade and should continue to show leadership in the global economic system in order to make it fairer and more respectful of environmental and social rights,

B.   whereas the European Union is the world's largest exporter and the biggest service provider and has therefore a strong interest in ensuring that new markets for goods, services and investments are opened,

C.   whereas the European Union needs to implement more ambitious and forward-looking strategies in order to meet the challenges of globalisation and to confront increased competition from major emerging economies, while preserving the European economic, regional and social model and promoting human rights and social and environmental standards,

D.   whereas economic openness both at home and abroad is vital for creating jobs and growth as well as for maintaining international competitiveness; whereas the European Union should therefore, within the framework of the market access strategy, continue its work of opening EU markets as well as encouraging its trading partners to bring down their own barriers and further open their markets,

E.   whereas adequate access to third-country markets will enable EU domestic producers to remain leaders in high added-value goods and services, enhance the innovation of their products, promote creativity, protect intellectual property rights (IPRs) and achieve significant economies of scale,

F.   whereas developments in international trade make access to third-country markets as important as defending EU markets from unfair trading practices,

G.   whereas trade liberalisation and the increasing volume of trade promote international competition, but also increase the risk of exports being subject to trade barriers, which have a damaging impact on the international competitiveness of EU firms,

H.   whereas the competitiveness of the EU economy is undoubtedly affected by protectionist behaviour which is not based on World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, whether inside or outside the Community,

I.   whereas the dismantling of trade barriers will certainly enhance Europe's exports of goods and services and guarantee steady growth in the EU economy,

J.   whereas account should be taken of the ineffective protection of IPRs, including geographical indications and appellations of origin, by the European Union's trading partners globally,

K.   whereas it is of the utmost importance to make a distinction between a priori unjustified trade barriers resulting from the incoherent implementation of established bilateral and multilateral trade rules, and trade barriers resulting from the legitimate legislative and administrative activity of public authorities that originate in fields other than trade but have unintended consequences on trade,

L.   whereas burdensome customs procedures for import, export and transit and sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions not justified under existing WTO rules, the unfair use of trade defence instruments (TDIs) and poor protection of IPRs are clearly a priori unjustified trade barriers which need to be addressed in order to facilitate market access for EU companies,

M.   whereas, despite the extreme difficulty of estimating with any accuracy the volume of EU trade hampered by foreign market restrictions, it seems clear that trade barriers have a significant impact on overall EU export performance,

N.   whereas the European Union's economic presence is generally stronger in industrialised countries where demand is static but significantly weaker in rapidly growing areas and in emerging markets such as China and India,

O.   whereas the European Union is generally considered to be a very open and transparent market which tackles anti-competitive behaviours seriously and guarantees fair conditions to all imports irrespective of their origin,

P.   whereas high tariffs still constitute a significant obstacle to trade, especially in relations with major emerging countries,

Q.   whereas the WTO is the only effective forum for securing market access and achieving fair and equitable trade globally; whereas the projection of the European governance model should contribute to the further development of suitable, fair rules and ensure a more stable and more comprehensive regulatory system for world trade,

R.   whereas it is in the Commission's general interest to ensure that the commercial legislation and practices adopted by its partners comply as far as possible with WTO and other international rules,

S.   whereas obstacles to trade and behind-the-border barriers not only damage trade in goods but also significantly affect trade in services and public procurement,

T.   whereas solving problems and being more effective in the defence of industry's legitimate interests and expectations would also be beneficial for the European Union in terms of visibility and credibility,

U.   whereas meeting the objectives of the revised Lisbon Agenda requires industries in the European Union to develop and sustain stable competitive positions in the global market,

V.   whereas this competitiveness, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), increasingly relies on research, development, innovation and IPRs,

W.   whereas two prerequisites of this competitiveness are a safe and secure energy supply on the one hand, and unimpeded access for EU businesses to state-of-the-art information and communication technologies on the other hand,

General overview

1.  Stresses that the successful implementation of a revised, more ambitious market access strategy, intended to open new world markets to EU products and services, is likely not only to expand the European Union's global role, but also to protect existing jobs and create new jobs in Europe, enhance the European Union's competitiveness and thus substantially contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy;

2.  Recalls that the European Union's strategy to deliver market access is intended specifically to address developed and emerging economies;

3.  Stresses that the European Union's performance in exports to both developed and emerging economies is often hindered by a lack of reciprocity as regards market access conditions, an insufficient degree of compliance with international trade rules and the proliferation of unfair trading practices;

4.  Urges the Commission to ensure that the European Union's legitimate trade interests are defended against the abusive or unfair trade practices of third countries; takes the view that, when third countries unjustifiably restrict access to their markets by EU companies, the European Union should react rapidly and firmly;

5.  Notes the increasing importance of regulatory issues in international trade; calls for greater consistency between EU rules and practices and those of its main trading partners; emphasises that the harmonisation of rules and regulations should not lead to a weakening of health, safety or environmental and social laws in Europe, but instead trigger the adoption of better rules by the European Union's major trading partners;

6.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt a long-term approach to structural distortions that, by their nature, are likely to continue or recur even after the Commission has taken steps; urges the Commission not to disregard cases in which there is no likelihood of the early elimination of barriers where their removal is nevertheless needed to restore a level playing-field in key foreign markets;

7.  Calls on the Commission to consider serious and systematic breaches of the WTO agreements and rules and other international trade laws as requiring a prompt remedy, and to ensure that the enforcement of such rules is not subordinated to political and economic considerations other than those relevant to the case in hand;

8.  Urges third countries to lift foreign ownership restrictions on European companies and to remove discriminatory rules;

9.  Welcomes the approach suggested by the Commission on the identification of market access priorities, but urges it also to consider other criteria which would ensure that this new initiative assists the largest possible number of economic operators in the European Union and in particular SMEs, whose survival depends ineluctably on the clear definition and the effective enforcement of IPRs and definitive restrictions on monopoly rents;

10.  Stresses that success in the fight against trade barriers will stimulate investment, production and trade in the European Union and worldwide by, inter alia, making market access conditions more transparent, predictable and competitive and establishing or strengthening the link between the European Union and international markets;

11.  Believes that Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the European Union's target countries will be meaningless unless they secure significant market access and real progress in reducing and eventually eliminating non-tariff barriers which, it is worth recalling, are often more trade distorting than tariff barriers;

The Commission's Communication

12.  Welcomes the Commission's initiative to set up a stronger partnership to deliver market access for European exporters, and in particular to achieve concrete results for European businesses by improving market access in emerging markets where European businesses encounter new and complex barriers to trade and investment; and welcomes the Commission's initiative to coordinate the objectives and tools of the European Union's trade policy and market access strategy in a way that effectively harnesses the European Union's potential in the fields of international trade and global competitiveness;

13.  Welcomes, in particular, the Commission's proposals for establishing a stronger partnership between the Commission, the Member States, and EU businesses with a view to directly helping economic operators overcome the concrete difficulties they encounter in accessing third-country markets in a manner and time frame that is compatible with business reality;

14.  Takes the view that the Commission can play a significant role in the implementation of the new market access strategy by ensuring an appropriate degree of coordination between actions at national and Community level, harnessing resources which would otherwise be scattered and securing a more efficient defence of European exporters' rights and interests;

15.  Takes the view that the European Union has an irreplaceable role to play in guaranteeing a level playing-field in international trade in close cooperation with the Member States and having regard to the principle of subsidiarity and the balance of existing competencies;

16.  Emphasises the importance of a periodic qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the results of the market access strategy to assess its effectiveness; calls on the Commission to develop an appropriate market access action plan and submit a yearly report on market access to Parliament similar to the one which is already submitted in relation to TDIs;

17.  Urges European companies, which are legitimately competing against each other inside and outside the European Union, to adopt a cooperative approach to a new market access strategy, bearing in mind that opening foreign markets and ensuring free and fair trade serves their common interest and thus requires common and coordinated efforts;

18.  Regrets that several reasonable and experience-based recommendations from the business community, trade unions, consumers' organisations, and civil society, have been disregarded in the above mentioned Communication entitled "Global Europe: A stronger partnership to deliver market access for European exporters"; and urges the Commission to take them into consideration when implementing that Communication;

Market access initiatives in the European Union

19.  Stresses the need for further cooperation between the Commission and the Member States with a view to sharing information and good practices; calls on the Member States to create networks of national or, if appropriate, regional help desks to centralise information and claims, with special attention being paid to the interests and needs of SMEs;

20.  Takes the view that the efficacy of such networks would be significantly enhanced if national and local industry associations, chambers of commerce, SME associations and trade promotion agencies participated in the setting-up process;

21.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to enhance the role of the Market Access Advisory Committee (MAAC) and to ensure permanent liaison with the Article 133 Committee (named after the relevant article of the EC Treaty), the Trade Barriers Regulation Committee and other relevant committees;

22.  Calls on the Commission to set up a system of permanent dialogue enabling Member States and, when appropriate, regions and other European stakeholders to share information and define strategies and priorities;

23.  Calls on the Commission to consider the following when implementing its market access strategy:

Market access initiatives in third countries

24.  Calls for more structured coordination between the Commission and the Member States in third countries, which would enable a more efficient use to be made of diplomatic and governmental resources dealing with market access issues;

25.  Stresses the need for an unambiguous and ambitious mandate to be given to Commission delegations and to the newly created Market Access Teams located in third countries; reiterates that the market access strategy will be successful only if Member States are ready to contribute with their own resources, both human and financial, in proportion to their means, interests and objectives;

26.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to enhance cooperation with European chambers of commerce, trade associations and Member State trade promotion agencies located in third countries, and to ensure the appropriate exchange of information between delegations, Member State embassies, other governmental foreign trade bodies and interested European business associations;

27.  Calls on the Commission to reprioritise the deployment and eventually to increase the human resources available to Commission delegations, so that more staff are available to start up and ensure the successful functioning of market access teams, in particular in key delegations such as, inter alia, Beijing, New Delhi, Moscow and Brasilia;

Sectoral issues

28.  Supports the setting-up of dedicated initiatives, within the market access strategy framework, to tackle in particular barriers in the fields of services, public procurement, investment and IPRs, customs procedures, State aid and other subsidies, and to establish rules on competition and their proper implementation in third countries;

29.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure that SMEs are able to benefit consistently from the new market access initiatives; calls on the Commission to define ad hoc actions aimed at strengthening the presence of SME products in third-country markets and defending their legitimate rights vis-à-vis one-sided third-country practices;

30.  Calls on the Commission to specifically deal with all restrictions on the provision of Internet and information society services imported by European companies in third countries as part of its external trade policy and to regard all unnecessary limitations on the provision of those services as constituting trade barriers;

The multilateral approach

31.  Stresses the need to create synergies with the European Union's major trade partners (such as the United States of America, Canada and Japan) with a view to defining a common market access strategy and to paving the way to a much needed multilateral agreement on market access;

32.  Reiterates the need to further promote deeper international regulatory cooperation and approximation in order to remove wasteful duplication and reduce costs for consumers, industry and governments; calls on the Commission to promote the progressive approximation of the standards and rules of the European Union and its trading partners, both multilaterally and bilaterally;

33.  Urges the Commission to promote dedicated WTO mechanisms allowing faster consideration to address new and emerging non-tariff barriers; in this respect, the Commission should encourage other trade partners to make greater use of the notification procedures under the Agreements on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBTs);

34.  Insists on maintaining a clear focus on enforcement and in ensuring compliance by third countries with their WTO obligations, by pursuing this right under the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism;

Looking ahead

35.  Takes the view that, unless justified by development concerns, the European Union should deploy its best efforts to obtain concessions from its trading partners that are proportionate to their level of development;

36.  Urges the Commission to include in the new generation FTAs and in other agreements having trade implications clear enforcement and dispute settlement provisions, especially designed to tackle behind-the-border barriers;

37.  Invites the European Union's trade partners to progressively reduce or dismantle barriers restricting market access for goods and services and instead to optimise mutual commercial opportunities on the basis of reciprocity, including through satisfactory implementation of market opening measures resulting from bilateral, regional and multilateral negotiations;

38.  Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament annually on the progress and results of the market access strategy, paying particular attention to the priorities which have been set;

o
o   o

39.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 306 E, 15.12.2006, p. 400. (2) OJ C 313 E, 20.12.2006, p. 276. (3) OJ C 293 E, 2.12.2006, p. 155. (4) OJ C 308 E, 16.12.2006, p. 182. (5) OJ C 298 E, 8.12.2006, p. 235. (6) OJ C 233 E, 28.9.2006, p. 103. (7) OJ C 291 E, 30.11.2006, p. 321.

Declaration of the European Parliament on investigating and remedying abuse of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union

P6_TA(2008)0054 P6_DCL(2007)0088

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas, throughout the EU, retailing is increasingly dominated by a small number of supermarket chains,

B.   whereas these retailers are fast becoming "gatekeepers", controlling farmers" and other suppliers" only real access to EU consumers,

C.   whereas evidence from across the EU suggests large supermarkets are abusing their buying power to force down prices paid to suppliers (based both within and outside the EU) to unsustainable levels and impose unfair conditions upon them,

D.   whereas such squeezes on suppliers have negative knock-on effects on both quality of employment and environmental protection,

E.   whereas consumers potentially face a loss in diversity of products, cultural heritage and retail outlets,

F.   whereas some Member States have introduced legislation attempting to limit such abuse, yet large supermarkets increasingly operate across national borders, making EU legislation desirable,

1.  Calls upon DG Competition to investigate the impact that the concentration of the EU supermarket sector is having on small businesses, suppliers, workers and consumers and, in particular, to assess any abuses of buying power which may follow from such concentration;

2.  Requests the Commission to propose appropriate measures, including regulation, to protect consumers, workers and producers from any abuse of a dominant position or other negative impact identified in the course of this investigation;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Commission, the Council and the parliaments of the Member States.