European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Community of the Agreement on Scientific and Technological Cooperation between the European Community of the one part and the Government of New Zealand of the other part (COM(2008)0170 – C6-0292/2008 – 2008/0066(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0478 A6-0367/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0170),

–   having regard to Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013)(1),

–   having regard to Article 170 and Article 300(2), first subparagraph, 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 (C6-0292/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 51 and Rules 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0367/2008),

1.  Approves conclusion of the agreement;

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

(1) OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the European Community regarding security audits/inspections and related matters (COM(2008)0335 - C6-0320/2008 - 2008/0111(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0479 A6-0374/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0335),

–   having regard to Articles 80(2) and 300(2), first subparagraph, 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 (C6-0320/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0374/2008),

1.  Approves conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (codified version) (COM(2008)0098 – C6-0144/2008 – 2008/0049(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0480 A6-0380/2008

(Codecision procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0098),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0144/2008),

–   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 (A6-0380/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

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 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to simple pressure vessels (codified version) (COM(2008)0202 – C6-0172/2008 – 2008/0076(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0481 A6-0381/2008

(Codecision procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0202),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0172/2008),

–   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 (A6-0381/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

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 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) (COM(2008)0369 – C6-0244/2008 – 2008/0126(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0482 A6-0385/2008

(Codecision procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0369),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0244/2008),

–   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 (A6-0385/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

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 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community (codified version) (COM(2008)0073 – C6-0147/2008 – 2008/0053(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0483 A6-0386/2008

(Consultation procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0073),

–   having regard to Article 104, paragraph 14, subparagraph 3, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0147/2008),

–   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 (A6-0386/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

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 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices in the air transport sector (codified version) (COM(2008)0367 – C6-0272/2008 – 2008/0124(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0484 A6-0379/2008

(Consultation procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0367),

–   having regard to Article 83 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0272/2008),

–   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 (A6-0379/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance,

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 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (COM(2008)0223 – C6-0197/2008 – 2008/0089(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0485 A6-0342/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0223),

–   having regard to Article 279(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 183 of the Euratom Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0197/2008),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1) and in particular Declaration No 3 on the review of the financial framework, annexed to that agreement,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0342/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty and pursuant to Article 119, second paragraph, of the Euratom Treaty;

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

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

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 1 (1)  The European Council meeting in Brussels on 15 and 16 December 2005 issued a number of conclusions concerning the system of the Communities' own resources, which led to the adoption of Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom. (1)  The European Council meeting in Brussels on 15 and 16 December 2005 issued a number of conclusions concerning the system of the Communities' own resources, which led to the adoption of Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom; it also called on the Commission to undertake a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending and of resources and to report in 2008/2009. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 1 a (new) (1a)  The Commission will therefore undertake a general review of the operation of the own resources system, accompanied by appropriate proposals for which the work and recommendations of the European Parliament will be fully taken into account, in compliance with the conditions laid down in Declaration No 3 on the review of the financial framework, annexed to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management1. ____________________ 1 OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the draft Council framework decision on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters (13076/2007 – C6-0293/2008 – 2003/0270(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0486 A6-0408/2008

(Consultation procedure – renewed consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Council draft (13076/2007),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2003)0688),

–   having regard to its position of 31 March 2004(1),

–   having regard to Article 34(2)(b) of the EU Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0293/2008),

–   having regard to Rules 93, 51 and 55(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0408/2008),

1.  Approves the Council draft as amended;

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

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

4.  Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend its draft substantially;

5.  Should this text not be adopted prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, is determined to consider any subsequent proposal by urgent procedure, in close cooperation with the national parliaments;

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

Council draft   Amendment Amendment 1 Council draft Recital 8 (8)  The principle of mutual recognition is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. In order to promote this confidence, this Framework Decision should contain important safeguards to protect fundamental rights. The EEW should therefore be issued only by judges, courts, investigating magistrates, public prosecutors and certain other judicial authorities as defined by Member States in accordance with this Framework Decision. (8)  The principle of mutual recognition is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. In order to promote this confidence, this Framework Decision should contain important safeguards to protect fundamental rights. The EEW should therefore be issued only by judges, investigating magistrates and public prosecutors. Amendment 2 Council draft Recital 9 (9)  This Framework Decision is adopted under Article 31 of the Treaty and therefore concerns judicial cooperation within the context of that provision, aiming to assist the collection of evidence for proceedings as defined in Article 5 of this Framework Decision. Although authorities other than judges, courts, investigating magistrates and public prosecutors may have a role in the collection of such evidence in accordance with Article 2(c)(ii), this Framework Decision does not cover police, customs, border and administrative cooperation which are regulated by other provisions of the Treaties. (9)  This Framework Decision is adopted under Article 31 of the Treaty and therefore concerns judicial cooperation within the context of that provision, aiming to assist the collection of evidence for proceedings as defined in Article 5 of this Framework Decision. This Framework Decision does not cover police, customs, border and administrative cooperation which are regulated by other provisions of the Treaties. Amendment 3 Council draft Recital 24 a (new) 24a.  It is of paramount importance to adopt Framework Decision 2008/...JHA of ... on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters as soo as possible, providing for an adequate level of data protection and including the processing of personal data at national level. Amendment 4 Council draft Recital 25 (25)  The EEW should coexist with existing mutual assistance procedures, but such coexistence should be considered transitional until, in accordance with the Hague Programme, the types of evidence-gathering excluded from the scope of this Framework Decision are also the subject of a mutual recognition instrument, the adoption of which would provide a complete mutual recognition regime to replace mutual assistance procedures. (25)  The EEW should coexist with existing mutual assistance procedures, but such coexistence should be considered transitional until, in accordance with the Hague Programme, the types of evidence-gathering excluded from the scope of this Framework Decision are also the subject of a mutual recognition instrument, the adoption of which would provide a complete mutual recognition regime to replace mutual assistance procedures. The European Commission should at the earliest opportunity present proposals aimed at completing the framework for recognition of criminal evidence, while also consolidating the legislation already adopted. The Commission is also invited to encourage efforts to harmonise the system for obtaining evidence in the Member States. Harmonisation represents the best foundation for cooperation in criminal matters. Amendment 5 Council draft Recital 25 a (new) (25a)  The European Commission should at the earliest opportunity present a proposal for a legislative instrument concerning procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings. Amendment 6 Council draft Article 2 – point c (c) "issuing authority" shall mean: (c) "issuing authority" shall mean: a judge, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor competent under national law to issue a European Evidence Warrant; (i) a judge, a court, an investigating magistrate, a public prosecutor; or (ii) any other judicial authority as defined by the issuing State and, in the specific case, acting in its capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to order the obtaining of evidence in cross-border cases in accordance with national law; Amendment 7 Council draft Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a.  The European Evidence Warrant is an instrument available to both the defence and the prosecution. Consequently, both the defence and the prosecution may ask the competent judicial authority to issue a European Evidence Warrant. Amendment 8 Council draft Article 4 − paragraph 6 6.  Notwithstanding paragraph 2, the EEW may, if requested by the issuing authority, also cover taking statements from persons present during the execution of the EEW and directly related to the subject of the EEW. The relevant rules of the executing State applicable to national cases shall also be applicable in respect of the taking of such statements. deleted Amendment 9 Council draft Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b a new (ba) the objects, documents or data are such as to be admissible in the proceedings for which they are sought. Amendment 10 Council draft Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new) The issuing authority shall certify in the warrant that the conditions laid down in the first paragraph have been fulfilled. Amendment 11 Council draft Article 8 – paragraph 2 2.  Each Member State may designate a central authority or, when its legal system so provides, more than one central authority to assist the competent authorities. A Member State may, if necessary as a result of the organisation of its internal judicial system, make its central authority(ies) responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of the EEW as well as for other official correspondence relating thereto. 2.  Each Member State may designate a central authority or, when its legal system so provides, more than one central authority to assist the competent judicial authorities. Amendment 12 Council draft Article 10 − paragraph 3 a (new) 3a.  Anyone affected by an exchange of data carried out in accordance with the present framework decision may claim the right to data protection, including blocking, correction, deletion and access to information pertaining to them, as well as access to any means of redress to which they are entitled under the legislation of the issuing State or the executing State. Amendment 13 Council draft Article 11 – paragraph 4 4.  If the issuing authority is not a judge, a court, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor and the EEW has not been validated by one of those authorities in the issuing State, the executing authority may, in the specific case, decide that no search or seizure may be carried out for the purpose of the execution of the EEW. Before so deciding, the executing authority shall consult the competent authority of the issuing State. deleted Amendment 14 Council draft Article 11 – paragraph 5 5.  A Member State may, at the time of adoption of this Framework Decision, make a declaration or subsequent notification to the General Secretariat of the Council requiring such validation in all cases where the issuing authority is not a judge, a court, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor and where the measures necessary to execute the EEW would have to be ordered or supervised by a judge, a court, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor under the law of the executing State in a similar domestic case. deleted Amendment 15 Council draft Article 11 a (new) Article 11a Safeguards for execution Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the European Evidence Warrant is executed in accordance with the following minimum conditions: (a) the executing authority shall use the least intrusive means necessary to obtain the objects, documents or data; (b) a natural person shall not be required to produce objects, documents or data which may result in self-incrimination under the legislation of the issuing State or the executing State; and (c) the issuing authority shall be informed immediately if the executing authority discovers that the warrant was executed in a manner contrary to the law of the executing State. 2.  Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where a search and seizure is considered necessary in order to obtain objects, documents or data, the following minimum safeguards shall apply: (a) a search of premises shall not start at night, unless this is exceptionally necessary due to the particular circumstances of the case; (b) a person whose premises have been searched shall be entitled to receive written notification of the search. This shall state, as a minimum, the reason for the search, the objects, documents or data seized, and the legal remedies available; and (c) in the absence of the person whose premises are being searched, the notification described in point (b) shall be provided to that person by leaving the notification on the premises or by other suitable means. Amendment 16 Council draft Article 12 The executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this Framework Decision and provided that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of law of the executing State. This Article shall not create an obligation to take coercive measures. Without prejudice to Article 11a, the executing authority shall comply with the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the issuing authority unless otherwise provided in this Framework Decision and provided that such formalities and procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of law of the executing State. Amendment 17 Council draft Article 12 − paragraph 1 a (new) The issuing authority may also require the executing authority to: (a) preserve the confidentiality of the investigation and its content except to the extent necessary for the execution of the warrant; (b) allow a competent authority from the issuing State or an interested party designated by the issuing authority to be present at the execution of the warrant and to have access, under the same conditions as the executing authority, to any object, document or item of data obtained on that occasion; (c) record the names of the people through whose hands the evidence has passed between the execution of the warrant and its transfer to the issuing State. Amendment 18 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new) (aa) if the offence on which it is based is covered by amnesty in the executing Member State, where that State had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own criminal law; Amendment 19 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new) (ab) if the person who is the subject of the European Evidence Warrant may not, owing to his age, be held criminally responsible for the acts on which the evidence warrant is based under the law of the executing Member State; Amendment 20 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point e (e) if, in one of the cases referred to in Article 11(4) or (5), the EEW has not been validated; deleted Amendment 21 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 1 – point f (f) if the EEW relates to criminal offences which: deleted (i) under the law of the executing State are regarded as having been committed wholly or for a major or essential part within its territory, or in a place equivalent to its territory; or (ii) were committed outside the territory of the issuing State, and the law of the executing State does not permit legal proceedings to be taken in respect of such offences where they are committed outside that State's territory; Amendment 22 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 2 2.  The decision to refuse the execution or recognition of the EEW pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be taken by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor in the executing State. Where the EEW has been issued by a judicial authority referred to in Article 2(c)(ii), and the EEW has not been validated by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor in the issuing State, the decision may also be taken by any other judicial authority competent under the law of the executing State if provided for under that law. 2.  The decision to refuse the execution or recognition of the EEW pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be taken by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor in the executing State. Amendment 23 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 3 Any decision under paragraph 1(f)(i) in relation to offences committed partly within the territory of the executing State, or in a place equivalent to its territory, shall be taken by the competent authorities referred to in paragraph 2 in exceptional circumstances and on a case-by case basis, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, and in particular to whether a major or essential part of the conduct in question has taken place in the issuing State, whether the EEW relates to an act which is not a criminal offence under the law of the executing State and whether it would be necessary to carry out a search and seizure for the execution of the EEW. deleted Amendment 24 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 4 4.  Where a competent authority considers using the ground for refusal under paragraph 1(f)(i), it shall consult Eurojust before taking the decision. deleted Where a competent authority is not in agreement with Eurojust's opinion, Member States shall ensure that it give the reasons for its decision and that the Council be informed. Amendment 25 Council draft Article 13 – paragraph 5 5.  In cases referred to in paragraph 1(a), (g) and (h), before deciding not to recognise or not to execute an EEW, either totally or in part, the competent authority in the executing State shall consult the competent authority in the issuing State, by any appropriate means, and shall, where appropriate, ask it to supply any necessary information without delay. 5.  5. In cases referred to in paragraph 1(a), (aa), (ab), (g) and (h), before deciding not to recognise or not to execute an EEW, either totally or in part, the competent authority in the executing State shall consult the competent authority in the issuing State, by any appropriate means, and shall, where appropriate, ask it to supply any necessary information without delay. Amendment 26 Council draft Article 14 − paragraph 2 − introductory part 2.  If it is necessary to carry out a search or seizure for the execution of the EEW, the following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of that State, shall not be subject to verification of double criminality under any circumstances: 2.  If it is necessary to carry out a search or seizure for the execution of the EEW, the following offences as they are defined by the law of the issuing State, shall not be subject to verification of double criminality under any circumstances: Amendment 27 Council draft Article 15 − paragraph 3 3.  Unless either grounds for postponement under Article 16 exist or the executing authority has the objects, documents or data sought already in its possession, the executing authority shall take possession of the objects, documents or data without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 4, no later than 60 days after the receipt of the EEW by the competent executing authority. 3.  Unless one of the grounds for postponement under Article 16 justifies it or the executing authority has the objects, documents or data sought already in its possession, the executing authority shall take possession of the objects, documents or data as early as possible and no later than 60 days after the receipt of the European Evidence Warrant by the competent executing authority, without prejudice to paragraph 4. Amendment 28 Council draft Article 15 − paragraph 3 a (new) 3a.  In the absence of an action brought in accordance with Article 18 and unless one of the grounds for postponement referred to in Article 16 justifies it, the executing State shall transfer to the issuing State the objects, documents or data obtained by virtue of the European Evidence Warrant, immediately where the latter are already under the control of the executing authority or, where this is not the case, as early as possible and no later than 30 days following the date on which the executing authority takes possession of the evidence. When the objects, documents or data obtained are transferred, the executing authority shall state whether it requires them to be returned to the State of execution as soon as they cease to be needed by the issuing State. Amendment 29 Council draft Article 15 − paragraph 4 4.  When it is not practicable in a specific case for the competent executing authority to meet the deadline set out in paragraphs 2 or 3 respectively, it shall without delay inform the competent authority of the issuing State by any means, giving the reasons for the delay and the estimated time needed for the action to be taken. 4.  When it is not practicable under exceptional circumstances for the competent executing authority to meet the deadline set out in this Article, it shall without delay inform Eurojust and the competent authority of the issuing State in writing, giving the reasons for the delay and the estimated time needed for the action to be taken. Amendment 30 Council draft Article 15 − paragraph 5 5.  Unless a legal remedy is pending in accordance with Article 18 or grounds for postponement under Article 16 exist, the executing State shall without undue delay transfer the objects, documents or data obtained under the EEW to the issuing State. deleted Amendment 31 Council draft Article 15 − paragraph 6 6.  When transferring the objects, documents or data obtained, the executing authority shall indicate whether it requires them to be returned to the executing State as soon as they are no longer required by the issuing State. deleted Amendment 32 Council draft Article 17 a (new) Article 17a Subsequent use of evidence The use of the evidence acquired pursuant to this Framework Decision shall in no way prejudice the rights of the defence in subsequent criminal proceedings. These rights shall be fully respected, in particular as regards the admissibility of the evidence, the obligation to disclose that evidence to the defence and the ability of the defence to challenge that evidence. Amendment 33 Council draft Article 18 – paragraph 1 1.  Member States shall put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure that any interested party, including bona fide third parties, have legal remedies against the recognition and execution of an EEW pursuant to Article 11, in order to preserve their legitimate interests. Member States may limit the legal remedies provided for in this paragraph to cases in which the EEW is executed using coercive measures. The action shall be brought before a court in the executing State in accordance with the law of that State. 1.  Member States shall put in place the necessary arrangements to ensure that any interested party, including bona fide third parties, have legal remedies against the recognition and execution of an EEW pursuant to Article 11, in order to preserve their legitimate interests. The action shall be brought before a court in the executing State in accordance with the law of that State. Amendment 34 Council draft Article 23 - paragraph 1 1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by ...* 1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by ...* and they shall do everything they can to agree before that date on a Framework Decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union, taking the European Parliament's opinion into consideration. Amendment 35 Council draft Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a.  Member States shall indicate, in a declaration lodged with the Secretariat-General of the Council, the national bodies appointed to act as issuing authorities and executing authorities. Amendment 36 Council draft Article 23 – paragraph 3 3.  Any Member State that intends to transpose the ground for refusal set out in Article 13(1)(f) into its national law shall notify the Secretary General of the Council thereof upon adoption of this Framework Decision by making a declaration. deleted Amendment 37 Council draft Article 23 – paragraph 4 4.  Germany may by a declaration reserve its right to make the execution of an EEW subject to verification of double criminality in cases referred to in Article 14(2) relating to terrorism, computer-related crime, racism and xenophobia, sabotage, racketeering and extortion or swindling if it is necessary to carry out a search or seizure for the execution of the EEW, except where the issuing authority has declared that the offence concerned under the law of the issuing State falls within the scope of criteria indicated in the declaration. deleted Should Germany wish to make use of this paragraph, it shall notify a declaration to that effect to the Secretary-General of the Council upon the adoption of this Framework Decision. The declaration shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. Amendment 38 Council draft Article 23 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5a.  Each year, the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of this Framework Decision, paying special attention to the application of procedural safeguards. Amendment 39 Council draft Article 24 – paragraph 2 2.  At the beginning of every calendar year, Germany shall inform the Council and the Commission of the number of cases in which the ground for non-recognition or non-execution referred to in Article 23(4) was applied in the previous year. deleted Amendment 40 Council draft Annex – Section B – point ii a (new) ii (a) the objects, documents and data sought by this warrant are likely to be admissible in the proceedings for which they are sought. Amendment 41 Council draft Annex – Section C – point d (d) any other judicial authority as defined by the issuing State and, in the specific case, acting in their capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to order the obtaining of evidence in cross-border cases in accordance with national law. deleted This EEW has been validated by a judge or court, investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor (see sections D and O). Amendment 42 Council draft Annex – Section D (D)  THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY VALIDATING THE EEW (WHERE APPLICABLE) If point (d) in Section C has been ticked and this EEW is validated, tick the type of judicial authority which has validated this EEWt: deleted □ (a) judge or court □ (b) investigating magistrate □ (c) public prosecutor Official name of the validating authority: ......................................................................................................................................................... Name of its representative ……………………………………………………………………………………………............. Post held (title/grade) ......................................................................................................................................................... File reference ......................................................................................................................................................... Address: .......................................................................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... Tel.  No: (country code) (area/city code).................................................. Fax No : (country code) )(area/city code):……………………………… E-mail:…..……………………….………………………………………................. Amendment 43 Council draft Annex – Section E (E)  WHERE A CENTRAL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSMISSION AND RECEPTION OF EEWS AND, IF APPLICABLE, FOR OTHER OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING THERETO Name of the central authority :………………………… ……………………………………..…… Contact person, if applicable (title/grade and name):………………………..…. ………………………………………….… Address:……………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………… File reference : ……………………..….… Tel.  No: (country code) (area/city code): ……………….… Fax No: (country code) (area/city code) …..…….……… E-mail…… deleted Amendment 44 Council draft Annex – Section F (F)  THE AUTHORITY OR AUTHORITIES WHICH MAY BE CONTACTED (IN THE CASE WHERE SECTION D AND/OR E HAVE BEEN COMPLETED): □ Authority under section C Can be contacted for questions concerning……………………… □ Authority under section D Can be contacted for questions concerning……………………… □ Authority under section E Can be contacted for questions concerning……………………… deleted Amendment 45 Council draft Annex – Section I – Footnote  Where the EEW is addressed to Germany, and according to the declaration made by Germany in accordance with Article 23(4) of the Council Framework Decision 2007/…/JHA of …+ on the European Evidence Warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters, the issuing authority may additionally complete box N.1 to confirm that the offence(s) fall(s) within the scope of criteria indicated by Germany for this type of offence. deleted OJ: please insert the number and date of this Framework Decision. Amendment 46 Council draft Annex – Section N − point 1 Optional information to be given only in relation to Germany: □ It is declared that the offence(s) concerned under the law of the issuing State falls(s) within the scope of criteria indicated by Germany in the declaration made in accordance with Article 23(4) of Framework Decision ... deleted

(1) OJ C 103, 29.4.2004, p. 659.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 as regards the recovery of cod stocks and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (COM(2008)0162 – C6-0183/2008 – 2008/0063(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0487 A6-0340/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0162),

–   having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0183/2008),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0340/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

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

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

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

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 1 (1)  Recent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has indicated that the reductions in cod catches arising from the collective effect of total allowable landings (TACs), technical measures and complementary effort management measures have been far from sufficient to reduce fishing mortalities to levels required to allow the cod stocks to rebuild and none of the four cod stocks covered by Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 show clear signs of recovery. (1)  Recent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has indicated that the reductions in cod catches arising from the collective effect of total allowable landings (TACs), technical measures and complementary effort management measures (including monitoring and control to prevent the catching and landing of cod caught by illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing) have been far from sufficient to reduce fishing mortalities to levels required to allow the cod stocks to rebuild and none of the four cod stocks covered by Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 show clear signs of recovery, although stocks in the North and Celtic Seas are showing some signs of improvement. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 4 a (new) (4a)  Effective fisheries management mechanisms should be developed in co-operation with the fishing industry. To this end, evaluation and decision-making should involve the relevant Regional Advisory Councils and Member States. Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 (5)  New mechanisms must be introduced, to encourage fishermen to engage in cod-avoidance programmes. (5)  New mechanisms must be introduced, to encourage fishermen and Member States to engage in cod-avoidance programmes. All cod caught ought to be landed, rather than discarded, so as to enable proper scientific evaluation of stocks. Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 a (new) (5a)  Any such cod-avoidance programmes are more likely to succeed if they are developed in co-operation with the fishing industry; accordingly, cod-avoidance programmes developed within Member States should be considered an effective means of promoting sustainability, and the development of such programmes should be encouraged alongside the operation of the relevant Community legislation. Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 5 b (new) (5b)  Member States should exercise their power to allocate access to fishing for cod stocks so as to encourage their fishermen to fish in ways that result in more selective fishing and are less harmful to the environment. Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 ‐ point 1 Regulation (EC) No. 423/2004 Article 2b - point b a (new) ba) when cod stocks have substantially improved, the Commission should review the system of regulating the fishing effort. Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 3 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 6 – paragraph 4 4.  Notwithstanding paragraph 1(b) and (c) and paragraph 2, the Council shall not set the TAC at a level that is more than 15% below or above the TAC established in the previous year. 4.  Notwithstanding paragraph 1 and paragraph 2, the Council shall not set the TAC at a level that is more than 15% below or above the TAC established in the previous year. Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 ‐ point 3 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 6 - paragraph 5 - point b (b) as appropriate a quantity corresponding to other relevant sources of cod mortality to be fixed on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. (b) an appropriate quantity suggested by other relevant sources of cod mortality, such as scientific analysis evaluating the amount of cod being killed by seals, together with an assessment of the impact of climate change on cod recovery, to be fixed on the basis of a proposal from the Commission. Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 ‐ point 3 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 7 - paragraph 1 1.  Each three years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall request STECF to evaluate the progress of each of the depleted cod stocks towards recovery. 1.   Every three years from the date of entry into force of this Regulation, the Commission shall request STECF to evaluate the progress towards recovery of each depleted cod stock. In addition, the Commission shall seek the views of the relevant Regional Advisory Councils and Member States as to the effective management of cod stocks. Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 ‐ point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Chapter IV ‐ title Fishing effort limitation Fishing effort determination Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8a – paragraph 2 – point a (a) for the first year of application of this Regulation the baseline shall be established as the average effort in kW-days spent during the years 2005, 2006 and 2007, based on the advice of STECF. (a) for the first year of application of this Regulation the baseline shall be established as the average effort in kW-days spent during the years 2004, 2005 and 2006, based on the advice of STECF. Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8a – paragraph 3 – introductory part 3.  For effort groups which on the basis of the annual evaluation of the fishing effort management data submitted in accordance with Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No xxx/2008 have contributed most to the total catch of cod and whose total catch on basis of that evaluation consists by at least 80% of cod, the maximum allowable fishing effort shall be calculated as follows: 3.  For effort groups which on the basis of the annual evaluation of the fishing effort management data submitted in accordance with Articles 18, 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No xxx/2008 have contributed most to the total catch of cod overall and whose accumulated catches on basis of that evaluation consists by at least 80% of cod, the maximum allowable fishing effort shall be calculated as follows: Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8a – paragraph 3 – point a (a) where Article 6 applies, by applying to the baseline the same percentage reduction as that set out in Article 6 for fishing mortality; (a) where Article 6 applies, by applying to the baseline the same percentage change as that set out in Article 6 for fishing mortality; Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8b – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  For the vessels flying its flag, each Member State shall decide on a method for allocating the maximum allowable fishing effort to individual vessels, based on the following criteria: 1.  For the vessels flying its flag, each Member State shall decide on a method for allocating the maximum allowable fishing effort to individual vessels, in the light of a number of criteria, including, for example: Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8b – paragraph 3 3.  For each effort group, the total capacity expressed both in GT and kW of the vessels having special fishing permits issued in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be greater than the capacity of the vessels that have been active in 2007 using the gear and fishing in the geographical area concerned. deleted Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8d – introductory part The maximum allowable fishing effort established in accordance with Article 8a shall be adapted by the Member States concerned in view of: The maximum allowable fishing effort established in accordance with Article 8a may be adapted by the Member States concerned in view of: Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 4 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 8e – paragraph 3 3.  The transfer shall only be allowed from a donor gear grouping having shown, for cod, a catch per unit effort (cpue) larger that the cpue of the receiving gear grouping. The Member State requesting the transfer shall provide the necessary cpue information. 3.  The transfer shall only be allowed in principle from a donor gear grouping having shown, for cod, a catch per unit effort (cpue) larger that the cpue of the receiving gear grouping. Where a transfer is from one donor gear grouping to another donor gear grouping with a higher cpue, the effort transferred shall be subject to a reduction in the form of a more specifically defined correction factor. The Member State requesting the transfer shall provide the necessary cpue information. Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 – point 6 Regulation (EC) No 423/2004 Article 17 Article 17 Decision-making procedure deleted Where this Regulation provides for decisions to be taken by the Council, the Council shall act by qualified majority on the basis of a proposal from the Commission.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2008)0557 – C6-0318/2008 – 2008/2253(ACI))

P6_TA(2008)0488 A6-0399/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council (COM(2008)0557 – C6-0318/2008),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1), and in particular point 26 thereof,

–   having regard to the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008 on the EU Solidarity Fund,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and to the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development (A6-0399/2008),

1.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX: DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(2), and in particular point 26 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(3),

having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1)  The European Union has created a European Union Solidarity Fund ('the Fund') to show solidarity with the population of regions struck by disasters.

(2)  The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 1 billion.

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 contains the provisions whereby the Fund may be mobilised.

(4)  France has submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by hurricane 'Dean' in August 2007,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 12 780 000 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ C 139, 14.06.2006, p. 1. (3) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on Draft amending budget No 7/2008 of the European Union for the financial year 2008, Section III - Commission (14359/2008 – C6-0375/2008 – 2008/2252(BUD))

P6_TA(2008)0489 A6-0412/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 272 of the EC Treaty and Article 177 of the Euratom Treaty,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(1), and particularly Articles 37 and 38,

–   having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, as finally adopted on 13 December 2007(2),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(3),

–   having regard to Preliminary draft amending budget No 7/2008 of the European Union for the financial year 2008, which the Commission presented on 15 September 2008 (COM(2008)0556),

–   having regard to Draft amending budget No 7/2008, which the Council established on 20 October 2008 (14359/2008 – C6-0375/2008),

–   having regard to Rule 69 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0412/2008),

A.   whereas Draft amending budget No 7 to the general budget 2008 covers the following items:

B.   whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 7/2008 is to formally enter these budgetary adjustments into the 2008 budget,

1.  Takes note of Draft amending budget No 7/2008, which is the first amending budget solely dedicated to the EU Solidarity Fund;

2.  Approves Draft amending budget No 7/2008 unamended;

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

(1) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (2) OJ L 71, 14.3.2008. (3) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2008)0547 – C6-0312/2008 – 2008/2251 (ACI))

P6_TA(2008)0490 A6-0405/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0547 – C6-0312/2008),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1), and in particular point 28 thereof,

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund(2),

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A6-0405/2008),

A.   whereas the European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

B.   whereas the Union's financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the Interinstitutional Agreement in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the Fund,

C.   whereas Spain and Lithuania have requested assistance in respect of two cases concerning redundancies in the automobile sector in Spain and the textile sector in Lithuania, by letters of 6 February and 8 May 2008(3),

1.  Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the Fund;

2.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

3.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

4.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX: DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(4), and in particular point 28 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund(5), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,

having regard to the Commission proposal,

Whereas:

(1)  The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund ("the Fund") was created to provide additional support to workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market.

(2)  The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the Fund within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

(3)  On 6 February 2008 Spain submitted an application to deploy the Fund in respect of redundancies in the automobile sector, specifically for workers made redundant by Delphi Automotive Systems España, S.L.U. The application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006.

(4)  On 8 May 2008 Lithuania submitted an application to deploy the Fund in respect of redundancies in the textile sector, specifically for workers made redundant by Alytaus Tekstile. The application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006.

(5)  The Fund should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution in respect of the applications,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2008, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 10 770 772 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Strasbourg,

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (3) Applications EGF/2008/002/ES/Delphi and EGF/2008/003/LT/Alytaus Tekstile. (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on building a Global Climate Change Alliance between the European Union and poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change (2008/2131(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0491 A6-0366/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 18 September 2007 entitled 'Building a Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) between the European Union and poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change' (COM(2007)0540),

–   having regard to the Council conclusions of 20 November 2007 on Global Climate Change Alliance between the European Union and poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 11 March 2003 entitled 'Climate Change in the Context of Development Cooperation' (COM(2003)0085),

–   having regard to the Commission's 2007 Progress Report (2004-2006) on the EU Action Plan on Climate Change and Development,

–   having regard to the Paper of 14 March 2008 from the High Representative and the European Commission to the European Council entitled "Climate Change and International Security",

–   having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 29 June 2007 entitled 'Adapting to climate change in Europe – options for EU action' (COM(2007)0354),

–   having regard to the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: "The European Consensus"(1),

–   having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness adopted on 2 March 2005 following the High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness ("the Paris Declaration"),

–   having regard to the Joint Statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission: "The European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid"(2),

–   having regard to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),

–   having regard to the Human Development Report 2007/2008 entitled "Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world" launched by the United Nations Development Program,

–   having regard to the Male" Declaration on the Human Dimension of Global Climate Change adopted in Male" (Republic of Maldives) on 14 November 2007,

–   having regard to the Bali Roadmap adopted at the United Nations Climate Change Conference on the island of Bali (Indonesia) in December 2007,

–   having regard to the Fourth Assessment Report entitled "Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" prepared by the Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

–   having regard to the report of 2006 by Nicholas Stern entitled "The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review",

–   having regard to the Declaration on Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation, adopted by Development and Environment Ministers of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Member Countries on 4 April 2006,

–   having regard to the OECD Report of 2007 entitled "Stocktaking of Progress on Integrating Adaptation to Climate Change into Development Co-operation Activities",

–   having regard to the "Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters" adopted by the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held in January 2005 in Hyogo (Japan),

–   having regard to the biennial report of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) entitled "State of the World's Forests 2007",

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0366/2008),

A.   whereas climate change poses a serious threat to poverty reduction, human rights, peace and security, water and food availability, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in many developing countries,

B.   whereas in some developing countries forests are being cleared for biofuel crops,

C.   whereas industrialised countries have a historical responsibility for climate change and are morally obliged to assist developing countries in their efforts to adapt to its consequences,

D.   whereas developing countries have contributed least to climate change but will suffer most severely from its consequences, including water and food insecurity owing to drought and desertification, rising sea levels, new challenges for agriculture, new risks to health, extreme meteorological events and migratory pressures; whereas developing countries will also have the least capacity to deal with these consequences,

E.   whereas, in many industrialised countries, measures for climate change adaptation and risk reduction have received considerable attention recently, and whereas the same urgent needs have been largely neglected in the context of low-income countries,

F.   whereas illegal and unsustainable logging imports into the EU are a significant driver of deforestation and are estimated to cost impoverished countries billions of euros annually,

G.   whereas deforestation contributes to an estimated 20 % of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, leading to an estimated loss of 13 million hectares of tropical forests annually; and whereas deforestation in the tropics is a serious threat to biodiversity and the livelihoods of the more than one billion poor people living in and from such forests,

H.   whereas the concrete consequences of climate change often have to be dealt with at local level by local authorities; whereas the proper linking of international, national and local levels of policy-making is therefore a key challenge in designing effective climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies; and whereas large-scale structural changes must be achieved, without sacrificing a community-based pro-poor approach,

I.   whereas there is an increased recognition of the security threats posed by climate change, including conflicts over scarce natural resources, climate-induced natural disasters and large-scale migration flows; and whereas developing strategies to face joint climate/security challenges will be vital to ensuring an effective adaptive response in developing countries,

J.   whereas international efforts in the field of climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction (DRR) have so far been limited, fragmented, ill-coordinated and in many cases difficult to access for developing countries, which is in direct contrast to the objectives outlined in the European Consensus and the Paris Declaration,

K.   whereas climate change adaptation measures, DRR and capacity building for development ought to be highly interlinked, but so far they have been poorly integrated into the activities of development cooperation agencies and international institutions; and whereas a joint and coherent approach would be crucial for successful implementation of the GCCA,

L.   whereas it is necessary to establish multi-disciplinary teams of disaster managers, development specialists, planners and adaptation/climate science experts, which should adopt best practices for regional development,

M.   whereas early action on climate change adaptation and DRR represents a clearly cost-effective solution; whereas estimates predict that one dollar spent on DRR has the potential to save up to seven dollars in disaster response, thereby also providing a strong argument for frontloading aid spending,

N.   whereas, consequently, any attempt at double counting of EU funding for the attainment of MDG targets and promises made in the framework of the UNFCCC should be rejected,

O.   whereas any delay in taking firm decisions on the measures necessary to reduce the causes and effects of climate change will result in much higher costs,

P.   whereas most environmental problems, including those arising from climate change, tend to be aggravated by population growth and greater population size, whilst population dynamics, in terms of growth, distribution and composition are an integral part of the development process as they both affect and are affected by environmental change; and whereas the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo clearly highlighted the multiple benefits that arise from dedicated, locally oriented, non-coercive population policies, yet population issues nevertheless have thus far remained largely unincorporated into planning for either development or adaptation,

Q.   whereas agriculture, water, management of forest resources, health, infrastructure, education as well as population policies must all be addressed in order to achieve effective mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and mitigation into development,

R.   whereas reduction of corruption would increase the effectiveness of climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts,

S.   whereas the above-mentioned 2007 Progress Report on the EU Action Plan on Climate Change and Development shows that progress in mainstreaming climate change into EU development policies, specifically in Country Strategy Papers (CSPs) and Regional Strategy Papers (RSPs), has been insufficient and much too slow,

T.   whereas there is currently a huge gap as regards the financing of adaptation in developing countries; whereas while estimated annual adaptation costs range from USD 50 to 80 billion per annum, the total amount of funds committed through multilateral funding mechanisms in mid-2007 amounted to less than 0,5 % of these figures,

U.   whereas, even though the EU has set itself the target of becoming a leader in the fight against climate change, the EU budget does not reflect the priority given to the policies and measures adopted by the EU for the fight against climate change,

V.   whereas part of the GCCA funding will come from European Development Fund (EDF) and the Environment and Natural Resources Thematic Programme (ENRTP) (in line with Article 13 of the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)(3)),

W.   whereas the EDF has mainly been used to finance new initiatives; whereas the Commission should respect its commitment to find new financing sources in order to preserve the EDF; whereas the Committee on Development has concluded on numerous occasions that the EDF should be integrated into the EU budget in order to ensure democratic control over the way it is used,

X.   whereas in accordance with Article 21 on the adoption of strategy papers and multiannual indicative programs and Article 35(2) of the DCI, Parliament has a right of scrutiny over Commission actions as laid down in Articles 5 and 8 of Decision 1999/468/EC,

Y.   whereas the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has so far been poorly suited to meeting the needs of the poorest countries for investments in clean technology, with Africa hosting less than 3 % of all CDM projects, and nearly 90 % of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) being granted for projects carried out in China, India, Korea and Brazil,

1.  Welcomes the Commission's initiative to launch a GCCA, which represents an important recognition of the effects of climate change on development; however, calls on the Commission to clarify further the distinct added value of the GCCA; in this context stresses that coordination and cooperation with other main actors must be an integral part of the GCCA's agenda, so as to ensure optimal complementarity among initiatives;

2.  Considers the GCCA to be an important pillar of the EU's external action on climate change and to constitute a complementary and supportive platform for the ongoing process in the context of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, serving to advance their implementation and that of agreements related thereto;

3.  Reiterates the alarming conclusions of the above-mentioned Paper entitled 'Climate Change and International Security', which warned that climate change is intensifying security risks for the EU, threatening to overburden states and regions of the world which are already fragile and prone to conflict, and undermining efforts to attain the MDGs;

4.  Notes that efforts to combat climate change need to be based not only on political impetus but also on civil society, in both developed and developing countries; considers that public information campaigns should be launched and education programmes in schools and universities adopted both to provide citizens with analyses and evaluations of the state of climate change and to propose appropriate responses, especially in terms of changing lifestyles in order to reduce emissions;

5.  Emphasises that enhanced coordination and collaboration between the Commission and Member States is crucial in the area of EU policy on climate change and development; the GCCA representing a unique opportunity to live up to the principles underpinning the European Consensus and the Paris Declaration, as well as the Programme of Action of the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD); furthermore is convinced that one of the key roles of the GCCA should be to provide a "clearing house" for Member State initiatives;

6.  Calls on the EU to place climate change at the core of its development cooperation policy; believes furthermore that the fight against climate change must address structural causes and calls for a systematic climate change risk assessment covering all aspects of policy planning and decision-making, both in the EU and in developing countries, including in relation to trade, agriculture and food security;

7.  Stresses that the GCCA should take concrete measures to address coherence between, on one hand, the impact of climate change on development, including EU agriculture, trade and fisheries policies and, on the other hand, problems relating to export subsidies, such as tied aid, debt burden, export credits and commercial use of food aid, forced privatisation and liberalisation of vital economic sectors;

8.  Points out that since the GCCA, with EUR 60 million in funding for the period 2008-2010, is to be complementary to the ongoing process in the UNFCCC, overlapping of actions should be avoided and the funds concentrated on actions that provide the highest added value; believes that once a post-2012 climate change agreement has been reached, GCCA objectives and funding need to be reviewed in the light of the outcome;

9.  Is of the opinion that funds outside the UNFCCC cannot be counted as part of developed countries' implementation of their commitments under that Convention;

10.  Considers the EUR 60 million committed to the GCCA so far to be woefully inadequate; calls on the Commission to establish a long-term financing goal for the GCCA of at least EUR 2 billion annually by 2010 and EUR 5-10 billion annually by 2020;

11.  Calls on the Commission to provide detailed information on existing financial mechanisms for climate change and development at national and international levels; calls on the Commission, based on this information, to urgently propose what measures to use to scale up EU financial support for climate change and development, ensuring the best possible coordination and complementarity with existing initiatives;

12.  Stresses that, if climate change is to be taken seriously, new funding must be made available through different budget lines and new financing sources, such as humanitarian funds in response to climate-related catastrophes, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) funds and the Instrument for Stability in the context of preventive security policy or in response to climate-related security threats or conflicts, other external action funds whenever appropriated, as well as green taxes, public-private partnerships (PPP) and other innovative financing mechanisms intended for this purpose;

13.  Notes with interest the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 19 and 20 June 2008 and their budgetary implications; considers that these budgetary requirements can only be addressed by having recourse to the means provided for by the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(4); underlines once again that new appropriations should be provided for new tasks;

14.  Notes in this context that EU Official Development Assistance (ODA) still falls short of the target of 0,56 % of EU Gross National Income (GNI) by 2010 and that it is hard to see how the EU will be able to fulfil all its commitments without recourse to new innovative resources;

15.  Calls on the Commission to increase immediate funding for the GCCA, which might initially be achieved, as a matter of urgency, through the ENRTP as well as the 10th EDF; stresses at the same time the urgent need for additional, non-ODA funds for adaptation and developing innovative finance mechanisms for this purpose;

16.  Reminds the Commission that if funds are drawn from the ENRTP or the EDF to finance the GCCA they should, as development funds, only be used for actions compatible with development assistance as defined by the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC); insists that this should be a one-off source of funding, and that further replenishment must be found from alternative sources;

17.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that funding of the GCCA through ENRTP and the EDF will not be at the expense of other important development cooperation goals, such as those relating to education, health, gender equality or access to water;

18.  Stresses that Member States must take a much greater responsibility for the funding of and alignment of their development activities with the GCCA;

19.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to agree to earmark at least 25 % of expected revenues from auctioning within the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in the next trading period to funding of the GCCA and other climate change measures in developing countries, including efforts to protect forests and reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation;

20.  Calls on the Commission to use the upcoming review of the EU budget as an opportunity to re-evaluate the EU's overall spending priorities and channel additional funds to climate change and development in general and the GCCA in particular; including by reallocating Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funds;

21.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to implement urgently the idea of a global climate change financing mechanism, building upon the model of the International Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm) and the concept of front-loading aid, in order to secure significant amounts of funding for the GCCA within a relatively short period of time;

22.  Calls on the Commission to invite the private sector to become a close partner to the GCCA, recognising that public money could play a catalysing role by incentivising investments and delivering access to markets and technology; specifically encourages the Commission to invest in developing PPP models in key areas such as providing water security and infrastructure in vulnerable areas, where financing gaps currently are substantial, given that climate change affects many policy areas (such as access to water, public health, energy supply) involving intervention from the State and local authorities; recalls that the priority of the EU should be to reinforce capacity for public action in these areas;

23.  Calls on the Commission to engage in partnerships with the private insurance industry and explore methods of scaling up pilot insurance schemes to finance adaptation/DRR, addressing both national and regional and individual levels of insurance;

24.  Regrets that the overall involvement of developing country governments, civil society and local authorities has been inadequate throughout the programming process of the GCCA; calls on the Commission to ensure that decision-making throughout the elaboration, implementation, fund distribution and assessment processes takes place in partnership with interested parties;

25.  Calls on the Commission to use the GCCA to support and strengthen partner countries' capacities to identify, manage and mitigate security threats posed by climate change and encourages the Commission to devote additional funds to this purpose; further calls on the Commission to ensure that its Directorate-General for External Relations is fully involved throughout the process of programming and implementing the GCCA, to ensure optimal coherence between development cooperation, climate change and foreign and security policies;

26.  Calls on the Commission to use the GCCA to initiate discussions both with the donor community and with partner countries on increasing preparedness and contingency planning for large-scale migration in the event that certain regions become uninhabitable due to climate change;

27.  Insists that effective reporting mechanisms, including detailed indicators of progress and follow-up schemes, must adhere to the GCCA;

28.  Believes that a specific added value and competence of the GCCA could be forging a link between local adaptation action and the global climate and development policy frameworks; welcomes in this context the "political dialogue" strand of the GCCA as an important step in connecting the poverty reduction agenda and the MDGs with the climate change agenda; stresses however that the GCCA will only be successful if it is part of an overall EU strategy for the post-2012 negotiations, where strong support for mitigation as well as adaptation activities in developing countries is a top priority;

29.  Encourages the Commission to use the policy dialogue and its envisaged EU/Least Developed Countries (LDCs)/Small Island Development States (SIDS) Joint Declaration as a forum for advancing the idea of a "Global Contract", where development cooperation and climate change-related activities are closely integrated with attention to population concerns incorporated as an explicit element, as envisioned in the Global Marshall Plan initiative;

30.  Stresses the need to accelerate efforts to mainstream climate change adaptation, DRR and action on population and reproductive health into both Commission and Member State development aid, particularly in the implementation stage, since from a systemic perspective these areas are absolutely fundamental; calls on the Commission to take advantage of the upcoming mid-term review of CSPs to make progress in this field;

31.  Insists that the Commission, alongside the GCCA, must continue developing its response to the 2007 Progress Report on the EU Action Plan on Climate Change and Development, containing many important elements which must not be lost, including the creation of on-the-field "clearing houses" to improve coordination and access to information;

32.  Underlines that the development and implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds has experienced several shortcomings, due to inadequate funding, underestimation of adaptation costs, weak links to human development, overly bureaucratic channels of access and a project-based bias; calls on the Commission to address fully these shortcomings when providing further support to NAPA implementation in LDCs and SIDS through the GCCA; in this context welcomes the Commission's intention to explore programme-based capacity building of governance institutions using budget support;

33.  Stresses that successful use of budget support for development-oriented climate change adaptation depends on extensive use of all means available within budget support arrangements, including discussion of policy priorities, long-term monitoring, and technical assistance for budget formulation and execution; further stresses the need for active involvement of civil society and local communities; also urges the Commission to be prepared to make use of complementary measures where budget support is not appropriate or where it fails to benefit the poor and most vulnerable;

34.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that the GCCA's planned research on adaptation in developing countries has a clear "bottom-up" perspective, is directed towards the poor and most vulnerable, guided by the needs of local communities and carried out in cooperation with the people concerned; emphasises the importance of results from adaptation research being communicated to its target groups through accessible media channels;

35.  Calls on the Commission to devote significant resources to research on the economics of adaptation in developing countries, including improving understanding of the future costs of the necessary restructuring of trade, agriculture and security policies and institutions; recognises that knowledge gaps in this field constitute a barrier to effective adaptation action and spending from both public and private actors;

36.  Emphasises the importance of transferring knowledge and technology - including disaster risk reduction technology - to GCCA partner countries; to this end, calls on the Commission to promote a web-based 'library' of relevant climate adaptation data and to facilitate an exchange programme for climate adaptation experts between those countries;

37.  Reiterates the importance of policy coherence and requests the Commission to address the issue of integrating climate change into poverty reduction efforts at the time of the EU budget review as well as the mid-term review of the different development instruments;

38.  Calls on the Commission to devote more attention to the impact of climate change on agriculture and forestry and to the adjustment of agriculture and forestry to climate change; calls on the Commission to use the GCCA to support the development of environmentally sound agricultural policies, with priority given to guaranteeing people's food security; further calls on the Commission to help create an appropriate institutional and financial framework for the rural poor depending on agriculture for their livelihoods;

39.  Stresses that agriculture in poor developing countries is directly and strongly affected by climate change, which can have dramatic consequences on food security; therefore calls on the Commission to use the GCCA to develop agricultural policies and production methods which better meet the needs of local population and constitute a long-term solution to the soaring food prices; encourages in particular the Commission to support innovative solutions such as creating "green belts" around cities to respond to the basic food needs of urban populations in developing countries;

40.  Welcomes the Commission's intention to propose an EU Strategy for DRR, signifying an important step in bridging the gap between DRR, development and adaptation efforts; in this context calls on the Commission to clarify how the GCCA can facilitate this integration on a practical level;

41.  Stresses that a DRR strategy will not produce significant results without a concrete action plan and a major redirection of budget allocations to secure long-term funding for DRR and adaptation as a part of regular development aid, rather than, as is the case today, a short-term and poorly prioritised humanitarian concern;

42.  Stresses that there is a great need for additional human resources within EuropeAid and EU delegations in order to ensure a successful implementation of the GCCA; calls on the Commission to devote substantial resources to this area in the 2009 EU budget; more widely, also calls on the Commission to devote significantly more resources to staff training on climate change adaptation and DRR in relevant Commission Directorates-General and delegations, particularly focusing on enhancing practical know-how;

43.  To the extent that the GCCA entails action on mitigation, stresses that LDCs and SIDS need capacity-building and technical support in order to be able to enhance their participation in the CDM; also calls on the Commission to actively engage in international climate change negotiations with the goal of strengthening the CDM, to ensure additionality and coherence with development and climate goals; further calls on the Commission not to focus exclusively on CDM as the ultimate policy tool, but also provide alternative support for mitigation action more suitable for the poorest countries, with priority given both to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) activities and low-carbon technologies;

44.  Calls on the Commission to urgently develop ambitious complementary policy initiatives, particularly in the fields of forest and marine protection, sustainable use of natural resources and mitigation technology cooperation, where financial needs widely exceed what is provided for within the GCCA at present; specifically calls on strong EU action in the form of financial support, technical assistance and technology transfer and cooperation to developing countries to facilitate the use, at the earliest stage possible, of technologies which emit little GHG and of environmentally friendly production methods;

45.  Calls on the Commission to revise its proposal for sustainability criteria for biofuels, establishing stricter requirements for climate and ecosystems benefits, also taking into account the effects of indirect land use change and development consequences for local communities; emphasises that sustainability criteria must not become new protectionist measures but should be designed in dialogue with developing countries;

46.  Believes that the proposed Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund is a remarkable instrument in this framework and that it could play an important role in energy-efficiency projects and in promoting renewable energy in developing countries;

47.  Calls on the Commission to urgently develop a comprehensive agenda to reduce deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, including  promotion of  Voluntary Partnership Agreements under the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) programmes, and concrete proposals on funding mechanisms to present at the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 14) in Poznan in December 2008; reiterates the importance of such mechanisms providing compensation not only for avoided GHG emissions, but also for biodiversity and development benefits of forests;

48.  Regrets that the Commission is yet to come forward with clear, rigorous proposals to ban the import of illegally logged timber and timber products into the EU market; calls on the Commission to present such proposals without further delay;

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

(1) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ C 25, 30.1.2008, p. 1. (3) Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41.). (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy (2008/2064(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0492 A6-0356/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Articles 158 and 159 thereof,

–   having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 15 thereof,

–   having regard to 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(1) (hereinafter the General Regulation on the Structural Funds) and in particular Article 11, entitled Partnership, thereof,

–   having regard to the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, and the First Action Programme for the Implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union,

–   having regard to the study drawn up by Parliament's Policy Department on Structural and Cohesion Policies entitled "Governance and partnership in regional policy",

–   having regard to the opinions of the Committee of the Regions (COTER-IV-17) and of the European Economic and Social Committee on governance and partnership (EESC 1177/2008),

–   having regard to the exploratory opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee entitled Towards balanced development of the urban environment: challenges and opportunities (EESC 737/2008),

–   having regard to the Commission's Practical guide to EU funding for research, development and innovation,

–   having regard to the second cycle of the URBACT programme (2007-2013), a European programme whose aim is to foster exchanges of experience between European towns and cities, and in particular the seven new thematic networks dealing with governance,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A6-0356/2008),

A.   whereas the interest and well-being of citizens lie at the centre of European, national and regional policies, and whereas an improved level of governance and partnership, aimed at establishing an improved level of coordination and cooperation between the various authorities, is to the benefit of all citizens of the Union,

B.   whereas the practical solutions which our fellow citizens expect to see as regards public services (such as public transport, drinking water, social housing and public education) can be achieved only by means of good governance, involving two complementary systems: firstly, the institutional system, which provides for the allocation of powers and budgets between the State and regional and local authorities and, secondly, the partnership system, which brings together all the public and private bodies concerned by a given topic in a given territory,

C.   whereas attention should be drawn to the definition of "partnership" as contained in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds, pursuant to which each Member State shall organise "a partnership with authorities and bodies such as:

D.   whereas partnership should take account of all relevant communities and groups, can bring benefit and added value to the implementation of cohesion policy through enhanced legitimacy, guaranteed transparency and better absorption of funds, and should also be assessed in terms of the social and civic value it represents,

E.   whereas the closest possible involvement of the various partners in the drafting of operational programmes will ensure the production of a document that takes full account of the specific features of a given territory and provides the best possible response to the requirements and challenges in that area,

F.   whereas an enhanced partnership with universities and institutes of tertiary or technological education, as well as private sector involvement, can be beneficial to strategies within the framework of the Lisbon Agenda and EU policies dealing with research and innovation,

G.   whereas social capital in the form of active volunteering is positively linked to regional economic growth and is an important factor in reducing regional disparities,

H.   whereas the extensive participation of the partners mentioned in the General Regulation on the Structural Funds and closer cooperation among the bodies involved in implementing programmes and projects financed from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds would serve to make cohesion policy more effective and to increase the leverage effect,

I.   whereas an integrated approach must not only take account of the economic, social and environmental aspects of territorial development, but must also serve to reconcile the interests of the various actors involved, in the light of a territory's specific characteristics, with a view to meeting local and regional challenges,

J.   whereas both better coordination of the relevant public policies, at all the administrative levels concerned, and effective governance are essential if the sustainable development of territories is to be moved forward,

K.   whereas the concept of an integrated approach is now regarded as a necessity, and whereas it is now time to put that concept into practice,

L.   whereas structural policies accounted for the second largest share of the European Union budget in the programming period 2000-2006 and are the major policies of the European Union in the 2007-2013 period,

M.   whereas arrangements should be made for more efficient cooperation and transparency for all among the various authorities and public and private bodies involved, without necessarily transferring legal powers and without creating new authorities, enabling each body to work more effectively as a result of that cooperation,

N.   whereas the involvement of regional and local authorities must be envisaged at the earliest possible stage of negotiations on Community legislation and, in particular, in the negotiations on the next package of cohesion policy rules,

O.   whereas applying the concept of "population and labour catchment areas" involves taking account of the relevant basic territorial units when addressing issues of fundamental importance to people's daily lives, (transport, public services, quality of life, jobs and local economic activity, security, etc.),

P.   whereas effective governance can be facilitated through the use of proper spatial planning,

Q.   whereas the fact that the individuals involved in implementing cohesion policy have project management skills is a key factor in improving and facilitating governance,

R.   whereas the results of successful experiments involving new methods of governance and partnership should be drawn on in the future, including those which have already been successfully tested in European Fund programmes, such as the LEADER method and the global grant (pursuant to Articles 42 and 43 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds),

S.   whereas adequate communication structures and strategies at all policy, implementation and evaluation stages, designed in close cooperation with regional and local authorities, by promoting the spread of information to all sections of society, foster transparency, inclusive participation and full ownership,

Governance and Community funds

1.  Calls on the Member States and regional and local authorities to fully exploit the potential of the various Community funds (Structural Funds, Community framework programme for research and development, and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development,) whose purpose is to promote regional and urban development with the aim of facilitating integrated funding;

2.  Calls on national, regional and local authorities to intensify their use of the integrated approach during the current programming period;

3.  Proposes, in the context of future cohesion policy, that the integrated approach should be made compulsory; considers that the application of this principle must be undertaken within a specific timeframe;

4.  Proposes, for reasons of simplification and effectiveness, that a study should be carried out into the feasibility of merging the various Community funds, in particular the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, under the future cohesion policy for the period after 2013;

5.  Notes that transparent and clear procedures are factors of good governance and therefore calls on the Commission and the Member States, working together with regional and local authorities and taking due account of the suggestions of potential beneficiaries, to examine without delay – subject to a fixed timescale to be set by the Commission – how to simplify and rationalise procedures and how to divide more clearly responsibilities for implementing cohesion policy with a view to reducing the bureaucratic burden on the individuals and bodies involved;

6.  Calls on the Commission to promote the use of Article 56 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds, which allows for contributions in kind to European Union co-financed projects;

Governance and partnership

7.  Calls on the Commission to draw up and submit to itan assessment of the implementation of the partnership principle by the Member States in the context of the drafting of the National Strategic Reference Frameworks and the operational programmes, identifying the factors behind successful and unsuccessful governance, and also to examine in particular what account has been taken of opinions and proposals put forward by the partners in drawing up the operational programmes;

8.  Calls on the Commission to draw up a guide containing a clear definition and assessment criteria as well as setting out instruments, tools and good practices (among others for the selection of partners) designed to facilitate the implementation of effective partnerships in accordance with Article 11 of the General Regulation on the Structural Funds, in keeping with the institutional framework specific to each Member State;

9.  Notes that the partnership process can work only with partners which have the necessary capabilities and resources, and calls on the managing authorities to contribute to the strengthening of those capabilities by providing the partners, at an early stage and in accordance with Article 11 of the General Regulation on Structural Funds with the same information as is available to the authorities and by allocating appropriate financial resources totechnical assistance for implementing the partnership principle, for example training, building up social capital, and making their partnership activities more 'professional';

10.  Regrets that for the current programming period no quantifiable minimum amount of funding from the Structural Funds has been earmarked for implementation of the partnership principle; calls on the Council and the Commission to earmark in future legislation a quantifiable minimum amount of funding from the Structural Funds for implementation of the partnership principle;

11.  Notes the important role that volunteering plays in the partnership process and calls on the Member States and the Commission to support and facilitate the valuable work done by volunteers in contributing to this process and the stronger engagement of people and grassroots organisations in local democracy in a multi-level partnership;

12.  Draws attention to the requirement to consult the general public and organisations representing civil society on the issue of programming with the aim of reflecting their proposals, and stresses that the participation of civil society helps to legitimise the decision-making process; notes that the efforts to involve the public in the preparations for the operational programmes for the period 2007-2013 were not as successful as hoped for; calls on the Commission, therefore, to identify good practices and to facilitate their application with a view to improving public involvement ahead of the next programming period;

13.  Calls on the managing authorities to inform partners of how and at what level suggestions made by them at the various stages in the Structural Fund programming process are taken into account;

14.  Recalls that partnership can contribute to effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and transparency in all the phases of Structural Fund programming and implementation and can increase commitment to and ownership of programme outputs; calls, therefore, on the Member States and managing authorities to involve the partners more closely at an early stage in all the phases of Structural Fund programming and implementation, with a view to making better use of their experience and knowledge;

15.  Urges the Member States to ensure closer cooperation between public and private sectors through the establishment of public-private partnerships to implement structural funding, given that the potential benefits deriving from public-private partnerships are still largely underexploited;

16.  Notes that new Member States have not fully complied with the partnership principle and that its introduction could therefore gradually be reinforced;

17.  Requests that the next Structural Funds regulations contain specific provisions to make the application of the partnership principle legally binding, with clearly verifiable criteria;

Multi-level governance

18.  Calls on the Member States to develop as quickly as possible the practical measures set out in the First Action Programme for the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, in particular under heading 3.1, with a view to strengthening multi-level governance;

19.  Proposes that governance should be included as a criterion under heading 4.1 of the First Action Programme for the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, which calls on the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) to develop new territorial cohesion indicators;

20.  Takes the view that successful multi-level governance needs to be based on a "bottom-up" approach; calls in this context upon local and regional authorities to investigate means to intensify their cooperation and contact with national governments as well as with the Commission, and recommends that regular meetings take place between officials from national, regional and local authorities;

21.  Urges the Member States to decentralise the implementation of cohesion policy, so that the system of multi-level governance can work effectively and in keeping with the principles of partnership and subsidiarity, and calls on them to take the decentralisation measures required, at both legislative and budgetary levels;

22.  Emphasises that regional and local administrative capacity as well as its stability and continuity constitute a precondition for the efficient absorption of funds and their impact maximisation; calls on Member States to ensure adequate administrative structures and human capital in terms of recruitment, remuneration, training, resources, procedures, transparency and accessibility;

23.  Calls for the national courts of auditors to play a stronger role in the control mechanisms, to ensure that funds are appropriately spent, thus acquitting themselves of their responsibilities and playing a more active part;

24.  Urges the Member States to delegate responsibility for managing the Structural Funds to regional and local authorities on the basis of agreed terms and criteria which must be met by the authorities in question, with a view to involving them more closely and by means of formal coordination structures in the work of drafting and implementing the operational programmes, or, at the very least, to award them global grants; recommends that full use be made of the possibilities offered by these grants to enable regional and local authorities to play a full role in the multi-level governance arrangements;

Governance and the territorial dimension

25.  Calls on those Member States which have not yet amended their national law to make provision for the establishment of the European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) to do so as soon as possible;

26.  Calls on the Commission, while examining which NUTS level is most pertinent, to identify the area in which, on the basis of experience gained, an integrated policy for the development of territories might best be implemented, forming the basis ofthe following projects in particular:

Governance and the European Union institutions

27.  Welcomes the greater recognition of the role of regional and local authorities and the strengthening of the subsidiarity principle in the Lisbon Treaty; calls on the European institutions to start considering as of now the practical implications of such developments;

28.  Notes that within the Council there is no department which has specific responsibility for the strategic monitoring of cohesion policy, which accounts for the largest volume of appropriations in the European Union budget, and calls on the Member States to schedule specific Council sessions involving the ministers responsible for cohesion policy;

29.  Welcomes the establishment within the Commission of interdepartmental groups such as that on "urban policy" and that on "the integrated approach"; calls on the Commission to develop this cross-departmental approach further and to keep Parliament and the Committee of the Regions regularly informed of the outcome of the work of the groups in question;

30.  Undertakes to consider changes to its Rules of Procedure to make provision, by means of temporary working groups or other bodies, for cross-departmental work on topics involving several parliamentary committees, in particular in the context of the proceedings of the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform;

31.  Calls on the Committee of the Regions to step up its efforts to develop the practice of governance, in both quantitative and qualitative terms;

Tools for promoting successful governance and partnership

32.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to support the development of governance and partnership training measures, involving all public and private education and training organisations, with a view to addressing the major challenges facing the Community;

33.  Calls on the Member States to make proper use of spatial planning in order to assist in the facilitation of balanced regional development;

34.  Calls on elected representatives and national, regional and local civil servants and partners involved in managing operational programmes in the context of cohesion policy in accordance with Article 11 of the General Regulation on Structural Funds, to use the financial resources available under these programmes for technical assistance to acquire training in the forms of governance associated with these programmes, in particular project management; also calls on the Commission to request Member States to give detailed accounts of the manner in which their specific financial programmes are used;

35.  Takes the view that the European networks for exchanges of good practice should broaden their work in the area of governance and partnership, put more emphasis on political and strategic lessons learnt from previous programme cycles and should ensure public access to exchanges of experiences in all European Union languages and thus help to ensure that good practices are in fact implemented;

36.  Welcomes the launching by the French Presidency of the European Union of a project to draw up a set of benchmarks for urban sustainability and solidarity and calls for the governance and partnership dimension to be included in those benchmarks;

37.  Proposes the creation of a programme, similar to the ERASMUS programme, for regional and local elected officials;

o
o   o

38.  Instructs is President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on "Better lawmaking 2006" pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (2008/2045(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0493 A6-0355/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on better lawmaking 2005: application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality – 13th report(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on better regulation in the European Union(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on institutional and legal implications of the use of "soft law" instruments(4),

–   having regard to the Commission report entitled "Better lawmaking 2006" pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (14th report)" (COM(2007)0286),

–   having regard to the Commission communication entitled "Second strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union" (COM(2008)0032),

–   having regard to the Commission working document entitled "Second progress report on the strategy for simplifying the regulatory environment" (COM(2008)0033),

–   having regard to the Commission communication entitled "2008 Fast Track Actions to reduce administrative burdens in the European Union" (COM(2008)0141),

–   having regard to the Commission working document entitled "Reducing administrative burdens in the European Union – 2007 progress report and 2008 outlook" (COM(2008)0035),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0355/2008),

A.   whereas the European Union's regulatory environment should be informed by criteria of clarity and effectiveness,

B.   whereas improving regulatory procedures could help to achieve the objectives of the European Union,

C.   whereas the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are key principles of primary law and, in areas where the Community does not have sole legislative power, must be respected at all costs,

D.   whereas the correct application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality makes a fundamental contribution to consolidating the authority and effectiveness of Community legislation and to ensuring that decisions are taken at a level closer to citizens, thereby ultimately securing greater public acceptance of the European Union, and whereas these principles are essential to legitimising the appropriateness and scope of Community action, inasmuch as they enable the Member States to exercise their own legislative powers in a spirit of collaboration between the various levels of government, thereby increasing legal certainty,

E.   whereas at present Community law-making is subject to the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which require the establishment of procedures for coordination with the national legislative, executive and judicial authorities in order to guarantee that European Union action is both necessary and lawful,

F.   whereas the Commission highlights a range of significant factors involved in improving European Union regulation, such as impact assessment, reducing administrative costs and simplifying, improving and updating existing regulations,

G.   whereas the Commission attaches importance in this respect to establishing an open dialogue with both sides of industry and with national legislators,

H.   whereas in its "First progress report on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment" (COM(2006)0690), the Commission announced approximately 50 codification initiatives for 2006, but only 36 were in fact forwarded to Parliament, and, while 200 codification initiatives were announced for 2007, only 21 were submitted to the legislator,

I.   whereas, in its Simplification Rolling Programme annexed to its above-mentioned "Second progress report on the strategy for simplifying the regulatory environment", the Commission treats the revision and the recasting of regulations current in various areas (energy efficiency of buildings, civil aviation, etc.) as being equivalent,

J.   whereas the Commission has undertaken to submit an action programme intended to reduce the administrative burdens on companies in the European Union by 25% by 2012 and whereas, to that end, it has put forward a series of fast-track actions related to various legislative sectors,

1.  Supports the Commission's objective of improving the quality of Community legislation and reducing the legislative burden, including abolishing legislation that is unnecessary, hampers growth and inhibits innovation; stresses that even greater efforts are required in a number of areas to ensure that the maximum economic benefit is derived from legislation relating to the internal market;

2.  Promotes principles-based legislation and the focus on quality instead of quantity; sees the "better regulation" debate as a good opportunity to reflect on legislation as a process designed to achieve clearly defined policy goals by improving Community legislation so as to favour growth and jobs and by committing all stakeholders to, and involving them in, all phases of the process from preparation to enforcement;

3.  Emphasises, in the context of the efforts to bring about better lawmaking, the importance of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality both in reducing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on Member States and those affected by legislation and in securing broader acceptance among EU citizens for those measures which, in keeping with both principles, can only be taken at Community level;

4.  Supports the Commission's efforts to bring about the simplification of the Community acquis;

5.  Welcomes the Commission's improved procedures for consulting interested parties when drawing up its legislative proposals, and notes the generally positive reaction of those consulted when evaluating the way in which the Commission encouraged their involvement;

6.  Deplores the fact that, despite having improved its procedures, the Commission continues to draw up separate documents relating to simplification and "better lawmaking" that contain non-identical lists of simplification strategies, which makes it difficult to get a complete overview of the strategy; stresses that the proliferation of such documents must be avoided; calls on the Commission to draw up a single annual document; emphasises that political assessments and good cooperation must take place at European Union level, especially through efforts by Parliament, the Council and the Commission;

7.  Believes that objective impact assessments are an important tool for assessing Commission proposals and calls, therefore, for external, independent scrutiny of the conduct of impact assessments;

8.  Considers that consultations and impact assessments are essential to better drafted Community legislation and that they should neither increase bureaucracy nor present bureaucratic stumbling-blocks preventing the Commission from acting but should instead help to establish a sound legal framework that is conducive to growth in the European Union;

9.  Stresses the need for cost-benefit analyses that reflect the regulatory cost structures when directives are transposed into national legislation and that change the regulatory framework within which companies and individuals operate; is aware, however, that such cost-benefit analyses are no substitute for the political debate about the pros and cons of particular legislation;

10.  Is of the opinion that, when proposing their amendments, Parliament and the Council should take into account both the Commission's and their own impact assessments in order to improve the quality of the drafting of legislation;

11.  11 Takes the view, further, that objective impact assessments must be partly based on early and broad consultation of interested parties; calls on the Commission to incorporate in its impact assessments a comprehensive range of scenarios and policy options (including, where necessary, the "do nothing" option) as the basis for cost-effective and sustainable solutions;

12.  Trusts that the inclusion of a forecast of administrative costs in the assessments will improve the quality of the latter;

13.  Stresses the importance of the political assessment carried out at European Union level by bodies representing citizens, such as Parliament, or bodies representing local and social bodies such as the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee respectively;

14.  Voices doubts as to the appropriateness of encouraging self-regulation and co-regulation, which could ultimately turn into a form of "legislative abstinence" that would favour only pressure groups and powerful players on the economic stage; for that reason, supports the Commission's conclusion that regulations continue to be the simplest way of achieving the European Union's objectives and providing both businesses and citizens with legal certainty; calls on the Commission to develop a more consistent approach in this connection;

15.  Underlines that non-legislative measures should respect the balance of power and the respective roles of the institutions; wants to make a wise and coherent contribution to such measures, building on experience; stresses the need for political endorsement of such innovative measures;

16.  Believes that the European Union's formal regulatory system needs to be strengthened, in the terms set out in the Treaties, and that short cuts, even by means of informal legislation which has no binding force, should be avoided;

17.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has taken steps to put an end to the delay in the translation into the new official languages of the European Union of the texts being codified; deplores the fact that, despite approximately 50 codification initiatives having been announced for 2006 and approximately 200 for 2007, the Commission has forwarded only 36 and 21 proposals respectively to Parliament;

18.  Urges the Commission to abide by the published codification and recasting lists by submitting to the legislator, as far as possible, all the initiatives announced, and explaining the reasons for the absence of those which are omitted; stresses that Parliament's goodwill has been shown by the reform of Rules 80 and 80a of its Rules of Procedure, which allows these simplification initiatives to be adopted more quickly and more simply;

19.  Reminds the Commission likewise that codification and recasting initiatives are adopted by Parliament within reasonable deadlines and that, in so far as there may be longer deadlines with regard to other simplification initiatives, this is due to the fact that these provisions are ordinary legislative proposals, which as such are subject to the normal adoption procedure and the usual deadlines;

20.  Confirms its wish that the Commission adopt recasting as an ordinary legislative technique, even when the "revision" of the current text is being proposed, so as to make it possible to have – for each initiative – a complete overview of the text, including the specific amendments, clearly indicating which parts are new and which parts remain unchanged;

21.  Calls on the Commission, likewise, to bear in mind that, when recasting is not possible, the ordinary legislative technique should make provision for codification, within not more than six months, of the successive amendments to the legislative act in question; believes that, in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making(5), specific structures could be established in conjunction with the Council and the Commission, making provision for the adequate involvement of the interested parties, in order to encourage simplification;

22.  Recalls that, since ambiguous and ineffective soft-law instruments can have negative effects on the development of European Union law and on the balance between the institutions, they should be used only very cautiously – where provided for in the Treaties and in a manner strictly consistent with the allocation of competences under primary law – and that, in all cases, legal certainty should be guaranteed;

23.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has decided to forward its new proposals and consultation documents to the national parliaments directly, in order to seek their reactions upstream of the Community law-making process, thus anticipating the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; fully endorses the importance of collaboration of this kind when it comes to improving the quality and application of Community legislation, in particular the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

24.  Is of the opinion that transposition should be seriously and proactively monitored to avoid diverging interpretations and gold-plating; wants the Commission to play an active role in transposition, together with supervisors and expert groups, at both Community and national level, since early analysis may prevent delays and unnecessary burdens on undertakings; calls on the Commission to investigate what further measures might be taken to prevent gold-plating, including the introduction of a right of direct action for citizens; calls for "follow-up impact assessments" analysing how decisions are in fact implemented at national and local level; supports the increasingly appropriate use of regulations; suggests, once again, that Parliament establish a proper transposition-monitoring procedure in close cooperation with its national partners;

25.  Believes that, with a view to more efficient relations with the national parliaments, there is a need for a common approach to the conditions established by the subsidiarity and proportionality principles; fully endorses the Commission's initiative on including a standardised range of questions in this connection with a view to drawing up the explanatory statements accompanying Commission proposals, as set out in Annex 3 to Commission Working Document SEC(2007)0737;

26.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has announced a review of the Community acquis on company, accounting and auditing law, and trusts that specific proposals in this regard will be forthcoming as soon as possible;

27.  Reiterates the need to reduce the unnecessary administrative burdens which companies have to bear in order to meet the information obligations laid down both by European legislation and national provisions for its application; emphasises that the Commission's target of reducing administrative burdens by 25% by 2012 should be a net target, meaning that reductions in certain areas must not be nullified by new administrative burdens imposed elsewhere; supports the increased use of information and communication technology in this area; calls on the Commission to assess, and where possible reduce, the general administrative burdens borne by all interested parties, even if they are not companies;

28.  Underlines that further efforts to achieve simplification are also required in the Commission's interaction with citizens, e.g. in the areas of procurement, financial services, research programmes, State aid rules and applications for Community funding;

29.  Recalls the importance of the judicious use of "review clauses" to ensure that legislation remains relevant;

30.  Confirms that it is ready to maintain and upgrade its collaboration with the Council and the Commission in order to meet citizens" and companies" expectations concerning the simplification of Community legislation, particularly with regard to fast-track action proposals designed to reduce administrative burdens; stresses that, in any case, the process of simplifying decision-making procedures in order to shorten deadlines needs to respect the requirements of the procedures laid down in the Treaties;

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

(1) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 67. (2) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 60. (3) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 72. (4) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 75. (5) OJ C 321, 31.12.2003, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on monitoring the application of Community law – 24th annual report from the Commission (2008/2046(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0494 A6-0363/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the 24th annual report of the Commission of 17 July 2007 on monitoring the application of Community law (2006) (COM(2007)0398),

–   having regard to Commission staff working documents SEC(2007)0975 and SEC(2007)0976,

–   having regard to the communication from the Commission of 5 September 2007 entitled 'A Europe of results – Applying Community law' (COM(2007)0502),

–   having regard to Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes(1),

–   having regard to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and ETUC(2),

–   having regard to Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes(3),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(4),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(5),

–   having regard to Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions(6),

–   having regard to Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States(7),

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 February 2008 on the Commission's 23rd Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2005)(8),

–   having regard to Rules 45 and 112(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0363/2008),

A.   whereas the effectiveness of EU policies is largely determined by their implementation at national, regional and local levels; whereas compliance with Community legislation by the Member States must be rigorously controlled and monitored in order to ensure that it has the desired positive effects on the daily lives of citizens,

B.   whereas proper monitoring of the application of Community law involves not merely assessing transposition in quantitative terms but also evaluating the quality of transposition and of the practices adopted in applying Community law in the Member States,

C.   whereas after rising steadily in previous years to reach a total of 2 653 detected infringements in 2005, the total number of infringement proceedings initiated by the Commission fell slightly – to 2 518 – in 2006; whereas the accession of 10 new Member States seems not to have had any impact on the number of registered infringements,

D.   whereas, in respect of the EU-25, the number of proceedings initiated in 2006 for failure to notify transposing measures fell by 16% with respect to 2005, from 1 079 to 904 cases, owing to a reduction in the number of directives with a deadline for the year from 123 in 2005 to 108 in 2006 and to prompter notification by Member States,

E.   whereas the statistics for 2006 quoted by the Commission show that the courts in many Member States are reluctant to make use of the preliminary rulings procedure provided for in Article 234 of the EC Treaty; whereas this may be due to a still inadequate grasp of Community law,

F.   whereas the principle of equality before the law requires that Union citizens should enjoy equality in respect not only of European Union legislation but also of the national legislation transposing it; whereas it would therefore be highly expedient if, on expiry of the deadlines for transposing the European legislation, the Member States not only included an explicit reference in the transposition provisions but also indicated in their Official Journals which national provisions are intended to apply the legislation in question and which national authorities are responsible for their implementation,

G.   whereas citizens' complaints are not merely symbolic in building a 'people's Europe' but also constitute a measurable and efficient means of monitoring the application of Community law,

H.   whereas petitions to Parliament are a valuable means of detecting infringements of Community law in Member States, and whereas over recent years the number of petitions has increased significantly, with some 1 000 being submitted in 2006,

I.   whereas the issues most commonly raised in petitions concern the recognition of educational and professional qualifications, taxation, the right to freedom of movement within the territory of the Member States and discrimination-related matters,

J.   whereas in 2006 the number of complaints lodged with the European Ombudsman remained stable at 3 830; whereas 75% of the complaints received fell outside the Ombudsman's sphere of competence, being matters for the national or regional authorities in Member States, and whereas, as in previous years, 70% of the inquiries opened by the Ombudsman concerned the Commission,

K.   whereas the principle of non-discrimination is one of the cornerstones of the European integration process and is directly linked to the operation of the internal market, with particular reference to the principle of the free movement of persons, services, goods and capital, and whereas it guarantees equal rights and opportunities for all Union citizens,

L.   whereas citizenship of the Union, as established in the Maastricht Treaty, guarantees citizens the right to move freely within the territory of the Member States, together with a number of political rights, and whereas the EU institutions stand as guarantors of those rights,

M.   whereas the deadline for transposing Directive 2004/38/EC, concerning the right of all citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the European Union, was fixed at 30 April 2006,

N.   whereas students continue to experience difficulties in enjoying free movement or gaining access to higher education in other Member States of the European Union, such as administrative barriers or quota systems (which discriminate against foreign students wishing to register at universities) and whereas the EU can intervene only in the event of discrimination based on nationality,

O.   whereas Article 39 of the EC Treaty stipulates that the free movement of workers entails the abolition of any discrimination against workers from other Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment, and whereas secondary Community law includes a series of provisions designed to combat this type of discrimination effectively,

P.   whereas there is a direct link between the degree to which a Member State implements Community law, including in the field of environmental protection, and that Member State's ability to take up funding available for essential investment, infrastructure and modernisation projects,

Annual report for 2006 and action taken on Parliament's resolution of 21 February 2008

1.  Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission Communication of 5 September 2007 and the Commission's undertaking to improve current working methods with a view to prioritising and accelerating the handling and management of existing proceedings; points out, none the less, that the Commission has not yet responded to or acted upon Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 21 February 2008, in which it calls on the Commission to provide specific information on various aspects of the implementation of Community law, with particular reference to the development of the abovementioned new working method;

2.  Is deeply concerned that, under the new working method, which provides for complaints received by the Commission to be referred back to the Member State concerned (which is the party responsible for the incorrect application of Community law in the first place), the Commission may be failing to meet its institutional responsibility for ensuring the application of Community law as 'guardian of the treaties', in accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty; notes that the Commission is frequently the only remaining body to which citizens can turn to complain about the failure to apply Community law; urges the Commission to submit to Parliament a first report by November 2008 on the procedures followed and results obtained during the first six months of the pilot project which commenced on 15 April 2008 and which involves 15 Member States;

3.  Stresses that, under Article 211 of the EC Treaty, the Commission is the institution responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied, and, under Article 226, is empowered to take action against any Member State failing to fulfil a Treaty obligation;

4.  Urges the Commission to apply across the board the principle whereby any correspondence which may contain a complaint about a genuine breach of Community law must be registered as a complaint unless it is covered by the exceptional circumstances referred to in point 3 of the annex to the Commission communication of 20 March 2002 on 'relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law' (COM(2002)0141); calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with details of how this principle is observed, including in cases where the new method is applied; urges the Commission to inform and consult Parliament on any changes to the exceptional criteria for failure to register complaints;

5.  Notes that the main problems with the infringement procedure are its length (20.5 months on average from registration of the case within the specified time-limit to the sending of the letter of referral to the Court of Justice under Article 226 of the EC Treaty) and a limited use of Article 228; calls on the Commission to make every effort to shorten the relatively long delay in dealing with complaints or petitions and to find practical solutions to the problems presented by deciding, upon receipt of the case, whether alternative methods such as SOLVIT, which is still not promoted enough, are more appropriate;

6.  Observes a significant increase in infringement cases with continued failure to comply with the Court's judgment reviewed in 2006 and highlights two cases in which penalty payments were imposed on Member States; calls on the Commission to apply Article 228 of the EC Treaty with greater firmness in order to ensure due compliance with judgments of the Court of Justice;

7.  Calls on the Commission, in connection with the continuing problem of Member States failing to meet deadlines for the transposition of directives, to supply a list of the directives showing the lowest rate of implementation, together with details of the likely reasons therefor;

8.  Commends the efforts made by some Commission Directorates-General, particularly DG Environment, to improve the conformity checks on the relevant directives, but is not satisfied with the Commission's reply regarding the confidentiality of the conformity studies; calls once more on the Commission to publish on its website the studies requested by the various Directorates-General on the evaluation of the conformity of national implementation measures with Community legislation;

9.  Draws attention to the insufficient degree of cooperation with the Court of Justice by the national courts in most Member States, which remain reluctant to apply the principle of the primacy of Community law; points, furthermore, to the extremely important role played by the preliminary ruling procedure in the proper application of Community law;

10.  Supports, in this connection, the Commission's efforts to determine the areas in which additional training in Community law could be useful for national judges, legal professionals and civil servants;

Interinstitutional cooperation

11.  Believes agreements on monitoring the application of Community law and close cooperation between the Commission, the Council, the European Ombudsman and the relevant committees of the European Parliament to be essential in order to ensure effective action in all cases where a petitioner has justifiably complained of an infringement of Community law;

12.  Points out that, although few of them (four in 2006) bring to light genuine infringements of Community law, petitions are an irreplaceable source of information on the fundamental requirements of Europe's citizens and should be used as a pointer by the Commission in connection with legislative measures;

13.  Stresses the need for better provision of information to citizens with a view to directing anyone wishing to submit a complaint towards the body best qualified to deal with the matter at either national or Community level; believes that a culture of good administration and service should be fostered within the EU institutions with a view to ensuring that citizens are dealt with properly and are able fully to enjoy their rights;

14.  Suggests that the Commission should continue to give consideration to the feasibility of using its Representations in Member States to observe and monitor implementation on the ground;

15.  Emphasises the need to give consideration to the previously canvassed idea of a common access point for all citizens' complaints and problems relating to the monitoring of the application of Community law, given that the citizen is currently faced with a plethora of options (petitions, complaints, the Ombudsman, SOLVIT, etc.) and therefore some form of central signposting system could provide more targeted and timely results;

16.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission's annual reports on the application of Community law are accompanied by annexes expanding on the information set out in the report and supplying essential statistics;

17.  Recognises that Parliament's standing committees should play a more active role in monitoring the application of Community law; is convinced that the committees should be given adequate administrative support to enable them to play this role effectively; calls on the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform, the Committee on Budgets and other relevant Parliament bodies to examine the feasibility of a special task force within each committee's secretariat so as to ensure the continuing and effective monitoring of the application of Community law;

Cooperation between the European Parliament and the national parliaments

18.  Calls for closer cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments with a view to promoting and increasing effective monitoring of the application of Community law at national, regional and local levels; considers that national parliaments have a valuable role to play in monitoring the application of Community law, thus helping to enhance the democratic legitimacy of the European Union and bring it closer to the people;

19.  Points out that, under the protocol on the role of the national parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, policies concerning the area of freedom, security and justice should entail special involvement by the national parliaments and the Conference of European Affairs Committees (COSAC); considers that this involvement should take place during both the decision-making phase and the implementation of European legislation to enable European and national legislators to adopt amendments and revisions which become necessary in sectors which are and will remain subject to shared competence; therefore invites the competent parliamentary committees at national and European level to establish permanent contacts on individual pieces of legislation, pooling all useful information in the interests of a more transparent and efficient legislative process at European and national level; welcomes the holding of special meetings between European legislators, such as the one recently held on 6 April 2008 with national parliaments to review the framework decision on combating terrorism, during which it was possible to assess not only the problems of implementing European legislation in force but also the relevance of proposed amendments under consideration by the Council;

20.  Points out that the Lisbon Treaty arrangements for monitoring compliance with the subsidiarity principle would give the national parliaments a substantially enhanced role in Community law-making;

Combating discrimination in the European Union

21.  Points out that the concept of citizenship significantly broadens the scope of the principle of non-discrimination;

22.  Notes the recent increase in judgments of the Court of Justice based on the concept of EU citizenship and concerning the right to move freely, under which a Member State may not treat any of its nationals who have taken advantage of their right to move and reside in another Member State less favourably than those who have not;

23.  Calls on the Member States to respect the rights deriving from EU citizenship, including the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament, which is of particular importance in the run-up to the 2009 elections;

24.  Notes that Parliament has received petitions complaining of infringements of Directive 2004/38/EC by some Member States; draws attention to the fact that that directive is of fundamental importance to ensuring that EU citizens may move freely within the territory of the Member States; points out that the Commission is to submit a report in the second half of 2008 on implementation of the directive;

25.  Calls on the Commission carefully to monitor the transposition of Directives 2000/43/EC and 2000/78/EC and whether the transposing legislation adopted by Member States is in keeping with the provisions of those directives, as well as to continue to put pressure on the Member States, by way of infringement and non-compliance proceedings, to meet their obligation fully to transpose the directives as soon as possible; believes that Parliament's competent committee should play a role in the ongoing monitoring of Member States' obligations under those directives;

26.  Welcomes the Commission's adoption on 2 July 2008, as provided for in the annual policy strategy for 2008, of the proposal (COM(2008)0426) for a horizontal directive implementing the principle of equal treatment outside the scope of employment and ensuring equal access to goods, services, housing, education, social protection and social advantages, and takes the view that this constitutes an important addition to the current anti-discrimination package;

27.  Calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough analysis of cases where Member States apply non-nationality-based restrictions on access to education by students from other countries, with a view to ensuring that students are able to move freely and are afforded equal treatment within the higher education systems of those Member States;

28.  Calls in particular on the Member States most eligible for structural funding under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2007-2013 swiftly to bring their national law properly into line with EU standards, particularly in the field of environmental protection, and to establish tendering procedures that are transparent to citizens, with a view to making effective use of available structural funding and boosting social and economic development at regional level;

o
o   o

29.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the European Ombudsman and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 225, 12.8.1986, p. 40. (2) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 4. (3) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20. (4) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. (5) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. (6) OJ L 269, 5.10.2002, p. 15. (7) OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. (8) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0060.

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on a strategy for the future settlement of the institutional aspects of Regulatory Agencies (2008/2103(INI))

P6_TA(2008)0495 A6-0354/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2008 entitled 'European Agencies - The way forward' (COM(2008)0135),

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 January 2004 on the Communication from the Commission: 'The operating framework for the European Regulatory Agencies'(1),

–   having regard to the draft interinstitutional agreement of 25 February 2005 on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies (COM(2005)0059),

–   having regard to the oral question with debate submitted jointly to the Council by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Budgets, and to the answer given by the Council in plenary on 15 November 2005 (O-0093/05),

–   having regard to its resolution of 1 December 2005 on the draft interinstitutional agreement presented by the Commission on the operating framework for the European regulatory agencies(2),

–   having regard to the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 17 April 2008,

–   having regard to the letter of 7 May 2008 from the President of the Commission to the President of the European Parliament and to the President-in-Office of the Council on setting up an interinstitutional working group at political level,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0354/2008),

A.   whereas the efforts of Parliament and the Commission to establish a legally binding framework for the operation of the European regulatory agencies have proved fruitless,

B.   whereas no substantial progress has been made on the draft interinstitutional agreement of 2005 owing to the Council's institutional and political opposition, and whereas the Commission decided to withdraw the proposal for an interinstitutional agreement and to replace it with an invitation to take part in an interinstitutional dialogue, which will result in a common approach,

C.   whereas, although at first sight the regulatory agencies appear to be 'micro-institutions', they nevertheless have a 'macro-impact' at the level of European governance,

D.   whereas there is still a need to define at least the fundamental structural characteristics of the regulatory agencies, in so far as they have become an accepted para-institutional component of the European Union,

E.   whereas the Commission proposes the setting-up of an interinstitutional working group to draw up a common framework for the regulatory agencies and to define the competence of each of the institutions of the European Union vis-à-vis those agencies,

F.   whereas the Commission is to carry out a horizontal evaluation of the regulatory agencies by 2009-2010 and is to submit a report on the conclusions of that evaluation as soon as possible to Parliament and the Council,

G.   whereas the Commission's decision not to propose setting up any new agencies until the interinstitutional working group has completed its work is to be welcomed,

H.   whereas the Commission should not depart from the guiding principles of the draft interinstitutional agreement of 2005 concerning amendments to the basic instruments governing the existing regulatory agencies, so that they are consistent with the new approach,

I.   whereas there is already a common regulatory framework(3) for executive agencies which are entrusted with the management of Community programmes for a specific period of time,

General considerations

1.  Considers that the Commission's proposal is a commendable initiative and is prepared to take part in the proceedings of the interinstitutional working group through its representatives, but considers that the 'common approach' falls short of its expectations of achieving an interinstitutional agreement; notes that this does not rule out the development of other forms of understanding as an outcome of the work of the working group;

2.  Appeals to the Council, in its capacity also as one arm of the budgetary authority, to make a constructive contribution to the proceedings of this working group;

3.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to draw up jointly with Parliament the work programme for the interinstitutional working group as soon as possible, so that it can begin its work in autumn 2008;

4.  Considers that the work programme of the interinstitutional working group should, inter alia, encompass the following points:

5.  Regrets the absence of a general strategy for the creation of EU agencies; notes that new agencies are being created on a case-by-case basis, leading to a non-transparent patchwork of regulatory agencies, executive agencies and other Community bodies each constituting a sui generis creation;

6.  Notes the Commission's position that the setting-up of the regulatory agencies, which is sometimes carried out with the collaboration of Parliament, is an expression of cooperation between the Member States, and the functioning of such agencies consists in the interlinking and exercise of responsibilities, which, if conferred exclusively on the EU institutions, would give rise to objections concerning centralisation;

7.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to work jointly with Parliament to produce a clear, common and coherent framework for the future position of the agencies in the scheme of EU governance;

8.  Is of the view that the transparency of the regulatory agencies must be ensured, in particular as regards their functioning, the disclosure and accessibility of information, and the programming and accountability of their actions;

9.  Believes that the priority of the common framework for interinstitutional understanding should be to rationalise the operation and maximise the added value of the regulatory agencies by creating greater transparency, visible democratic control and improved efficiency;

10.  Considers it indispensable to adopt minimum common principles and rules concerning the structure, operation and control of all the regulatory agencies, irrespective of their nature;

11.  Considers that participation in the activity of the regulatory agencies will have to be ensured by formally structuring the processes of consultation and dialogue with the stakeholders;

12.  Considers that the structural and operational diversity of the agencies raises serious questions concerning regulatory parameters, good governance and institutional relations in terms of centralisation and decentralisation;

13.  Advocates that the principles of good administration must be ensured by a common approach regarding personnel selection processes, budgeting and resource administration, efficient management and performance evaluation;

14.  Will examine whether the Commission's undertaking to defer any proposal to set up new regulatory agencies should also cover the two proposals currently in abeyance in the fields of energy and telecommunications;

15.  Stresses the need to establish parliamentary control over the formation and operation of regulatory agencies, which should consist principally in:

16.  Urges the Commission to submit the conclusions of the horizontal evaluation of the regulatory agencies promptly, before the end of the 2009-2010 period, so that the conclusions can be taken into account by the interinstitutional working group;

17.  Asks the Commission to devise benchmarks in order to compare those results and to lay down clear rules for ending the mandate of agencies in the event of poor performance;

18.  Calls on the President and the Conference of Presidents to give priority to the question of the composition of the working group proposed by the Commission, and considers it appropriate that Parliament be represented in that group by the chairs or rapporteurs of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the Committee on Budgets and two other committees with practical experience of oversight of the work of regulatory agencies;

19.  Reiterates the call by both Parliament and the Commission in the draft interinstitutional agreement of 2005 to incorporate a decision on an agency's seat into the basic act;

Budgetary considerations

20.  Wishes to reiterate the importance of securing, on a systematic basis, at interinstitutional level the application of the procedure laid down in Point 47 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(4) (IIA of 17 May 2006) and stresses the need to ensure appropriate follow-up of the Joint Statement of 13 July 2007 by the Parliament, the Council and the Commission on decentralised agencies;

21.  Is convinced that a detailed procedure for the application of that provision is an absolute necessity; considers that such a procedure might provide a possible opportunity to house some of the important aspects of the blocked draft interinstitutional agreement of 2005, perhaps in combination with some adaptations of the Framework Financial Regulation for agencies(5);

22.  Concludes that, if evaluation exercises indicate that cost-effectiveness and efficiency of decentralised administration are not guaranteed, the European Union should not shy away from reversing the current tendency for outsourcing Commission tasks and should establish clear rules for terminating the mandate of decentralised agencies;

23.  Supports the Commission's intention not to propose any new decentralised agencies until the evaluation process is completed, especially against the background that margins in the current Multiannual Financial Framework would make it extremely difficult, for the time being, to finance any new Community body without serious re-programming;

24.  Considers, from the budgetary point of view, the following items key issues for the agenda of the interinstitutional working group on the future of EU agencies:

Establishment of a definition of "agency"

25.  Recalls, in this respect, the definition of an "agency" established in the Trialogue of 7 March 2007, when it was agreed that, for the purposes of applying Point 47 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, the definition of an "agency" would be determined by whether the body in question was set up pursuant to Article 185 of the Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(6) (Financial Regulation);

26.  Would like to emphasise the importance it attributes to a clear and coherent general terminology with regard to agencies that should be established for common usage; recalls that "regulatory agencies" are merely a sub-group of decentralised agencies;

New agencies - Link between legislative procedures and budgetary prerogatives

27.  Considers it important to discuss problems of calendar as well as legal and procedural aspects that could arise in the event that a timely agreement on the financing of a new agency, pursuant to Point 47 of the IIA of 17 May 2006, is not reached in parallel with the decisions taken by the legislator; considers it equally essential to reflect on some procedural safeguards in order to ensure the full involvement of the budgetary authority in all questions which have a budgetary impact, such as the extension of agencies' task lists;

28.  Recalls that as early as 2005 Parliament in its above-mentioned resolution called for compulsory cost-benefit assessments before a new agency was proposed which should, in particular, concentrate on the question whether "the agency option (including the likely costs of monitoring and coordination) is more cost-effective than having the relevant tasks performed by the Commission departments themselves", but also on issues such as the mandate and working methods of the agency or its degree of independence from the Commission as it is often of particular interest to the legislator;

Existing agencies - Monitoring

29.  Underlines the need for a regular and coordinated evaluation and control exercise - avoiding duplication and overlapping - to assess the added value of already-existing decentralised agencies which no longer fall under the scope of Point 47 of the IIA of 17 May 2006; sees this as a follow-up to the work previously undertaken that resulted in the joint statement on Community agencies agreed at the Trialogue of 18 April 2007 according to which it was agreed to regularly evaluate the existing Community agencies, focusing particularly on their cost-benefit and giving detailed explanation of the criteria used for the selection of the agencies to be evaluated;

30.  Notes that the analysis performed should respond to some basic cost-benefit questions and could be carried out in accordance, inter alia, with the following criteria:

31.  Points out that, given the agencies' overall budgetary impact, the Commission has to demonstrate convincingly that European governance via the agencies is the most cost-effective, efficient and appropriate option to implement European policies at present and in the near future;

General common framework

32.  Insists on the need to establish minimum common standards with regard, amongst other things, to the role and political responsibility of the Commission in relation to the agency, the support to be granted by host countries and the timely and transparent decision on the seat of an agency which could be referred to in the agencies' founding regulations;

33.  Recalls that the agencies' actions need to be governed by clear lines of accountability, in line with the provisions of the Financial Regulation; highlights the agencies' obligations concerning the discharge procedure;

34.  Considers it, in addition, of the highest importance to try to define some common rules for the presentation of the agencies' budgets with the aim of making budgetary indicators, such as implementation rates of the agencies or the individual shares making up their revenue and expenditure, more transparent and comparable; believes that the general presentation of the subsidy to agencies in the EU budget might need to be adapted to the tasks and the roles of the new generation of agencies;

35.  Points out that, according to the figures provided by the Commission in its above-mentioned Communication, there are currently 29 regulatory agencies, which employ some 3 800 staff, with an annual budget of around EUR 1 100 million, including a Community contribution of around EUR 559 million;

36.  Insists that the auditing/discharge process must be proportionate to the overall budget of the agencies; notes in particular that the resources available to the European Court of Auditors have not increased in line with the number of agencies in recent years;

37.  Reiterates the wish expressed in paragraph 7 of its resolutions of 22 April 2008 concerning discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the agencies that the performance of the agencies be regularly (and on an ad hoc basis) audited by the European Court of Auditors or another independent auditor; considers that this should not be limited to traditional elements of financial management and the proper use of public money, but should also cover administrative efficiency and effectiveness and should include a rating of the financial management of each agency;

38.  Is of the opinion that all agencies should, together with their establishment plan, give an overview of their permanent and temporary staff and national experts, as well as indicate any changes in relation to the previous two years;

39.  Draws attention to the European Court of Auditors' special report No 5/2008 on the sound financial management of agencies with particular reference to performance audits;

40.  Calls on the Commission to merge the administrative functions of the smaller agencies in order to create the critical mass required to enable the agencies to satisfactorily comply with current rules on public procurement and with the Financial Regulation and the Staff Regulations(7);

41.  Urges the Commission to undertake a critical examination of the agencies' budget requests since the majority of the agencies do not utilise the funds requested;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ C 92 E, 16.4.2004, p. 119. (2) OJ C 285 E, 22.11.2006, p. 123. (3) Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ L 11, 16.1.2003, p. 1). (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72). (6) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (7) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution of 21 October 2008 on the indictment and bringing to trial of Joseph Kony at the International Criminal Court

P6_TA(2008)0496 B6-0536/2008

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), in particular Article 86 thereof, and the entry into force of the Statute on 1 July 2002,

–   having regard to the ratification of the Rome Statute by Uganda on 14 June 2002,

–   having regard to the referral in 2003 by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni to the ICC of the situation concerning the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which was the first referral by a State Party to the ICC since its establishment,

–   having regard to the ICC Prosecutor's decision of 29 July 2004 to open an investigation into the situation concerning Northern Uganda,

–   having regard to the warrant of arrest for Joseph Kony issued by the ICC on 8 July 2005, as amended on 27 September 2005 (No ICC-02/04-01/05-53),

–   having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000(1), as amended by the Agreement amending the Partnership Agreement, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005(2) ('the Cotonou Agreement'), and in particular Article 8 thereof on political dialogue and Article 11(6) on promoting the strengthening of peace and international justice,

–   having regard to Council Decision 2002/494/JHA of 13 June 2002 setting up a European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes(3) and its position of 9 April 2002 on the European network of contact points(4),

–   having regard to Council Decision 2003/335/JHA of 8 May 2003 on the investigation and prosecution of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes(5) and its position of 17 December 2002 on the prosecution of war crimes and crimes against humanity(6),

–   having regard to Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP of 16 June 2003 on the International Criminal Court(7) and the Council Action Plan to follow-up on that Common Position,

–   having regard to the Agreement between the ICC and the EU on Cooperation and Assistance signed on 10 April 2006, which entered into force on 1 May 2006(8),

–   having regard to the additional report of 23 June 2008 by the UN Secretary-General on children and armed conflict in Uganda,

–   having regard to the EU human rights guidelines on children in armed conflict of 2003,

–   having regard to its previous resolutions, in particular those of 22 May 2008 on Sudan and the ICC(9), of 3 July 2003 on human rights violations in northern Uganda(10), and of 6 July 2000 on the abduction of children by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)(11),

–   having regard to the decision of 28 August 2008 by the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") of the US Department of the Treasury imposing new sanctions on Joseph Kony, by adding him to its 'black list', the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) List,

–   having regard to the exchange of views on the ICC at the European Parliament's Committee on Development meeting of 15 September 2008,

–   having regard to Rule 91 and Rule 90(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.   whereas in July 2005 the ICC issued a warrant of arrest for Joseph Kony, the Chairman and Commander-in-Chief of the LRA, under 33 counts of alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, which was amended in September 2005; whereas warrants of arrest have also been issued for the other top LRA commanders, including Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Domic Ongwen,

B.   whereas the 33 criminal counts against Joseph Kony include 12 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, enslavement, sexual enslavement, and inhumane acts of inflicting serious bodily injuries and suffering, and 21 counts of war crimes, including murder, cruel treatment of civilians, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian population, pillaging, inducing rape and forced enlistment of children,

C.   whereas the LRA has been fighting in the region since 1986, ostensibly against the Government of Uganda,

D.   whereas an armed rebellion has been raging in northern Uganda since 1986, currently in the name of the LRA,

E.   whereas in August 2006 the Government of Uganda and the LRA signed a Cessation of Hostilities Agreement,

F.   whereas at the height of the violence in northern Uganda in 2005, some 1,6 million persons were displaced and living in internally displaced camps, and tens of thousands of children had to sleep in urban centres every night for protection; whereas although since 2006 half of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) have been able to return to their homes or close to their homes, the situation remains critical for many IDPs who are reluctant to go back in the absence of a Final Peace Agreement,

G.   whereas the disastrous consequences of this conflict, which has resulted in the abduction of more than 20 000 children and caused immense human suffering, particularly among civilians, as well as gross human rights violations, massive displacement of populations and a breakdown of social and economic structures, are a cause for deep concern; whereas the abduction of children and their use as sex slaves or combatants is a war crime and crime against humanity,

H.   whereas in 2008 alone the LRA has allegedly carried out between 200 and 300 abductions in the Central African Republic (CAR), Southern Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), thus inflicting the same violence on a new generation of victims,

I.   whereas in July 2008 the LRA attacked the Sudan Liberation Army at Nabanga and killed about 20 of its soldiers,

J.   whereas Joseph Kony has repeatedly failed to appear in Juba and has until now refused to sign the Final Peace Agreement 'until the ICC warrants of arrest and some other issues within the Agreement are resolved by the Joint Liaison Group'; whereas the Final Peace Agreement was negotiated by the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for LRA-affected areas, the former President of Mozambique, Joaquim Chissano,

K.   whereas Joseph Kony used the respite during the peace process to regroup and reorganise his LRA forces in the DRC,

L.   whereas, owing to the inability of the States Parties to arrest Kony and the other LRA commanders, the LRA is currently expanding its forces through abductions,

M.   whereas, in September 2008, according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the LRA allegedly abducted 90 Congolese schoolchildren from the towns of Kiliwa and Duru, in the DRC, and attacked many other areas, causing massive displacements in the area,

N.   whereas the ICC plays a crucial role in preventing and curbing the perpetration of the serious crimes falling within its jurisdiction and is an essential means of promoting respect for international humanitarian law and human rights, thus contributing to freedom, security, justice and the rule of law as well as contributing to the preservation of peace and the strengthening of international security,

O.   whereas the jurisdiction of the ICC covers the most serious crimes of concern to the international community and in particular genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed after 1 July 2002,

P.   whereas under the Rome Statute, States Parties have committed themselves to prosecuting such crimes within their national jurisdictions and supporting ICC intervention when national states fail to fulfil their duties,

Q.   whereas all EU Member States except the Czech Republic have ratified the Rome Statute,

R.   whereas according to the above-mentioned cooperation agreement concluded between the EU and the ICC, inter alia, in order to facilitate the obligation of cooperation and assistance, the Parties agreed to the establishment of appropriate regular contacts between the ICC and the EU Focal Point for the Court,

S.   whereas the EU and its Member States should make every effort to ensure that the greatest possible number of states take part in the ICC, bearing this objective in mind during negotiations (both bilateral and multilateral) and in political dialogue with third countries and regional organisations,

T.   whereas the ICC should be mainstreamed in EU external relations, and the ratification and implementation of the Rome Statute should be brought up in human rights and political dialogues (notably at summits and other high-level meetings) with third countries, including in the context of development cooperation, such as in the framework of the Cotonou Agreement,

1.  Calls on the Government of Uganda and the governments of the neighbouring countries, in particular the DRC, to cooperate fully with the ICC in its investigations and prosecutions; calls, in particular, for cooperation in arresting and surrendering Joseph Kony and other persons charged by the ICC, without delay;

2.  Deeply deplores the halting of efforts to promote the arrest of Joseph Kony and other persons charged by the ICC; reminds the Government of Uganda that as a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC it is under a duty to cooperate fully with the ICC;

3.  Notes that the Rome Statute provides that, once persons have been surrendered to the ICC, the Government of Uganda may then apply to have the cases returned to Ugandan courts, provided the ICC concludes that Ugandan courts are able and willing to genuinely investigate and prosecute the LRA suspects named in the warrants of arrest;

4.  Urges the Ugandan Government to refrain from concluding any agreements with the LRA that would circumvent international law;

5.  Urges the Member States of the EU, the African Union (AU) and particularly Uganda's neighbouring countries to address the implementation of the warrants of arrest in a consistent way;

6.  Demands the unconditional and immediate release of all persons abducted by the LRA, particularly children, who risk ending up as sex slaves or being forced to fight for the LRA;

7.  Calls on the international community to carry out investigations into recent alleged LRA abuses in the CAR, the DRC and Southern Sudan, and reported unpublicised UN inquiries into abuses in the CAR, and to disclose the findings thereof;

8.  Calls on the governments in the region, the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) and other international observer governments to the peace talks to track and make public the LRA's movements through intensified monitoring of regional borders and to monitor and interdict the flow of weapons and other supplies to the LRA; calls for the development of effective plans to execute the ICC warrants of arrest while minimising the risk to civilian life and without the use of excessive force, including by using MONUC;

9.  Calls on EU Member States, especially those which have been involved in Uganda and the Juba peace process, to coordinate with regional governments and the UN secretariat and peacekeeping forces with a view to the execution of the ICC warrants of arrest for LRA leaders;

10.  Draws attention to the fact that justice is a common goal to be shared between the EU and the AU;

11.  Recalls that, under the Rome Statute, States Parties have committed themselves to put an end to impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community and to contribute to the prevention of such crimes; strongly believes that the ICC and the ad hoc tribunals contribute to the process of reconciliation and peace;

12.  Is worried about the absence of clear efforts to avoid diversion of international aid to the LRA, thus allowing Joseph Kony to rearm; urges the cutting of LRA supply networks; calls on the Government of Sudan to stop providing financial and military support to the LRA;

13.  Calls on the EU and international donors to support the disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of former LRA combatants, the return of IDPs and reparation for victims;

14.  Welcomes the close and regular contacts between ICC senior officials and the EU; notes the strong EU support for participation in and implementation of the Rome Statute; stresses that EU leadership is essential for the enforcement of the ICC mandate;

15.  Strongly believes that, in the long term, the ICC contributes to the prevention of new atrocities; points out that the failure to arrest Joseph Kony has resulted in the continuation of atrocities and human rights abuses; stresses that peace and reconciliation cannot be achieved without justice for victims;

16.  Recommends that the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly follow closely the situation in northern Uganda and human rights violations by the LRA;

17.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EU Special Representative for the Great Lakes Region, the EU Special Representative to the African Union, the Government of Uganda, the governments of the EU Member States and of the members of the UN Security Council, the institutions of the African Union and the ICC Prosecutor.

(1) OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3. (2) OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27. (3) OJ L 167, 26.06.2002, p. 1. (4) OJ C 127 E, 29.5.2003, p. 130. (5) OJ L 118, 14.05.2003, p. 12. (6) OJ C 31 E, 5.2.2004, p. 83. (7) OJ L 150, 18.6.2003, p. 67. (8) OJ L 115, 28.4.2006, p. 50. (9) Text adopted, P6_TA(2008)0238. (10) OJ C 74 E, 24.3.2004, p. 879. (11) OJ C 121, 24.4.2001, p. 401.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an action programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries (Erasmus Mundus) (2009-2013) (COM(2007)0395 – C6-0228/2007 – 2007/0145(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0497 A6-0294/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0395),

–   having regard to Articles 251(2) and Article 149(4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0228/2007),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Development, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0294/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Considers that the financial envelope indicated in the legislative proposal must be compatible with the ceiling of heading 1a of the new multiannual financial framework and points out that the annual amount will be decided within the annual budgetary procedure in accordance with the provisions of point 37 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1);

3.  Notes that the mandate of the Education, Audovisual and Culture Executive Agency does not cover the proposed extension of the Erasmus Mundus programme; stresses that implementation of the programme by the Executive Agency will only be possible after a duly approved extension of the mandate, in accordance with the legal provisions in force;

4.  Notes that the indicative overall amount of EUR 460 000 000 proposed for the financing of Action 2 of the programme would be covered by the financial envelopes of the respective external policy instruments;

5.  Stresses that financing of the activities foreseen under Action 2 must not be detrimental to other activities financed under the respective instruments; reiterates its position that new actions should only be financed from the EU budget when additional financial means are provided for them; calls on the Commission to provide the Parliament with an annual report presenting detailed data on the activities under Action 2 and their breakdown by financial instrument and among the regions and countries concerned;

6.  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;

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 October 2008 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Erasmus Mundus 2009-2013 action programme for the enhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 1298/2008/EC.)

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on safety rules and standards for passenger ships (recast) (COM(2007)0737 – C6-0442/2007 – 2007/0257(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0498 A6-0300/2008

(Codecision procedure - recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0737),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0442/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1),

–   having regard to the undertakings given by the Council representative by letter of 3 September 2008 to adopt the proposal, in accordance with Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty and with the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0300/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,

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.  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.

(1) OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (recast) (COM(2007)0736 – C6-0439/2007 – 2007/0259(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0499 A6-0297/2008

(Codecision procedure – recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0736),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0439/2007),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1),

–   having regard to the undertakings given by the Council representative by letter of 7 October 2008 to adopt the proposal as amended, in accordance with Article 251(2), second subparagraph, first indent of the EC Treaty,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A6-0297/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,

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 and as amended hereunder;

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.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 October 2008 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2008/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (recast)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2009/41/EC.)

(1) OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea (recast) (COM(2007)0859 – C6-0001/2008 – 2007/0288(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0500 A6-0288/2008

(Codecision procedure – recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0859),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0001/2008),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts(1),

–   having regard to the undertakings given by the Council representative by letter of 8 October 2008 to adopt the proposal as amended, in accordance with Article 251(2), second subparagraph, first indent of the EC Treaty,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0288/2008),

A.   whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the Legal Services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question does not include any substantive amendments other than those identified as such in the proposal and whereas, as regards the codification of the unchanged provisions of the earlier acts together with those amendments, the proposal contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts, without any change in their substance,

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 and as amended below;

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 the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 October 2008 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2008/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea (recast)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2009/42/EC.)

(1) OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 on Community statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States (COM(2008)0058 – C6-0059/2008 – 2008/0026(COD))

P6_TA(2008)0501 A6-0348/2008

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0058),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0059/2008),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0348/2008),

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 the Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 21 October 2008 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 on Community statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No 222/2009.)

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (COM(2006)0399 – C6-0305/2006 – 2006/0135(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0502 A6-0361/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0399),

–   having regard to Article 61, point (c) and Article 67(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0305/2006),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0361/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

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

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

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

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendments by Parliament Amendment 1 RECITAL 6 a (new) (6a)  The possibility of choosing the law applicable to divorce and to legal separation should not harm the superior interests of the child. Amendment 2 RECITAL 6 b (new) (6b)  Before the competent jurisdiction and the applicable law are designated, it is important for the spouses to have access to up-to-date information concerning the essential aspects of national and Community law and of the procedures relating to divorce and legal separation. In order to safeguard such access to information of an appropriate quality, the Commission must regularly update the information contained in the Internet-based information system for the public established by means of Council Decision No 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters1. OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25. Amendment 3 RECITAL 6 c (new) (6c)  The possibility of choosing by common agreement the jurisdiction and the applicable law should be without prejudice to the rights of, and equal opportunities for, the two spouses. Hence judges in the Member States should be aware of the importance of an informed choice on the part of the two spouses concerning the legal implications of the agreement concluded. Amendment 4 RECITAL 7 a (new) (7a)  The term "habitual residence" should be interpreted in accordance with the purposes of this Regulation. Its meaning should be determined by the judge in each individual case and on the basis of facts. The term does not refer to a concept of national law but rather to a separate concept established in Community law. Amendment 5 RECITAL 9 a (new) (9a)  The informed agreement of the two spouses is a basic principle of this Regulation. Each partner in the couple should know exactly what legal and social implications follow from the choice of jurisdiction and of applicable law. Amendment 6 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 Title (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) Council Regulation (EC) N° 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility as well as applicable law in matrimonial matters. Council Regulation (EC) N° 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, as well as the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. Amendment 7 ARTICLE 1, POINT 1 A (new) Article 2, point 11 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (1a)  In Article 2, the following point shall be added: "11a. the term "habitual residence" shall mean a person's place of ordinary abode." Amendment 8 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 3a, paragraph 1, point (a) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (a) any of the grounds of jurisdiction listed in Article 3 applies, or (a) at the time when the agreement is concluded, the jurisdiction of that Member State is competent pursuant to Article 3, or Amendment 9 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 3a, paragraph 1, point (b) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (b) it is the place of the spouses" last common habitual residence for a minimum period of three years, or (b) at the time when the agreement is concluded, it is the Member State in which the spouses have had their habitual residence for a minimum period of three years, provided that this situation did not come to an end more than three years before the jurisdiction was seised, or Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 3a, paragraph 1, point (c) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (c) one of the spouses is a national of that Member State or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her "domicile" in the territory of one of the latter Member States. (c) at the time when the agreement is concluded, one of the spouses is a national of that Member State or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her "domicile" in the territory of one of the latter Member States. Amendment 11 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 3a, paragraph 1, point c a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) "(ca) their marriage took place in that Member State." Amendment 12 ARTICLE 1, POINT 2 Article 3a, paragraph 2 (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) 2.  An agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be expressed in writing and signed by both spouses at the latest at the time the court is seised. 2.  An agreement conferring jurisdiction may be concluded or altered at any time, but at the latest at the time the court is seised. It shall apply to the last court level. The agreement shall be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both spouses. If the law of the Member State in which one of the spouses has their habitual residence at the time the agreement is made provides for any additional formal requirements for such agreements, those requirements must be fulfilled. If the spouses have their habitual residence in different Member States whose respective laws provide for additional formal requirements, the agreement shall be valid if it complies with the requirements of the law of one of those Member States. If the agreement forms part of a marriage contract, the formal requirements of that marriage contract must be fulfilled. Amendment 13 ARTICLE 1, POINT 3 Articles 4 and 5 (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (3)  In Articles 4 and 5, the terms "Article 3" are replaced by the terms "Articles 3 and 3a". (3)  In Articles 4 and 5, the terms "Article 3" are replaced by the terms "Articles 3, 3a and 7". Amendment 14 ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 Article 7, point a (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (a) the spouses had their common previous habitual residence in the territory of that Member State for at least three years; or (a) the spouses previously had their habitual residence in the territory of that Member State for at least three years, provided that the end of that period does not precede the seisure of the jurisdiction by more than three years; or Amendment 15 ARTICLE 1, POINT 5 A (new) Article 7 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (5a)  The following article is inserted: "Article 7a Forum necessitatis Where the jurisdiction which is competent pursuant to this Regulation is located in a Member State under whose law there is no provision for divorce or the existence or the validity of the marriage in question is not recognised, jurisdiction shall be granted to: (a) the Member State of which one of the spouses is a national; or (b) the Member State in which the marriage took place." Amendment 16 ARTICLE 1, POINT 6 Article 12, paragraph 1 (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (6)  In Article 12 (1), the terms "Article 3" are replaced by the terms "Articles 3 and 3a". (3)  In Article 12 (1), the terms "Article 3" are replaced by the terms "Articles 3, 3a and 7". Amendment 38 ARTICLE 1 – POINT 7 Article 20a – paragraph 1 – introductory part (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) 1.  The spouses may agree to designate the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. The spouses may agree to designate one of the following laws: 1.  The spouses may agree to designate the law applicable to divorce and legal separation provided that such law is in conformity with the fundamental rights defined in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of public policy. The spouses may agree to designate one of the following laws: Amendment 18 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 1, point -a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (-a) the law of the State in which the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded; Amendment 19 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 1, point a (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) (a) the law of the State of the last common habitual residence of the spouses insofar as one of them still resides there; (a) the law of the State of habitual residence of the spouses insofar as one of them still resides there at the time when the agreement is concluded; Amendment 20 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 1, point b (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) (b) the law of the State of the nationality of either spouse, or, in the case of United Kingdom and Ireland, the "domicile" of either spouse; (b) the law of the State of the nationality of either spouse, or, in the case of United Kingdom and Ireland, the "domicile" of either spouse at the time when the agreement is concluded; Amendment 21 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 1, point c (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) (c) the law of the State where the spouses have resided for at least five years; (c) the law of the State where the spouses have previously had their habitual residence for at least three years; Amendments 22 and 23 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 1, point c a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) (ca) the law of the State in which the marriage took place; Amendment 24 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 2 (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) 2.  An agreement designating the applicable law shall be expressed in writing and be signed by both spouses at the latest at the time the court is seised. 2.  An agreement designating the applicable law shall be expressed in writing and be signed by both spouses at the latest at the time the court is seised. However, if the law of the Member State in which one of the spouses has his or her habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded stipulates additional formal requirements for such agreements, those requirements must be met. If the spouses have their habitual residence in different Member States whose respective laws stipulate additional formal requirements, the agreement shall be valid if it meets the requirements of the law of one of those Member States. If the agreement forms part of a marriage contract, the formal requirements of that contract must be met. Amendment 25 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20a, paragraph 2 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) 2a.  Should the law indicated pursuant to the first paragraph not recognise legal separation or divorce or do so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply. Amendment 27 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20b, point a (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) (a) where the spouses have their common habitual residence, or failing that, (a) where the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the jurisdiction is seised, or failing that, Amendment 28 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20b, point b (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) (b) where the spouse had their last common habitual residence insofar as one of them still resides there, or failing that, (b) where the spouses had their habitual residence insofar as one of them still resides there at the time when the jurisdiction is seised, or failing that, Amendment 29 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20b, point c (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) (c) of which both spouses are nationals, or, in the case of United Kingdom and Ireland, both have their "domicile", or failing that, (c) of which both spouses are nationals, or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, in which both spouses have their "domicile" at the time at which the jurisdiction is seised, or failing that, Amendment 30 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20b, subparagraph 1 a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) Should the law indicated pursuant to the first point not recognise legal separation or divorce or do so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply. Amendment 31 ARTICLE 1, POINT 7 Article 20e a (new) (Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ) Article 20ea Information from the Member States 1.  By ... at the latest1, the Member States shall notify the Commission of their national rules concerning the formal requirements applying to agreements relating to the choice of competent jurisdiction and of the applicable law. The Member States shall notify the Commission of any subsequent change to those rules. 2.  The Commission shall make available to the public the information which has been notified to it pursuant to paragraph 1 by means of appropriate measures, in particular the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters. ____________________ Three months after the date on which this Regulation comes into force.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 21 October 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 on the management of fishing fleets registered in the Community outermost regions (COM(2008)0444 – C6-0298/2008 – 2008/0138(CNS))

P6_TA(2008)0503 A6-0388/2008

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2008)0444),

–   having regard to Articles 37 and 299(2) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0298/2008),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0388/2008),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

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

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

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

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 3 a (new) (3a)  In addition, there are fleets in the outermost regions consisting mainly of ageing vessels (dating back over 30 years in some cases), and it is therefore essential to ensure Community support for those fleets' renewal and modernisation, especially for the small-scale fleets, in order to improve the conditions for conservation of fish and fishermen's working and safety conditions in those regions. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Recital 4 (4)  It is, therefore, appropriate to extend for one more year the deadline for the derogation set out in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004. (4)  It is, therefore, appropriate to extend to 2011 the deadline for the derogation set out in Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004. Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article -1 (new) Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 Article 2 – paragraph 2 Article -1 Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 shall be replaced by the following: "2. by way of derogation from Article 9(1)(c)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, public aid to modernise the fleet in terms of tonnage and/or power may be granted, within the limits of the specific reference levels provided for in Article 1 of this Regulation". Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article -1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 Article 2 − paragraph 4 Article -1a Article 2(4) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 shall be replaced by the following: "4. by way of derogation from Article 9(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, public aid for the renewal of fishing vessels may be granted until 31 December 2009." Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 Article 2 − paragraph 5 In Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004, "31 December 2008" shall be replaced by "31 December 2009". In Article 2(5) of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004, "31 December 2008" shall be replaced by "31 December 2011". Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation – amending act Article 1 a (new) Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 Article 6 Article 1a Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 639/2004 shall be replaced by the following: "The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the implementation of this Regulation until the expiry of the derogations provided for herein. As regards the measures referred to in Article 2, the Commission shall propose such adjustments as might be required in the light both of the changing socio-economic needs of the regions concerned and of the status of their fish stocks."

Declaration of the European Parliament on combating trafficking in children

P6_TA(2008)0504 P6_DCL(2008)0050

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

–   having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,

–   having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

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

A.   whereas child trafficking is still a persistent problem, with more than two million children annually trafficked for forced labour and sexual exploitation,

B.   whereas the development of new communication technologies increases trafficking in children, making it more difficult to manage this phenomenon,

C.   whereas national authorities and NGOs in the Member States are still not acting effectively against child trafficking, due to insufficient cross-border cooperation, lack of specialised training or inadequate implementation of existing legal standards,

1.  Calls on the Member States to recognise the fight against child trafficking as a priority objective in their national child protection policies;

2.  Calls for the European Parliament and the Council to provide the necessary resources in the framework of the Commission's strategy on promoting and safeguarding children's rights;

3.  Calls on the Member States to continue actively cooperating and exchanging knowledge and experience with the relevant EU authorities and NGOs, in order to prevent and combat child trafficking, and provide adequate treatment for victims of such trafficking;

4.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council and the Commission.