European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Armenia on certain aspects of air services (COM(2007)0729 – C6-0519/2008 – 2007/0251(CNS))

P6_TA(2009)0082 A6-0049/2009

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2007)0729),

–   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 (C6-0519/2008),

–   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 (A6-0049/2009),

1.  Approves conclusion of the agreement;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Community and the State of Israel on certain aspects of air services (COM(2008)0178 – C6-0520/2008 – 2008/0068(CNS))

P6_TA(2009)0083 A6-0059/2009

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2008)0178),

–   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 (C6-0520/2008),

–   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 (A6-0059/2009),

1.  Approves conclusion of the agreement;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion of the additional protocol to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (16447/2008 - COM(2008)0749 – C6-0017/2009 – 2008/0212(AVC))

P6_TA(2009)0084 A6-0073/2009

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the text of the Council (16447/2008),

–   having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Articles 310 and 300(2), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (C6-0017/2009),

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

–   having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Development (A6-0073/2009),

1.  Gives its assent to conclusion of the additional protocol;

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

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on the next steps in border management in the European Union and similar experiences in third countries (2008/2181(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0085 A6-0061/2009

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 February 2008 entitled 'Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union' (COM(2008)0069),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 February 2008 entitled 'Report on the evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX Agency' (COM(2008)0067),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 February 2008 entitled 'Examining the creation of a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)' (COM(2008)0068),

–   having regard to the preliminary comments of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 3 March 2008 and to the joint comments of the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party and the Working Party on Police and Justice of 29 April 2008 on the three above mentioned communications,

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions on the management of the external borders of the Member States of the European Union,

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)(1),

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 767/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 concerning the Visa Information System (VIS) and the exchange of data between Member States on short-stay visas (VIS Regulation)(2),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1104/2008 of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)(3) and to Council Decision 2008/839/JHA of 24 October 2008 on migration from the Schengen Information System (SIS 1+) to the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II)(4),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 24 November 2005 on improved effectiveness, enhanced interoperability and synergies among European databases in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (COM(2005)0597),

–   having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on the evaluation and future development of the FRONTEX Agency and of the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)(5),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0061/2009),

A.   whereas the dismantling of the EU's internal border controls is one of the greatest achievements of European integration,

B.   whereas an area without internal borders cannot function without shared responsibility and solidarity in managing its external borders,

C.   whereas attention should be paid to cooperation with the border security authorities of third countries' in line with general EU external policy,

D.   whereas the EU external border is crossed every year by 160 million EU citizens, 60 million third country nationals (TCNs) not requiring a visa, and 80 million requiring a visa,

E.   whereas measures to enhance border security must go hand in hand with facilitation of passenger flows and the promotion of mobility in an increasingly globalised world,

F.   whereas within the framework of EU integrated border management, several instruments and programmes have already been established, are in the course of preparation or are at the stage of policy development,

G.   whereas the Commission has stated that it intends to be ready in 2009-2010 to present legislative proposals for the introduction of an entry/exit system, a Registered Traveller Programme (RTP) and an Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA),

H.   whereas similar systems exist in Australia and are being implemented by the USA as part of the US-VISIT programme,

I.   whereas a comprehensive master plan setting out the overall architecture of the EU's border strategy as well as a thorough evaluation and assessment of existing systems and those under preparation are lacking,

Entry/exit system

1.  Is aware that the so-called 'overstayers', who are central to the proposed entry/exit system, are supposed to represent the biggest category of illegal immigrants in the EU; requests, however, more information on the data collected by an external contractor estimating that 'there were up to 8 million illegal immigrants within the EU25 in 2006'(6); insists, moreover, on a clear definition of the term 'overstayer', including the possible exemptions under specific conditions, and a closer qualitative and quantitative analysis of the threats/risks/costs they bring to European society;

2.  Points out that, although the proposed system and alert information might help to deter TCNs from overstaying, as well as provide data and information on patterns, further contact with law enforcement agencies is still necessary for an individual who overstays his or her period of admission to be apprehended, and therefore does not believe that the proposed system will put an end to the 'overstay' phenomenon as such;

3.  Does not have sufficient information on how this system will be integrated in – and interact with – the existing framework, on the possible changes that might need to be made to existing systems and on the actual costs generated by it; is therefore of the opinion that the absolute need to implement such a system remains doubtful;

4.  Recalls that the correct functioning of the entry/exit system will depend both materially and operationally on the success of the VIS and SIS II; points out that these instruments are not yet fully operational and that it has thus not yet been possible to evaluate them properly; stresses that the operability and reliability of the SIS II are being called into question;

5.  Notes that, without a doubt and following the lessons learned in the USA, it is more challenging to implement exit capability than entry, and in particular with regard to sea and land exit; furthermore, following the same lessons learned, has considerable concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system; therefore calls on the Commission to provide additional information on the actual investment generated by such a system;

Registered Traveller Programme (RTP)

6.  Supports in principle the concept of an RTP for TCNs, whether or not subject to visa requirements, which would help speed up traveller flows and prevent congestion at entry and exit points, and the possible use of automated gates by EU citizens, since Community law as it currently stands does not allow for the simplification of border checks except in the case of TCNs residing in border areas;

7.  Criticises, however, the terminology used in the Communication entitled 'Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union' ('low-risk'/'bona fide' travellers), as it would imply that a huge number of travellers are considered a priori as 'high-risk' or 'mala fide', and recommends the term "frequent travellers";

8.  Points out that several Member States have already set up or are preparing such an RTP for TCNs, and highlights the risk of ending up with a patchwork of twenty-seven systems based on different criteria, including those on data-protection and fees; is aware of the fact that the Netherlands, together with Germany, the UK and FRONTEX, are seeking to promote the 'International Expedited Traveller Programme' as a possible blueprint for other Member States;

9.  Advocates a harmonised approach and therefore urges the Commission to speed up the process, on the basis of best practices in Member States, and to make sure that Member States continue to act in conformity with Community law;

10.  Notes that, in fact, RTPs for TCNs are different from RTPs for Union citizens; stresses therefore that a clear distinction between the two must be made at all times;

Electronic System of Travel Authorisation (ESTA)

11.  Acknowledges that it would be unwise to focus attention in terms of security measures only on TCNs travelling to the EU from countries with a visa requirement; questions, however, whether the proposed system is absolutely necessary and would like a thorough explanation of the rationale for it; is convinced that close cooperation between intelligence services in particular is the right way forward, rather than a massive collection of data in general;

12.  Wishes to be informed on the exact timetable and the details of the study as envisaged by the Commission;

Data protection and biometrics concerns

13.  Finds it unacceptable that the Commission failed to consult either the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), who had nonetheless expressed a number of concerns, or the Article 29 Working Party prior to the adoption of the Communication entitled 'Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union'; requests the Commission, therefore, to consult both in respect of any action to be taken under that Communication, as the proposed building blocks entail the processing of vast amounts of personal data;

14.  Is aware that biometrics are theoretically effective personal identifiers because the characteristics measured are thought to be distinctive of each person; however, underlines the fact that the reliability of biometrics is never absolute and that biometrics are not in all cases accurate; therefore points out that fall-back procedures should be provided for at all times and that risk profiles should be better defined;

15.  Insists on a standard protocol for the use and exchange of biometric information and interface control agreements to describe how the protocol will be used; is furthermore of the opinion that the use of biometrics should be subject to a quality standard in order to avoid divergences in acceptance between different systems used by Member States;

16.  Considers a "privacy by design" approach to be an essential feature of any development which risks jeopardising the personal information of individuals and the public's trust and confidence in those who hold information about them;

Conclusions

17.  Considers the objective of truly EU-integrated border management to be legitimate and agrees that it is important to continuously develop and strengthen the EU's common policy on border management;

18.  However, is of the opinion that, within the framework of border and immigration management, far-reaching proposals are piling up at an amazing pace; therefore asks the Commission to think in terms of the need for, and the cost of, the border logistics;

19 Deplores, moreover, the notion that the EU's border management policy should be founded on the idea that all travellers are potentially suspect and have to prove their good faith;

20.  Criticises the lack of a comprehensive master plan setting out the overall objectives and architecture of the EU's border management strategy as well as the absence of details showing how all related programmes and schemes (already in place, in the course of preparation or at the stage of policy development) are supposed to function together and how relationships among them can be optimised; takes the view that, when considering the architecture of the EU's border management strategy, the Commission should analyse first of all the effectiveness of the existing border management systems of the Member States, in order to bring about the optimal synergies between them;

21.  Stresses the need for an evaluation and assessment, first of all, of existing systems and those under preparation, and emphasises that the EU's ability to achieve its strategic goals depends to a great extent on its success in managing the interdependencies among related programmes, as duplication and inconsistency between them will have a negative impact on organisational performance and results as a consequence; is of the opinion that no new instruments or systems should be launched until the existing tools are fully operational, safe and reliable;

22.  Is of the opinion that, before any investment is made, it is of the utmost importance to have a clearly defined operational context in which to align all the measures and emerging initiatives; points out, moreover, that it should be crystal clear what modifications are necessary in order to ensure that technology and processes work in harmony, and stresses that all investments should be economically justified;

23.  Expresses doubts concerning the need for, and the proportionality of, the proposed measures, given their expense and the potential risks they pose for data protection; is therefore of the opinion that they should be assessed against those criteria before any formal proposal is envisaged;

24.  Acknowledges that striking a balance between ensuring the free movement of a growing number of people across borders and ensuring greater security for Europe's citizens is a complex exercise, and does not deny that the use of data offers clear advantages; at the same time, is of the opinion that public trust in government action can only be maintained if provision is made for sufficient data protection safeguards, supervision and redress mechanisms;

o
o   o

25.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex).

(1) OJ L 105 13.4.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 60. (3) OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, p. 1. (4) OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, p. 43. (5) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0633. (6) SEC(2008)0153.

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 with recommendations to the Commission on the cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company (2008/2196(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0086 A6-0040/2009

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 192, second paragraph, of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 21 May 2003 entitled "Modernising Company Law and Enhancing Corporate Governance in the European Union – A Plan to Move Forward" (COM(2003)0284),

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 April 2004 on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Modernising company law and enhancing corporate governance in the European Union – A plan to move forward(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2006 on recent developments and prospects in relation to company law(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2007 on the European Private Company and the Fourteenth Company Law Directive on the transfer of the company seat(3),

–   having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice in Daily Mail and General Trust(4), Centros(5), Überseering(6), Inspire Art(7), SEVIC Systems(8) and Cadbury Schweppes(9),

–   having regard to Rules 39 and 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 (A6-0040/2009),

A.   whereas companies should enjoy freedom of establishment within the internal market as enshrined in the EC Treaty and interpreted by the Court of Justice,

B.   whereas cross-border company migration is one of the crucial elements in the completion of the internal market,

C.   whereas a cross-border transfer of the registered office of a company should not give rise to its winding-up or any other interruption or loss of legal personality,

D.   whereas a cross-border transfer of the registered office should not circumvent legal, social and fiscal conditions,

E.   whereas the rights of other stakeholders concerned by the transfer, such as minority shareholders, employees and creditors, etc, should be safeguarded,

F.   whereas the relevant acquis communautaire providing for cross-border information, consultation and participation rights of employees as well as safeguarding pre-existing employee participation rights (Directives 94/45/EC(10) and 2005/56/EC(11)) should be fully preserved, and whereas, consequently, the transfer of a registered office should not result in the loss of those existing rights,

G.   whereas a rule requiring a company to maintain its head office and its registered office in the same Member State would run counter to the case-law of the Court of Justice on freedom of establishment and would therefore infringe EC law,

1.  Requests the Commission to submit to Parliament by 31 March 2009, on the basis of Article 44 of the EC Treaty, a legislative proposal for a directive laying down measures for coordinating Member States" national legislation in order to facilitate the cross-border transfer within the Community of the registered office of a company formed in accordance with the legislation of a Member State ("14th Company Law Directive"), and requests that the proposal in question be drawn up within the framework of inter-institutional deliberations and following the detailed recommendations set out below;

2.  Notes that undertakings can currently transfer their seat only either by dissolution and the establishment of a new legal entity in the Member State of destination, or by establishing a new legal entity in the Member State of destination and then merging both undertakings; further notes that this procedure involves administrative obstacles, costs and social consequences and offers no legal certainty;

3.  Draws attention to the freedom of establishment that is guaranteed for undertakings under Article 48 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice(12);

4.  Notes that a transfer of a company seat implies a transfer of supervision; points out that, in the context of the drafting of the 14th Company Law Directive on the cross-border transfer of registered offices, the maintenance of the existing rights of shareholders, creditors and workers must be guaranteed and the existing equilibrium in the management of the company ("corporate governance") must be preserved;

5.  Proposes that reference be made in the new directive to Directive 94/45/EC and Directive 2005/56/EC, in order to guarantee the coherence and substantive nature of employee participation procedures in the application of EU company law directives;

6.  Takes the view that a transfer of a company's seat must be preceded by the issuing of a transfer plan and a report explaining and justifying the legal and economic aspects and any consequences of the transfer for shareholders and employees; points out that the transfer plan and the report must be made available in good time to all those involved;

7.  Emphasises the positive effects of tax competition on economic growth in the context of the Lisbon Strategy;

8.  Notes that a transfer of a company seat should be tax-neutral;

9.  Suggests that the exchange of information and mutual assistance between tax authorities be improved;

10.  Calls for transparency in the application of the new directive in the Member States and therefore proposes a reporting requirement for Member States vis-à-vis the Commission whereby undertakings transferring their registered office under the directive must be entered in a European companies register; points out that, in the interests of better law-making, excessive information ("overkill") must be avoided when the reporting requirement is transposed into national law, provided that sufficient information is guaranteed;

11.  Confirms that the recommendations respect the principle of subsidiarity and the fundamental rights of citizens;

12.  Considers that the requested proposal does not have any financial implications;

13.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying detailed recommendations to the Commission and the Council and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

ANNEX TO THE RESOLUTION:

DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CONTENT OF THE PROPOSAL REQUESTED

The European Parliament requests the Commission to put forward a proposal for a directive that should contain the following elements:

Recommendation 1 (effects of a cross-border transfer of the registered office)

Cross-border transfers of registered offices shall not give rise to the winding-up of the company concerned or to any interruption or loss of its legal personality; consequently, the company shall retain its legal identity and all its assets, liabilities and contractual relations shall remain unaffected. Furthermore, the transfer shall not circumvent legal, social and fiscal conditions. The transfer shall take effect on the date of registration in the host Member State. From the date of registration in the host Member State, the company shall be governed by the legislation of that State.

Recommendation 2 (transfer procedure within the company)

The transfer proposal shall be submitted to the members and employee representatives of the company for examination within an appropriate period prior to the date of the company's meeting of shareholders.

The management or board of the company planning a transfer shall also draw up a report explaining and justifying the proposal's legal and economic aspects and indicating the consequences for the company's members, creditors and employees, unless agreed otherwise.

Recommendation 3 (transfer decision by meeting of the shareholders)

The shareholders' meeting shall approve the transfer proposal in accordance with the arrangements laid down and by the majority required to amend the memorandum and articles of association under the legislation applicable to the company in its home Member State.

If the company is managed on the basis of employee participation, the shareholders' meeting may make completion of the transfer conditional on its expressly approving the arrangements for employee participation.

Recommendation 4 (administrative transfer procedure and verification)

The home Member State shall verify the legality of the transfer procedure in accordance with its legislation. The competent authority designated by the home Member State shall issue a certificate conclusively declaring that all the acts and formalities required have been completed.

The certificate, a copy of the memorandum and articles of association envisaged for the company in the host Member State and a copy of the transfer proposal shall be presented within an appropriate period of time to the body responsible for registration in the host Member State. Those documents shall be sufficient to enable the company to be registered in the host Member State. The competent authority responsible for registration in the host Member State shall verify that the substantive and formal conditions for the transfer are met.

The competent authority in the host Member State shall give immediate notification of the registration to the respective authority in the home Member State. Thereupon, the home Member State authority shall remove the company from the register.

Recommendation 5 (employee participation)

Employee participation shall be governed by the legislation of the host Member State.

In these cases, the provisions of Article 16 of Directive 2005/56/EC should apply accordingly.

Recommendation 6 (third parties concerned by the transfer)

Any company against which proceedings for winding-up, liquidation, insolvency or suspension of payments or other similar proceedings have been brought shall not be allowed to undertake a cross-border transfer of its registered office within the Community.

For the purposes of ongoing judicial or administrative proceedings which commenced before the transfer of the registered office, the company shall be regarded as having its registered office in the home Member State.

(1) OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 714. (2) OJ C 303 E, 13.12.2006, p. 114. (3) OJ C 263 E, 16.10.2008, p. 671. (4) Case 81/87 Daily Mail and General Trust [1988] ECR 5483. (5) Case C-212/97 Centros [1999] ECR I-1459. (6) Case C-208/00 Überseering [2002] ECR I-9919. (7) Case C-167/01 Inspire Art [2003] ECR I-10155. (8) Case C-411/03 SEVIC Systems [2005] ECR I-10805. (9) Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes [2006] ECR I-7995. (10) Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64). (11) Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ L 310, 25.11.2005, p. 1). (12) Judgment in Centros, cited above. (13) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ L 65, 14.3.1968, p. 8).

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on the future of the Common European Asylum System (2008/2305(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0087 A6-0050/2009

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 63(1) and (2) of the EC Treaty,

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

–   having regard to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1967 Additional Protocol thereto,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national(1) ("the Dublin Regulation"),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers(2) ("Reception Directive"),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status(3) ("Asylum Directive"),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted(4),

–   having regard to the Commission report on the application of Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (COM(2007)0745),

–   having regard to its resolution of 14 April 2005 on Lampedusa(5),

–   having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2006 on the situation with refugee camps in Malta(6),

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 June 2007 on entitled 'Asylum: practical cooperation, quality of decision-making in the common European asylum system'(7),

–   having regard to its resolution of 2 September 2008 on the evaluation of the Dublin system(8),

–   having regard to the reports of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the visits to various holding centres in order to monitor reception conditions,

–   having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6 May 2008 in Case C-133/06 European Parliament v Council of the European Union(9) concerning an action for annulment of the Asylum Directive, seeking in particular annulment of the Directive's provisions on the procedure for adoption and amendment of minimum common lists of safe countries,

–   having regard to the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum adopted by the European Council on 16 October 2008, whose fourth objective is to 'construct a Europe of Asylum',

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A6-0050/2009),

A.   whereas the legislative instruments relating to the first phase of the establishment of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) have allowed the introduction of common minimum standards but not of equal conditions of access to protection throughout the EU and, as a result, there are still problems such as secondary movements and multiple applications,

B.   whereas the Dublin system's first country of entry criteria can result in a disproportionate burden being imposed on some Member States, in particular on those constituting the EU's external border, simply as a result of their exposed location, and whereas this has harmful consequences for both Member States and asylum seekers,

C.   whereas the Commission's evaluation of the Dublin system reveals that, in 2005, the 13 border Member States had to deal with increasing challenges raised by the Dublin system,

D.   whereas, in its above-mentioned report on the Reception Directive, the Commission noted serious problems in its implementation, in particular in closed centres and transit zones, as the Parliamentary delegations were able to note at first hand during their many visits,

General considerations

1.  Notes that in the past year the number of refugees has grown to more than 12 million refugees and 26 million internally displaced people worldwide; in this context, supports the establishment of a CEAS and welcomes the Commission's Policy Plan on Asylum, serving as a roadmap for the completion of the CEAS;

2.  Regrets that, owing to the change of legal basis which will result from the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, there are plans to put back to 2012 the deadline for completion of the second phase of the CEAS, which is due to put an end to the unhealthy disparities between the asylum systems of Member States;

3.  Draws attention to the fact that recognition rates of candidates to refugee status for certain third-country nationals vary from approximately 0% up to 90% between Member States;

4.  Stresses that the harmonisation of standards leading to a common asylum procedure and uniform asylum status should result in a high level of protection throughout the EU and should not be based on the lowest common denominator, which would deprive the common asylum scheme of its added value;

5.  Regrets that the concept of the institution of asylum, an essential part of democracy and protection of human rights, has been severely eroded in recent years; reiterates the need for full respect for the rights and needs of asylum seekers and the principle of non-refoulement;

6.  Draws attention to the fact that the EU should provide for mechanisms at the external borders to identify asylum seekers and ensure that persons entitled to international protection gain access to EU territory, including in the context of its external border control operations;

7.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission has identified access for those in need of protection to be one of the overarching objectives of the CEAS;

8.  Calls on the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) to provide detailed data relating to the number of asylum seekers identified as such during its operations and the plight of persons intercepted and sent back to a country of transit or origin during its operations; calls on the Commission to table a proposal for a revision of Frontex' mandate in order to explicitly state that protection and human rights concerns are an integral part of the management of the EU external borders;

9.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission recognises the need to ensure coherence with other policies that have an impact on international protection; calls therefore on the Commission to support and introduce initiatives to review and adapt all border management policies and practices such as Frontex and the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) to guarantee refugees' access to protection in the EU and full respect for the principle of non-refoulement at the EU's external borders; in addition, stresses that the duty to render assistance as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is legally binding on the Member States, the EU and Frontex;

Improvement of existing legislation

10.  Welcomes the fact that, in its above-mentioned judgment in Case C-133/06, the Court of Justice annulled paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 29 and paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the Asylum Directive, which concerned the adoption or amendment of a minimum common list of safe countries of origin and a common list of safe third countries;

11.  Welcomes the positive initiatives carried out in some Member States to welcome asylum seekers – on submission of their request for international protection – in facilities that are open and fully integrated with local communities;

12.  Considers that asylum seekers are vulnerable persons who require appropriate reception conditions; draws attention to the fact that a prison environment can under no circumstances help them to overcome the traumas experienced in their countries of origin or during their journey to Europe;

13.  Welcomes the provisions mentioned in the latest Commission proposals that Member States shall not hold a person in detention for the sole reason that he or she is an applicant for international protection; considers that asylum seekers should, as a matter of principle, not be placed in detention, in view of their particularly vulnerable position;

14.  Regrets the fact that, in several Member States, asylum seekers are still detained following their irregular entry into the country, and therefore welcomes the insertion into the Reception Directive of procedural guarantees relating to detention; in this regard, is of the opinion that detention of asylum seekers should only be possible under very clearly defined exceptional circumstances and subject to the principle of necessity and proportionality with regard both to the manner and to the purpose of such detention; is also of the opinion that, where an asylum seeker is held in detention, that person should have a right to a remedy before a national court;

15.  Considers that the scope of the new Reception Directive must be clarified in order to cover holding centres, transit areas, border procedures and Dublin transferees;

16.  Welcomes the establishment, in the Reception Directive, of a formal system to immediately identify vulnerable persons, in particular unaccompanied minors, dependent elderly persons, disabled persons, pregnant women, single parents with children and persons who have suffered traumatic experiences, such as torture, rape, and psychological, physical and sexual violence;

17.  Considers that a single asylum application procedure and single standards for qualification as refugees or persons needing international protection should be established, covering all requests for 'international protection' (refugee status, subsidiary protection and temporary protection);

18.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission plans to clarify the conditions for granting subsidiary protection, and above all that it is suggesting that the level of entitlements and benefits to be granted to beneficiaries of this type of protection be reviewed; this should ensure greater parity of treatment at an enhanced level;

19.  Welcomes the Commission's intention to amend the Asylum Directive and stresses that the common asylum procedure should provide for clear, uniform and reasonable time limits for the authorities to decide on an asylum application, thus avoiding long and unwarranted waiting periods which could have negative consequences for asylum seekers" health and well-being; reiterates that granting of refugee or subsidiary protection status should always be subject to an individual assessment and in no way be limited to a generalised assessment (e.g. based on nationality) or conditionality (e.g. relating to the human rights situation in a country of origin);

20.  Considers it desirable to pool the information on countries of origin available to the various Member States and encourages the Commission to step up its efforts to set up a common databank; emphasises that the collection and presentation of country of origin information and the management of a portal should ensure that the country reports of different established experts are included, that the information is publicly accessible and kept distinct from its application by decision-makers (and therefore remains impartial and free from political influence) and that a fair balance is struck between governmental, non-governmental and international sources when collecting country of origin information;

21.  Welcomes the recast of the Dublin Regulation and the proposed provisions for a mechanism to suspend Dublin transfers if there are concerns that they could result in applicants not benefiting from adequate standards of protection in the responsible Member States, in particular in terms of reception conditions and access to asylum procedures, as well as in cases where those transfers would add to the burden on those Member States which are faced with disproportionate pressures due, in particular, to their geographical or demographic situation; stresses, however, that these provisions would ultimately be a political statement rather than an effective instrument to significantly support Member States without the introduction of a two-fold binding instrument for all Member States providing for the following:

22.  Considers that under the revised Dublin Regulation asylum seekers should be granted the right to appeal against a transfer decision, such an appeal imposing an obligation on the courts or tribunals to examine ex-officio the necessity of temporarily suspending the enforcement of a transfer decision;

Administrative structures

23.  Firmly supports the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office, which should work in close cooperation with UNHCR and with NGOs specialised in asylum matters;

24.  Considers that one of the tasks of the European Asylum Support Office should be to conduct a detailed assessment of the remaining disparities between national asylum systems so as to contribute to their improvement;

25.  Considers that the activities of the European Asylum Support Office should include developing guidelines in order to facilitate more accurate assessment of asylum claims, promoting exchange of good practice, and monitoring the implementation and application of relevant EU legislation (supporting the Commission's role as guardian of the Treaties);

26.  Considers that practical consideration should be given to following up the treatment of those returned to their country of origin or departure as a result of protection claims being refused;

27.  Strongly encourages the Commission to pursue its efforts to establish a common European training programme on asylum, given that the quality of decisions adopted in this area is directly linked to that of the training and information provided for decision-makers at national level; takes the view that a consultation of civil society organisations specialised in this area with a view to drawing up training programmes would guarantee effectiveness in this respect;

28.  Considers that all decision-makers must have equal access to professionally and objectively researched country of origin information, which is a core tool for asylum authorities and appeal instances as well as for asylum seekers, who rely on it to help verify their claim for international protection;

29.  Stresses that during the waiting periods authorities should take into consideration the different needs of asylum seekers in a more fragile situation, such as children, people with disabilities and women, and provide the necessary infrastructure;

Integration of beneficiaries of international protection

30.  Acknowledges the importance of the integration of beneficiaries of international protection with regard to democracy, security and economic considerations;

31.  Regrets that the rules laid down by the Dublin Regulation to determine which country is responsible for consideration of an asylum request do not take account of the wishes of applicants, and considers that certain criteria relating to family, cultural and linguistic considerations should be given greater consideration in such decisions with a view to promoting the integration of asylum seekers;

32.  Urges the Council to reach an agreement on the extension of the scope of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third country-nationals who are long-term residents(10) to cover refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection;

33.  Welcomes the Commission's proposal in the Reception Directive to provide applicants with simplified access to the labour market, given that their integration into working life constitutes an essential condition for their integration in the host Member State and also assists in the development of skills which are of benefit both during their stay in the host Member State and, in the event of return, in their country of origin;

34.  Considers that, when determining the Member State responsible, the asylum system should facilitate integration by taking into account, among other elements, social, cultural and linguistic background, and the recognition of the educational achievements, professional qualification and skills of the asylum seeker that match economic needs in the host Member State;

35.  Recommends that no distinction be made between rights granted to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection; stresses in particular the need to improve access for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection to social and economic rights, given that this is essential to their integration;

Solidarity mechanisms

36.  Considers that one of the objectives of the CEAS should be to set up effective solidarity mechanisms in order to improve the situation of countries with the greatest flows of asylum seekers and experiencing difficulties in guaranteeing adequate reception conditions, processing applications within the prescribed time limits and procedures or integrating applicants who have been granted refugee status;

37.  Takes the view that solidarity cannot be confined to the granting of financial resources and calls for the effective implementation of internal resettlement and relocation mechanisms on a voluntary basis as envisaged by the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum; is of the view that this would enable beneficiaries of international protection to be received by a Member State other than the country which has granted them the benefit of that protection;

38.  Considers that consideration should be given to extending the scope of Directive 2001/55/EC(11) to enable, in particular, specific categories of persons requiring international protection for a provisional period to be received even where there is no mass influx;

39.  Encourages the creation, under the aegis of the future European Asylum Support Office, of teams of asylum experts who can assist Member States experiencing sudden and mass influxes of asylum seekers with which they cannot cope;

40.  Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of setting up a European mechanism for transferring international protection, under the supervision of the future European Asylum Support Office, to allow the movement of refugees in Europe at their request and thus ease the burden borne by some Member States;

41.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission intends to launch a study to review the means of improving financial solidarity within the EU, and looks forward with interest to the proposals that will be drawn up in this context;

42.  Supports border monitoring agreements between national authorities, UNHCR and NGOs in the EU and the allocation of resources to this end under the EU External Borders Fund;

Cooperation with third countries

43.  Emphasises that the CEAS should be fully coherent with the objectives and activities in the area of refugee protection of EU instruments for cooperation with developing countries (such as the European Development Fund, the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI), the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights) and agreements and partnerships between the EU and developing countries (such as the Cotonou Agreement and the Africa-EU Strategic Partnership);

44.  Shares the Commission's view that asylum is an integral part of development cooperation with third countries rather than a crisis management tool; reiterates also that development cooperation, particularly crisis prevention, human rights monitoring, conflict transformation and peace-building, could serve as a means of preventing displacement; stresses therefore that the CEAS should be closely connected with EU development and humanitarian policies;

45.  Looks forward to the assessment of the Regional Protection Programmes due to take place in 2009; stresses that the development of such programmes should be fully coherent with National and Regional Action Plans, the Thematic Programme on Migration and Asylum of the DCI and, more generally, should never be a means to remove responsibilities from Member States and the EU; calls on the Commission to improve coordination of the measures taken by its various services in this context with a view to optimising synergies between them, and to report to Parliament on steps taken in this connection;

46.  Recognises the importance of strengthening the reception capacities of first-asylum countries and of setting up, at European level and in close cooperation with UNHCR, a resettlement programme laying down common criteria and coordination mechanisms;

47.  Also requests that an evaluation should be made of the adequacy of the funds available for measures relating to third countries, for example, protection within the region, especially in the light of Parliament's stated view that these measures require additional funding and not a reallocation of development funds;

48.  Calls on the Commission to promote greater participation by Member States in worldwide refugee resettlement efforts;

49.  Notes with great interest the idea of setting up 'Protected Entry Procedures' and strongly encourages the Commission to give due consideration to the specific procedures for and the practical implications of such measures;

50.  Looks forward with interest to the results of the study on the joint processing of asylum applications outside EU territory which the Commission plans to conduct in 2009, and warns against any temptation to transfer responsibility for welcoming asylum seekers and processing their requests to third countries or UNHCR;

o
o   o

51.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, Frontex and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

(1) OJ L 50, 25.2.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18. (3) OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13. (4) OJ L 304, 30.9.2004, p. 12. (5) OJ C 33 E, 9.2.2006, p. 598. (6) OJ C 293 E, 2.12.2006, p. 301. (7) OJ C 146 E, 12.6.2008, p. 364. (8) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0385. (9) OJ C 158, 21.6.2008, p. 3. (10) OJ L 16, 23.1.2004, p. 44. (11) Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12).

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on the Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework (2008/2150(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0088 A6-0022/2009

The European Parliament,

-   having regard to the EC Treaty,

-   having regard to Opinion No 2/2004 of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities on the 'single audit' model (and a proposal for a Community internal control framework)(1),

-   having regard to the Commission communication of 15 June 2005 on a roadmap to an integrated internal control framework (COM(2005)0252),

-   having regard to the Commission Communication of 17 January 2006 on the action plan towards an integrated internal control framework (COM(2006)0009),

-   having regard to the first half-yearly report on the scoreboard for the application of the Commission action plan towards an integrated internal control framework published on 19 July 2006 (SEC(2006)1009), pursuant to Parliament's request in its resolution of 27 April 2006 on the discharge for the financial year 2004(2),

-   having regard to the interim progress report of the Commission published on 7 March 2007 (COM(2007)0086), outlining progress and announcing some additional actions,

-   having regard to the Commission Communication of 27 February 2008 entitled 'Report on the Commission Action Plan towards an Integrated Internal Control Framework' (COM(2008)0110) and the Commission staff working paper annexed thereto (SEC(2008)0259),

-   having regard to the Commission communication of 4 June 2008 entitled 'Synthesis of the Commission's management achievements in 2007' (COM(2008)0338),

-   having regard to the Commission's annual report to the discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2007 (COM(2008)0499),

-   having regard to the Commission's annual report to the discharge authority on the follow-up to the 2006 discharge decisions (COM(2008)0629 and COM(2008)0628) and the accompanying Commission staff working papers (SEC(2008)2579 and SEC(2008)2580),

-   having regard to the Annual Report of the European Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2007, together with the institutions" replies(3),

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

-   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A6-0022/2009),

A.   whereas under Article 274 of the EC Treaty the Commission implements the budget on its own responsibility, on the basis of the principles of sound financial management, in cooperation with the Member States,

B.   whereas the principle of effective internal control is one of the budgetary principles set out in Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (Financial Regulation)(4) following its amendment by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006(5), as proposed by the Commission in the action plan towards an integrated internal control framework (the "Action Plan"),

C.   whereas the most effective means for the Commission to demonstrate that it is genuinely committed to ensuring transparency and sound financial management is to do all it can to support measures seeking to enhance the quality of financial management, with a view to obtaining a positive statement of assurance (DAS(6)) from the European Court of Auditors (ECA),

D.   whereas in paragraph 5 of its conclusions of 8 November 2005, the ECOFIN Council took the view that it was of fundamental importance to introduce an integrated internal control system and simplify the legislation on controls and requested 'that the Commission assess the cost of controls by area of expenditure',

E.   whereas to support the strategic objective of receiving a positive DAS from the ECA, the Commission adopted in January 2006 the Action Plan , drawing on recommendations of the ECA(7), Parliament's resolution of 12 April 2005 on the discharge for the financial year 2003(8) and the ECOFIN conclusions of 8 November 2005,

F.   whereas the Action Plan addressed 'gaps' in the Commission's control structures at the time and identified 16 areas for action by the end of 2007, taking into account that improvement of financial management in the Union must be supported by a close monitoring of controls in the Commission and the Member States,

G.   whereas at paragraph 2.29 in Chapter 2 (concerning the Commission internal control system) of its Annual Report for 2007, the ECA points out that 'The Commission's summary report for 2007 provides a confident assessment of progress made in the implementation of the actions at this date, whilst indicating that the evidence of the effectiveness of the actions in terms of reducing the level of error in the underlying transactions may still be some way off',

H.   whereas, according to the Commission's response to paragraph 2.30 of the ECA's Annual Report for 2007, 'the implementation of the actions is a continuing process and is being pursued vigorously. The impact of the actions is necessarily posterior to their implementation over the years 2006 and 2007 and a first impact report will be made in early 2009',

1.  Welcomes the overall progress made in the development of the Action Plan and the fact that a majority of actions have been implemented and most of the gaps identified in the Action Plan filled;

2.  Stresses that an effective integrated internal control framework as envisaged in the Commission's Action Plan will allow the Commission and the Member States to better implement the EU budget according to political objectives and Parliament's priorities;

3.  Regrets the lack of clear language, and calls on the Commission to indicate at which stage it finds itself in the process of achieving an integrated internal control framework, and when it expects the measures taken to have visible and positive effects on the legality and regularity of transactions;

4.  Takes note of the impact report adopted by the Commission on 4 February 2009 (COM(2009)0043), and will take that report into consideration in the discharge resolution for the financial year 2007;

5.  Notes the efforts made by the Commission but regrets that, so far, the Commission has not been able to present complete and reliable figures on recoveries and financial corrections due to Member States' reporting problems; asks the Commission to solve these problems and expects it to present a detailed timetable for the development and application of a new reporting scheme;

6.  Points out that it is the impact of the actions which will form the basis of the evaluation of the success of the Action Plan through decreasing error rates and improved ratings of control systems confirmed by the ECA;

7.  Fully expects that such improvements will have a real impact on the ECA's Annual Report for 2008;

8.  Encourages the Commission to increase transparency in its impact assessment of the Action Plan and to fully supervise its implementation;

Actions 4, 10 and 10N: error index or acceptable risk of error - analysis of the existing balance between operational expenditure and the cost of the control system

9.  Regrets the fact that in two of the most important actions for this Parliament there is a degree of delay with regard to the planned calendar;

10.  Especially regrets the fact that Action 4 of the Action Plan concerning the launching of an inter-institutional initiative on the basic principles to be considered regarding the risks to be tolerated in the underlying transactions has not been yet implemented; agrees with the statement made by the ECA in its Opinion No 4/2006(9) that even if it is a vital concept for the integrated control system, how a 'tolerable level of risk' is to be determined has not yet been clarified;

11.  Points out that in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of its Annual Report for 2005(10), the ECA already took the view that, with respect to the establishment of an integrated internal control framework, 'one of the most important objectives approved by the Commission is represented by the proportionality and cost-effectiveness of controls';

12.  Recalls, furthermore, the above-mentioned conclusions of the ECOFIN Council of 8 November 2005, that stated that 'The Council believes, in line with the Court's opinion 2/2004, that it should reach an understanding with the European Parliament regarding the risks to be tolerated in the underlying transactions, having regard to the costs and benefits of controls for the different policy areas and the value of the expenditure concerned';

13.  Points out that at paragraph 2.42, point (c) of its Annual Report for 2007, the ECA recommends making progress in taking forward the concept of tolerable risk, and at paragraph 1.52, point (c) in Chapter 1 (concerning the Statement of Assurance and supporting information) of that report, it states that 'the balance between cost and residual risk for individual spending areas is of such importance that it should be approved by the political level (i.e. by the budget/discharge authorities) in the name of the citizens of the Union';

14.  Urges the Commission to promptly adopt the promised communication on this issue, with the aim of re-launching the inter-institutional discussion on tolerable risk as already requested by Parliament in its discharge resolution of 24 April 2007 for the financial year 2005(11) and its discharge resolution of 22 April 2008 for the financial year 2006(12); invites the Commission to fully disclose to the public the methods being used for the determination of rates of error,

15.  Considers, therefore, that the Commission, in line with the principles of proportionality and cost efficiency (value for money) of control systems, should evaluate the relationship between, on the one hand, the resources available for each particular policy, and, on the other, the part of those resources dedicated to the control systems broken down by area of expenditure, as requested by Parliament in its discharge resolution for the financial year 2005;

16.  Reminds the Commission of the importance of carrying out the comparative analysis which alone will enable the establishment of an acceptable risk level of error, and of forwarding it to Parliament, the Council and the ECA;

17.  Believes that the cost-benefit ratio existing between the resources dedicated to control activities and the results obtained by controls should be a key element to be taken into account by the ECA;

18.  Highlights the very important observation made by the ECA at paragraph 1.52, point (d), of its Annual Report for 2007 that 'If a scheme cannot be satisfactorily implemented at an acceptable level of cost and with tolerable risk it should be reconsidered';

19.  Asks the Commission, with regard to Actions 10 and 10N, to present reliable information on the costs of the control systems and on possible means of simplification with the aim of finding a better balance between the need for controls and the aim of lessening the administrative burden for applicants and beneficiaries of EU funds;

20.  Recalls its own view and the view of the Court of Auditors that complicated or unclear rules and complex legal requirements negatively impact on the legality and regularity of EU spending; considers it necessary to take up the issue of simplification as an important point in the next reform of the Financial Regulation and in the future legal basis of EU spending programmes;

Actions 1, 3, 3N, 5, 10, 10a, 11N, 13 and 15: cooperation with the Member States is needed

21.  Highlights that in relation to the implementation of Actions 1, 3, 3N, 5, 10, 10a, 11N, 13, and 15, the Commission is also dependant on cooperation with the Member States; emphasises that it fully supports these actions, and therefore urges the Commission to use every available tool at its disposal to implement them fully as soon as possible;

22.  Recalls the statement made by the Commission in its above-mentioned 2008 communication (COM(2008)0110) that Actions 1, 3, 3N, 5, 8 and 13 have been completed;

23.  Points out nevertheless that so far it has been unaware of supporting documents or statements justifying such a declaration; is forced therefore to seriously question whether these measures have been completed and whether they have been implemented or have had an impact on the progress of the implementation of the Action Plan;

24.  Calls on the Court of Auditors to report in more detail on cooperation with its national counterparts and to predict when this cooperation will show positive effects;

Actions 5 and 13: promotion of the use of annual summaries and management declarations

25.  Welcomes the annual summaries of available audits and declarations at national level, presented for the first time on 15 February 2008, which are a considerable step towards the target of improving management of EU funds; regrets, however, the lack of transparency concerning these annual summaries, which the Commission had not sent to Parliament;

26.  Welcomes the provision as from 2008 of annual summaries and the assessment and declarations provided in the 2006 and 2007 Annual Activity Reports of the Directorates-General dealing with Structural Funds, but is far from considering Actions 5 and 13 as having been completed as there is a lack of information to Parliament;

27.  Regrets that Parliament has until now not received complete information from the Commission concerning the assessment and comparative analysis of the first annual summaries presented;

28.  Points out moreover that in its Annual Report for 2007, the ECA states that due to the disparity of presentation, annual summaries do not yet provide a reliable assessment of the functioning and effectiveness of the system;

Action 11N: developing a typology of error and relationship with recoveries and financial corrections

29.  Regrets the fact that, despite the considerable efforts made by the Commission, according to the ECA the Commission was unable to present complete figures or demonstrate that the figures eventually presented could be clearly reconciled with the published financial statements;

30.  Encourages the Commission to complete the implementation of this important action in order to obtain a greater degree of compliance with reporting requirements and to improve the accuracy of the data provided by Member States;

Action 8N: cooperation with the National Supreme Audit Institutions and how their work can be used to provide assurance

31.  Points out that, although not a part of the internal control framework, the independent Supreme Audit Institutions, as external auditors of national public spending, may be able to play a key role in the audit of public funds;

32.  Fully supports the cooperation started by the Commission with some of the National Supreme Audit Institutions, and encourages continued contact with such institutions with the aim of determining how their work can be used to increase assurance as regards the execution of programmes in the Member States;

33.  Welcomes the Commission's initiative to develop a structured approach to support contacts with National Supreme Audit Institutions and furthermore encourages the Commission to complete the implementation of this action in close cooperation with the ECA;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ C 107, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (2) OJ L 340, 6.12.2006, p. 5. (3) OJ C 286, 10.11.2008, p.1. (4) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (5) OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (6) Abbreviation of the French term 'Déclaration d'assurance'. (7) Opinion No 2/2004 (OJ C 107, 30.4.2004, p. 1) (the "Single Audit" Opinion). (8) OJ L 196, 27.7.2005, p. 4. (9) OJ C 273, 9.11.2006, p. 2. (10) OJ C 263, 31.10.2006, p. 1. (11) OJ L 187, 15.7.2008, p. 25. (12) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0133.

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (2008/2180(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0089 A6-0058/2009

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission's report on the application of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (COM(2007)0769),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001(1),

–   having regard to the ongoing work of the Hague Conference on the practical operation of the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0058/2009),

A.   whereas Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 has not been enforced as effectively as it might have been, and further action is therefore needed in order to improve cooperation between the Member States" courts for the purposes of taking evidence and enhancing the efficiency of the Regulation,

B.   whereas Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 sets out to improve, simplify and accelerate cooperation between courts on the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters,

C.   whereas the Commission admittedly arranged for the distribution of a total of 50 000 copies of the practice guide to Member States in late 2006/early 2007, but this was done much too late, and other steps accordingly need to be taken in addition so as to enable those involved in proceedings, especially courts and practitioners, to be better informed about the Regulation,

D.   whereas the Commission finds nevertheless that the 90-day time-limit for complying with requests for the taking of evidence laid down in Article 10(1) of the Regulation is exceeded in a "significant number of cases" and that "in some cases even more than 6 months are required",

E.   whereas only a few Member States currently have facilities for video-conferencing, which is consequently not being sufficiently used; whereas, in addition, Member States are not doing enough to introduce modern communications technology, and nor is the Commission proposing any specific remedies on that point,

1.  Condemns the late submission of the above-mentioned Commission report, which, according to Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, should have been submitted by 1 January 2007 but in fact was not submitted until 5 December 2007;

2.  Concurs with the Commission that greater efforts should be made by Member States to bring the Regulation sufficiently to the attention of judges and practitioners in the Member States in order to encourage direct court-to-court contacts, since the direct taking of evidence provided for in Article 17 of the Regulation has shown its potential to simplify and accelerate the taking of evidence, without causing any particular problems;

3.  Considers that it is essential to bear in mind that the central bodies provided for in the Regulation still have an important role to play in overseeing the work of the courts which have responsibility for dealing with requests under the Regulation and in resolving problems when they arise; points out that the European Judicial Network can help to solve problems which have not been resolved by the central bodies and that recourse to those bodies could be reduced if requesting courts were made more aware of the Regulation; takes the view that the assistance provided by the central bodies may be critical for small local courts faced with a problem relating to the taking of evidence in a cross-border context for the first time;

4.  Advocates the extensive use of information technology and video-conferencing, coupled with a secure system for sending and receiving e-mails, which should become in due course the ordinary means of transmitting requests for the taking of evidence; notes that, in their responses to a questionnaire sent out by the Hague Conference, some Member States mention problems in connection with the compatibility of video links, and considers that this should be taken up under the European e-Justice strategy;

5.  Considers that the fact that in many Member States facilities for video-conferencing are not yet available, together with the Commission's finding that modern means of communication are "still used rather rarely", confirms the wisdom of the plans for the European e-Justice strategy recently recommended by Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee; urges Member States to put more resources into installing modern communications facilities in the courts and training judges to use them, and calls on the Commission to produce specific proposals aimed at improving the current state of affairs; takes the view that the appropriate degree of EU assistance and financial support should be provided as soon as possible;

6.  Takes the view that efforts should be made in the context of the e-Justice strategy to assist courts in meeting the translation and interpreting demands posed by the taking of evidence across borders in an enlarged European Union;

7.  Notes with considerable concern the Commission's finding that the 90-day time-limit for complying with requests for the taking of evidence, as laid down in Article 10(1) of the Regulation, is exceeded in a "significant number of cases" and that "in some cases even more than 6 months are required"; calls on the Commission to submit specific proposals as quickly as possible on measures to remedy this problem, one option to consider being a complaints body or contact point within the European Judicial Network;

8.  Criticises the fact that, by concluding that the taking of evidence has been improved in every respect as a result of Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, the Commission report presents an inaccurate picture of the situation; calls on the Commission, therefore, to provide practical support, inter alia in the context of the e-Justice strategy, and to make greater efforts to realise the true potential of the Regulation for improving the operation of civil justice for citizens, businesses, practitioners and judges;

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

(1) OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on implementation of Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (2008/2247(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0090 A6-0014/2009

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 February 2008 on the Commission's 23rd Annual report on monitoring the application of Community law (2005)(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on monitoring the application of Community law – 24th annual report from the Commission(3),

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

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on better regulation in the European Union(5),

–   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 (A6-0014/2009),

A.   whereas Parliament has repeatedly stated that there is a point to EU legislation only if it is complied with in the Member States, and whereas monitoring of the transposition and application of EU legislation by Member States must therefore be stepped up; whereas Parliament has proposed that, after the transposition deadline has expired, the rapporteur should inform Parliament of the state of play,

B.   whereas Directive 2006/43/EC ("the Directive") was adopted by Parliament and the Council on 17 May 2006 and the period for transposition in the Member States expired on 29 June 2008, and whereas there must be an examination as to whether transposition has proceeded correctly,

C.   whereas the "scoreboard" published by the Commission, whilst identifying which articles have been implemented by whom, provides no information on the way in which implementation has proceeded or on whether national rules meet the minimum standard set by the Directive,

D.   whereas the objective of the Directive is, first, to optimise the quality of audits of annual accounts throughout the EU, thus increasing confidence in such reporting and improving the situation in the financial markets, and, second, to establish a level playing-field for the accountancy sector within the internal market,

E.   whereas implementation of the Directive in Member States must be checked by reference to this twin objective,

1.  Notes that the Directive was adopted in response to the crisis that followed the collapse of Enron; emphasises that the current financial crisis highlights the importance of high-quality accounting and auditing practices; deplores the fact that only 12 Member States have transposed the Directive in full; urges the Commission to ensure its immediate transposition and enforcement;

2.  Notes with concern that transposition of the crucial notions of "public-interest entity"(6) (PIE) and "network"(7) is leading to differing interpretations among Member States; stresses in this connection that for an undertaking identified as a PIE, and also for the accountant auditing that undertaking, the Directive introduces various far-reaching obligations; notes further that the Directive also introduces various additional obligations for audit firms covered by the definition of "network"; observes that further consideration is needed with regard to the impact of the definition of "network" and the lack of legal clarity regarding the liability of firms for the actions of other firms that belong to the same network; fears in general that a patchwork of definitions will lead to legal uncertainty and high costs of compliance and will thus, ultimately, adversely affect attainment of the Directive's objective; therefore calls on the Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the implementation of the definitions and the discernible effects of their introduction, and to seek clarity regarding the long-term policy priorities for the EU in this area and the way in which these may best be achieved, in consultation with the Member States;

3.  Notes that many Member States have not yet implemented Article 41 of the Directive, under which Member States must require PIEs to set up an audit committee or comparable body; is of the opinion that this requirement is an important means of guaranteeing the independence of statutory audits of PIEs' annual accounts;

4.  Stresses that recent experience shows the need for frequent and high-quality interaction within audit committees and between independent directors, supervisory boards and auditors, and that non-executive board members should consider carefully the possibility of having meetings without executive board members being present;

5.  Concludes that certain Member States have implemented the Directive's requirement of auditor rotation within a maximum of seven years with a very short rotation period of as little as two or three years; doubts that such short rotation periods enhance the quality and continuity of statutory audits of PIEs, and points out that they hamper the auditors' and audit firms' sound understanding of the audited entity;

6.  Regrets that not all Member States have introduced the system of public oversight required by the Directive; notes further that, in Member States where forms of public oversight have been introduced, there are considerable differences between them; notes that public oversight under the Directive must be organised in such a way that conflicts of interest are avoided; wonders, in the light of this, whether oversight authorities directly linked to national governments meet that requirement;

7.  Considers it very important that the cooperation required under the Directive between public-oversight authorities should actually materialise, since intensive cooperation between oversight authorities fosters convergence between Member States and can prevent additional administrative burdens resulting from different national procedures and requirements;

8.  Stresses that listed subsidiaries are subject to statutory audits; recommends that national law require that parent undertakings holding such subsidiaries be subject to statutory audits performed by auditors approved in accordance with the Directive;

9.  Considers that there is a very significant lack of clarity in relation to the implementation of Article 47 of the Directive, which deals with the audit working papers; points out that, whilst Member States may allow the transfer to the competent authorities of a third country of audit working papers or other documents held by the statutory auditors or audit firms approved by them, there are legal and data-protection issues to be addressed in order to ensure that the information which EU auditors receive from their client companies is kept confidential and does not get into the public domain of third countries where such companies are listed or where the parent company is incorporated;

10.  Calls on the Commission to make a careful evaluation of all national legislation transposing the Directive, to tackle resolutely the problems referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 and to report to Parliament on this within two years; doubts whether the chosen method of minimum harmonisation is really the right way to realise the objectives of this and other internal-market-related directives, since the many derogations allowed by the Directive will lead to further fragmentation of the accountancy market; calls on the Commission to make use of clear concepts when harmonisation is being carried out;

11.  Points out that undue delay in the approval of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) could have an adverse effect on the regulatory environment, resulting in further fragmentation, which is contrary to the general objective of the Directive; requests the Commission, therefore, to avoid unnecessary delay in the adoption of ISAs and to launch a broad public consultation on their adoption;

12.  Takes the view that careful monitoring and verification of the correct and timely implementation of EU legislation is an essential means of achieving better application of EU law and avoiding gold-plating practices that may occur on the basis of, for example, Article 40 of the Directive, which lays down a non-exhaustive list of requirements for transparency reporting;

13.  Supports the Commission's guidance of, and close cooperation with, Member States, aimed at securing correct and timely implementation, for example by making use of transposition workshops as a forum for establishing consensus on the implementation of particular provisions of Community legislation; supports the use of correlation tables in the process of implementation as a means of achieving maximum convergence; is nevertheless of the opinion that still more has to be done to give clear guidance to Member States in the course of implementation and to steer Member States towards an unequivocal implementation of Community legislation;

14.  Strongly emphasises that any quasi-legislative measure within the scope of the Directive can only be adopted pursuant to the application of the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, accompanied where appropriate by an evaluation of its impact;

Recommendation on quality assurance

15.  Welcomes Commission Recommendation 2008/362/EC of 6 May 2008 on external quality assurance for statutory auditors and audit firms auditing public interest entities(8); subscribes to the established view that it is important to have independent external quality assurance reviews in line with the Directive's objective of enhancing the quality of audits and the credibility of published financial information; endorses, moreover, the established view that the total independence and impartiality of inspections and inspectors are of the utmost importance;

16.  Urges the Commission to promote national quality assurance structures, in close collaboration with the Member States, which ensures independent and external quality assurance for accountancy firms; stresses, in this connection, that the European legislative authority must confine itself to general framework provisions set out in the Directive and the recommendation and that it must be left to the profession to flesh out those rules;

Decision on the registration of third-country auditors

17.  Takes note of Commission Decision 2008/627/EC of 29 July 2008 concerning a transitional period for audit activities of certain third country auditors and audit entities(9); asks the Commission to communicate to Parliament its follow-up on the question of the registration of third-county auditors;

Auditors' liability

18.  Notes that divergences between Member States' liability regimes might lead to regulatory arbitrage and undermine the internal market, but is aware of the differing levels of exposure linked to the size of audit firms and companies with which they deal; emphasises that liability claims often come from third countries in which such litigation is largely driven by contingency-fee arrangements; is reluctant to welcome such a litigation culture into the European Union and asks for a more fundamental resolution to the perverse effects of such fee-driven practices;

19.  Notes Commission Recommendation 2008/473/EC of 5 June 2008 concerning the limitation of the civil liability of statutory auditors and audit firms(10), which calls on Member States to limit the liability of accountants, with due regard for their own national legislation and circumstances; further notes the recommendation's objective of bolstering the level playing-field for undertakings and accountancy firms through greater convergence between Member States in this area; underlines that the objective of limiting the liability of auditors and audit firms proposed by the Commission recommendation must not violate the legal principles governing civil liability in certain Member States, such as the principle of the right to compensation for victims; underlines that, within the context of the current economic and financial crisis, the recommendation should not call into question the quality of the statutory audit or the confidence placed in the function of statutory audits; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament no later than in 2010 about the impact of, and the follow-up to, the recommendation, the important issue in this connection being, in particular, whether and to what extent, in accordance with the Directive's objective, the recommendation is leading to greater convergence between Member States; emphasises that, in the event that further measures prove necessary, the Commission must undertake an impact study assessing the possible effects of limitation of civil liability of auditors and audit firms on the quality of audits, financial security and the concentration on the audit market;

Consultation on ownership rules

20.  Welcomes the consultation initiated by the Commission on ownership rights in accountancy firms and looks forward with interest to the responses of stakeholders;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 87. (2) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0060. (3) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0494. (4) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 67. (5) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 60. (6) Article 2(13) of the Directive. (7) Article 2(7) of the Directive. (8) OJ L 120, 7.5.2008, p. 20. (9) OJ L 202, 31.7.2008, p. 70. (10) OJ L 162, 21.6.2008, p. 39.

European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2009 on equality of treatment and access for men and women in the performing arts (2008/2182(INI))

P6_TA(2009)0091 A6-0003/2009

The European Parliament,

–   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(1),

–   having regard to Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997 on the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex(2),

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

–   having regard to its resolutions of 7 June 2007 on the Social status of artists(3) and of 3 September 2008 on Equality between women and men - 2008(4),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A6-0003/2009),

A.   whereas inequalities in career prospects and opportunities between women and men in the performing arts are very much present and persistent,

B.   whereas the mechanisms which produce these gender inequalities should be seriously analysed,

C.   whereas the principle of equality between men and women should apply to all players in the performing arts sector, in all disciplines, all types of structure (production, broadcasting and teaching) and all activities (artistic, technical and administrative),

D.   whereas men and women are not proportionally represented in the various jobs in the performing arts, and whereas this initial form of inequality is compounded by disparities in work and employment conditions and income,

E.   whereas inequalities in access to decision-making posts, means of production and broadcast networks are apparent to varying degrees in all disciplines of the performing arts,

F.   whereas the objective of equality in jobs in the performing arts presupposes the systematic opening-up of all jobs to both men and women,

G.   whereas talent alone is not sufficient for the artistic quality of a performance or the success of a professional career, and whereas taking better account of the representation of men and women in jobs in the performing arts would have the effect of reinvigorating the sector,

H.   whereas, therefore, the current instances of segregation that still persist in the performing arts should be changed, not only by modernising and democratising the sector, but also by setting realistic equality goals which promote social justice,

I.   whereas the existing inequalities leave skills and talents unexploited and are damaging to the artistic dynamism, influence and economic development of the sector,

J.   whereas persistent prejudices too often lead to discriminatory behaviour towards women in selection and appointment procedures and in work relations; whereas women often receive lower remuneration than men even if they have higher educational qualifications, a stronger interest in training and stronger networks,

K.   whereas the obstacles to gender equality in this sector are particularly deep rooted and require specific steps to be taken to reduce inequalities, taking account also of the leverage effect which that may have on society as a whole,

L.   whereas there are great shortcomings as regards social protection for both men and women active in the arts and whereas income, particularly that of women, is adversely affected by this,

1.  Underlines the scale and persistence of the inequalities between men and women in the performing arts and the impact that the unequal way in which the sector is organised can have on society as a whole, given the particular nature of its activities;

2.  Underlines the vital need to promote and encourage access for women to all the artistic professions where they are still in the minority;

3.  Notes that the proportion of women employed in artistic professions and in the official culture industry is only very small and that women are under-represented in positions of responsibility in cultural institutions and in academies and universities;

4.  Recognises the need to take specific action in this sector to analyse the mechanisms and behaviour that produce these inequalities;

5.  Notes that behaviour is transformed only when the two sexes work alongside each other, through the input of points of view, sensibilities, methods and interests which complement each other;

6.  Emphasises the need to promote access for women to all the artistic professions and all jobs in the performing arts where they are in the minority and encourages the Member States to remove all obstacles to women accessing top positions in cultural institutions and in academies and universities;

7.  Stresses that discrimination against women holds back the development of the cultural sector by depriving it of talent and skills and notes that talent requires contact with the public in order to achieve recognition;

8.  Calls for measures to be taken to increase the presence of women on the directors" boards of institutions, in particular by promoting equality within cultural undertakings and institutions and professional organisations;

9.  Calls on the actors in the field of culture to increase the presence of female creators and their works in programming, collections, publishing and consultation;

10.  Notes that the progress achieved in gender equality will progressively allow the mixing of sexes in work teams, programme planning and professional meetings, which today often function according to a system of separation of the sexes which is difficult to reconcile with the demands of our society;

11.  Stresses the importance of ensuring whenever possible that applications are anonymous and emphasises the need to continue using screened-off auditions for recruiting orchestra musicians, which has helped women join orchestras;

12.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider ensuring, without delay and as a first realistic step in the fight against inequality in the performing arts, that at least a third of the people in all branches in the sector are of the minority sex;

13.  Encourages the Member States:

14.  Reminds the cultural institutions of the vital need to translate into fact the democratic notion that equal work by men and women must be matched by identical pay, which, in the arts as in many other sectors, is still not the case;

15.  Encourages the Member States to produce comparative analyses of the current situation in the performing arts in the various countries of the Union, to draw up statistics in order to facilitate the design and implementation of common policies and to ensure that the progress achieved can be compared and measured;

16.  Calls on the Member States to improve the social situation of persons active in the arts and culture sector, taking account of the various employment relations involved, and to ensure better social protection;

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

(1) OJ L 269, 5.10.2002, p. 15. (2) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 6. (3) OJ C 125 E, 22.5.2008, p. 223. (4) Texts adopted on that date, P6_TA(2008)0399.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles (COM(2008)0316 – C6-0210/2008 – 2008/0100(COD))	P6_TA(2009)0092 A6-0482/2008
CORRIGENDA COR01 COR02

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0316),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0210/2008),

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0482/2008),

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 Commission.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 10 March 2009 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EC) No .../2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the general safety of motor vehicles, their trailers and systems, components and separate technical units intended therefor

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position at first reading corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EC) No 661/2009.)

European Parliament legislative resolution of 10 March 2009 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) (COM(2007)0844 – C6-0002/2008 – 2007/0286(COD))

P6_TA(2009)0093 A6-0046/2009

(Codecision procedure: recast)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2007)0844),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 175(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0002/2008),

–   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 letter of 10 September 2008 from the Committee on Legal Affairs to the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in accordance with Rule 80a(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0046/2009),

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 incorporating the technical amendments approved by the Committee on Legal Affairs 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 10 March 2009 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2009/.../EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 175 (1) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission║,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),

Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions(3),

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty(4),

Whereas:

(1)  A number of substantial changes are to be made to Council Directive 78/176/EEC of 20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide industry(5), Council Directive 82/883/EEC of 3 December 1982 on procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of environments concerned by waste from the titanium dioxide industry(6), Council Directive 92/112/EEC of 15 December 1992 on procedures for harmonizing the programmes for the reduction and eventual elimination of pollution caused by waste from the titanium dioxide industry(7), Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control(8), Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations(9), Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste(10) and Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants(11). In the interests of clarity, those Directives should be recast.

(2)  In order to prevent, reduce and as far as possible eliminate pollution arising from industrial activities in compliance with the "polluter pays" principle and the principle of pollution prevention, it is necessary to establish a general framework for the control of the main industrial activities giving priority to intervention at source and ensuring prudent management of natural resources.

(3)  Compliance with the emission limit values provided for in this Directive should be regarded as a necessary but insufficient condition for meeting the objectives of preventing and reducing pollution and achieving a high level of protection of the environment, including groundwater, air and soil, and of the public. In order to meet those objectives, it may be necessary to lay down more stringent limit values for the polluting substances covered by this Directive, the emission values for other substances and environmental components, and other appropriate conditions.

(4)  Different approaches to controlling emissions into the air, water or soil separately may encourage the shifting of pollution between the various environmental media rather than protecting the environment as a whole. It is therefore appropriate to provide for an integrated approach to prevention and control of emissions into air, water or soil, to waste management, to efficient use of energy and to prevention of accidents.

(5)  It is appropriate to revise the legislation related to industrial installations in order to simplify and clarify the existing provisions, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens and implement the conclusions of the Commission Communications on the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution(12), the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection(13) and the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste(14) adopted as a follow-up to Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme(15). Those communications set objectives to protect human health and the environment which cannot be met without further reductions of emissions arising from industrial activities.

(6)  In order to guarantee the prevention and control of pollution, each installation should operate only if it holds a permit or, in the case of certain installations and activities using organic solvents, only if it holds a permit or if it is registered. The overall use of organic solvents should be minimised.

(7)  In order to facilitate the granting of permits, Member States should be able to set requirements for certain categories of installations in general binding rules.

(8)  In order to avoid duplication of regulation, the permit for an installation covered by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community(16) should not include an emission limit value for the emissions of greenhouse gases except where it is necessary to ensure that no significant local pollution is caused or where an installation is temporarily excluded from that scheme.

(9)  Operators should submit an application for a permit to the competent authority which contains the information that is necessary for setting the permit conditions. Operators should be able to use information resulting from the application of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(17) and of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances(18) when submitting an application for a permit.

(10)  The permit should include all the ║measures necessary to achieve a high level of protection for the environment as a whole and should also include emission limit values for polluting substances, appropriate requirements for the protection of the soil and groundwater, monitoring requirements and a list of the dangerous substances or preparations used as defined in Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances(19). The conditions of the permit should be set on the basis of best available techniques.

(11)  In order to determine what is considered best available techniques and to limit the imbalances in the Community as regards the level of emissions of industrial activities, the Commission should publish the reference documents for the best available techniques (hereinafter "BAT reference documents") as a result of an exchange of information with stakeholders. Those BAT reference documents should be the reference for setting permit conditions. They can be supplemented by other sources.

(12)  In order to take into account certain specific circumstances, competent authorities should be able to lay down emission limit values, equivalent parameters or technical measures resulting in emission levels that may exceed the emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in the BAT reference documents. ▌

(13)  In order to enable operators to test emerging techniques which could provide for a higher level of environmental protection, the competent authority should also be able to grant temporary derogations from emission levels associated with the best available techniques as described in the BAT reference documents.

(14)  Changes to an installation may give rise to higher levels of pollution. The competent authority should therefore be notified of any planned change which might affect the environment. Substantial changes to installations which may have significant negative effects on humans or the environment should be subject to the reconsideration of a permit to ensure that the installations concerned continue to meet the requirements of this Directive.

(15)  The spreading of livestock manure and slurry can lead to significant impacts on the quality of the environment. In order to ensure that the prevention and control of these impacts is carried out in an integrated way, it is necessary that manure and slurry generated by activities covered by this Directive are spread by the operator or by third parties using best available techniques. In order to provide Member States with flexibility in meeting these requirements, the application of best available techniques to operator or third party spreading may be specified within the permit or in other measures.

(16)  In order to take account of developments in the best available techniques or other changes regarding the changes to an installation, permit conditions should be reconsidered regularly and, where necessary, updated, in particular where the Commission adopts a new or updated BAT reference document.

(17)  It is necessary to ensure that the operation of an installation does not lead to a significant deterioration of the quality of soil and groundwater. Where necessary and appropriate, permit conditions should therefore include the monitoring of soil and groundwater and the requirement to remediate the site upon definitive cessation of activities, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Community and national law. As soon as Community legislation amending Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage(20) or new legislation on the protection of soil and groundwater enters into force, the Commission should review the provisions on the protection of soil and groundwater provided for in this Directive in order to ensure consistency and to avoid overlap.

(18)  In order to ensure ║ effective implementation and enforcement of this Directive, operators should regularly report on compliance with permit conditions to the competent authority. Member States should ensure that operators comply with those conditions and that the operator and the competent authority take necessary measures in a case of non-compliance with this Directive and provide for a system of environmental inspections. It is for the Member States to determine the most appropriate enforcement regimes, including how emission limit values should be complied with.

(19)  Bearing in mind the provisions of the Aarhus Convention(21), effective public participation in decision-making is necessary to enable the public to express, and the decision-maker to take account of, opinions and concerns which may be relevant to those decisions, thereby increasing the accountability and transparency of the decision-making process and contributing to public awareness of environmental issues and support for the decisions taken. The members of the public concerned should have access to justice in order to contribute to the protection of the right to live in an environment which is adequate for personal health and well-being.

(20)  Large combustion plants contribute greatly to emissions of polluting substances into the air resulting in a significant impact on human health and the environment. In order to reduce that impact and to work towards meeting the requirements of Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants(22) and the objectives set in the Commission Communication on the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, it is necessary to set more stringent emission limit values at Community level for certain categories of combustion plants and pollutants.

(21)  In the case of a sudden interruption in the supply of low-sulphur fuel or gas resulting from a serious shortage, the competent authority should be able to grant temporary derogations to allow emissions of the combustion plants concerned to exceed the emission limit values set out in this Directive.

(22)  The operator concerned should not operate a combustion plant for more than 24 hours after malfunctioning or breakdown of abatement equipment and unabated operation should not exceed 120 hours in a 12-month period in order to limit the negative effects of pollution on the environment. However, where there is an overriding need for energy supplies or it is necessary to avoid an overall increase of emissions by operation of another combustion plant, competent authorities should be able to grant a derogation from those time limits.

(23)  In order to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and to avoid transboundary movements of waste to plants operating at lower environmental standards, it is necessary to maintain and set stringent operational conditions, technical requirements and emission limit values for plants incinerating or co-incinerating waste within the Community.

(24)  The use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations gives rise to emissions of organic compounds into the air which contribute to the local and transboundary formation of photochemical oxidants which causes damage to natural resources and has harmful effects on human health. It is therefore necessary to take preventive action against the use of organic solvents and establish the requirement to comply with emission limit values for organic compounds and appropriate operating conditions. It should be possible to grant derogations from compliance with the emission limit values to operators where other measures, such as the use of low-solvent or solvent-free products or techniques, provide alternative means of achieving equivalent emission limits.

(25)  Installations producing titanium dioxide can give rise to significant pollution into air and water and may pose a toxicological threat. In order to reduce these impacts, it is necessary to set at Community level more stringent emission limit values for certain polluting substances.

(26)  The measures necessary for the implementation of this Directive should be adopted in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(23).

▌

(27)  In accordance with the "polluter pays" principle, Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. Those penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(28)  In order to provide existing installations with sufficient time to technically adapt to the new requirements of this Directive, some of the new requirements should apply to those installations after a fixed period from the date of application of this Directive. Combustion plants need sufficient time to install the necessary abatement measures to meet the emission limit values set out in Annex V.

(29)  In order to address the significant problems raised by the emissions of dioxins, furans and other relevant polluting substances emitted by installations producing pig iron and steel and, in particular, sintering iron ore, the procedure on the minimum requirements laid down in this Directive should be applied to such installations as a priority and in any event by 31 December 2011.

(30)  Since the objectives of the action to be taken, namely to ensure a high level of environmental protection and the improvement of environmental quality, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the transboundary nature of pollution from industrial activities, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(31)  This Directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Directive seeks to promote the application of Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(32)  The obligation to transpose this Directive into national law should be confined to those provisions which represent a substantive change as compared with the earlier Directives recast by this Directive. The obligation to transpose the provisions which are unchanged arises under the earlier Directives.

(33)  This Directive should be without prejudice to the obligations of the Member States relating to the time-limits for transposition into national law and application of the Directives set out in Annex IX, Part B.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

CHAPTER I

Common provisions

Article 1

Subject matter 

This Directive lays down rules on integrated prevention and control of pollution arising from industrial activities.

It also lays down rules designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the air, water and land and to prevent generation of waste, in order to achieve a high level of protection of the environment taken as a whole.

Article 2

Scope

1.  This Directive shall apply to industrial activities giving rise to pollution referred to in Chapters II to VI.

2.  This Directive shall not apply to research activities, development activities or the testing of new products and processes.

Article 3

Definitions