European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a Council decision on the allocation of financial intermediation services indirectly measured (FISIM) for the establishment of the gross national income (GNI) used for the purposes of the European Union's budget and its own resources (COM(2009)0238 – C7-0049/2009 – 2009/0068(CNS))

P7_TA(2010)0041 A7-0022/2010

(Special legislative procedure – Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2009)0238),

–   having regard to Article 2(7), second subparagraph, of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities‘ own resources(1) and Article 2(7), second subparagraph, of Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities‘ own resources(2),

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0022/2010),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 293(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

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

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

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a decision Article 2 Article 2 deleted The allocation of financial intermediation services indirectly measured pursuant to Article 1 shall apply for the purposes of Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2006. Amendment 2 Proposal for a decision Article 3 The allocation of financial intermediation services indirectly measured pursuant to Article 1 shall apply for the purposes of Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom from 1 January 2007. The allocation of financial intermediation services indirectly measured pursuant to Article 1 shall apply for the purposes of Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom from 1 January 2010.

(1) OJ L 253, 7.10.2000, p. 42. (2) OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0007 – C7-0011/2010 – 2010/0005(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0042 A7-0020/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0007 – C7-0011/2010),

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

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0020/2010),

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

B.   whereas the Union's financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF,

C.   whereas Germany has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning redundancies in the automotive manufacturing industry which occurred in one enterprise - Karmann Group(3),

D.   whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

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

2.  Recalls the institutions‘ commitment to ensure a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation;

3.  Stresses that the European Union should use all its means to face the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of the workers made redundant into the labour market;

4.  Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of the individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF shall not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

5.  Calls on the Commission to include, in proposals for the mobilisation of the EGF, as well as in its annual reports, precise information on the complementary funding received from the European Social Fund (ESF) and other Structural Funds;

6.  Reminds the Commission, in the context of mobilising the EGF, not to systematically transfer payment appropriations from the ESF, since the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines;

7.  Stresses that the functioning and the added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and other various instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006, within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework mid-term review;

8.  Notes that the new Commission's proposals for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF refer to a sole Member State's application, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

9.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

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

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

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

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

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

(2)  The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis.

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

(4)  Germany submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the automotive manufacturing sector, on 13 August 2009 and supplemented it by additional information up to 23 October 2009. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, therefore the Commission proposes to deploy an amount of EUR 6 199 341.

(5)  The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Germany.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 6 199 341 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

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

Done at

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (3) EGF/2009/013 DE/Karmann. (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0008 – C7-0012/2010 – 2010/0003(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0043 A7-0021/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0008 – C7-0012/2010),

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

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0021/2010),

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

B.   whereas the Union's financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF,

C.   whereas Lithuania has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning redundancies in the refrigerator manufacturing sector which occurred in one enterprise – ‘Snaigė’ plc - and two of its suppliers(3),

D.   whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

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

2.  Recalls the institutions‘ commitment to ensure a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation;

3.  Stresses that the European Union should use all its means to face the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of the workers made redundant into the labour market;

4.  Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of the individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF shall not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

5.  Calls on the Commission to include, in proposals for the mobilisation of the EGF, as well as in its annual reports, precise information on the complementary funding received from the European Social Fund (ESF) and other Structural Funds;

6.  Reminds the Commission, in the context of mobilising the EGF, not to systematically transfer payment appropriations from the ESF, since the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines;

7.  Considers that the functioning and the funding of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and other instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006 within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework mid-term review;

8.  Notes that the new Commission's proposals for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF refer to a sole Member State's application, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

9.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

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

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

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

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

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

(2)  The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

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

(4)  Lithuania submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in ‘Snaigė’ plc and two of its suppliers, on 23 July 2009. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, therefore the Commission proposes to deploy an amount of EUR 258 163.

(5)  The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Lithuania.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 258 163 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

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

Done at

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (3) EGF/2009/010 LT/Snaigė. (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0009 – C7-0013/2010 – 2010/0002(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0044 A7-0019/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0009 – C7-0013/2010),

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

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

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0019/2010),

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

B.   whereas the Union's financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF,

C.   whereas Lithuania has requested assistance from the EGF in respect of cases concerning redundancies in 128 enterprises operating in the construction sector(3),

D.   whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

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

2.  Recalls the institutions‘ commitment to ensure a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation;

3.  Stresses that the European Union should use all its means to face the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of the workers made redundant into the labour market;

4.  Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of the individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF shall not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

5.  Calls on the Commission to include, in proposals for the mobilisation of the EGF, as well as in its annual reports, precise information on the complementary funding received from the European Social Fund (ESF) and other Structural Funds;

6.  Reminds the Commission, in the context of mobilising the EGF, not to systematically transfer payment appropriations from the ESF, since the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines;

7.  Considers that the functioning and the funding of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and other instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006 within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework mid-term review;

8.  Notes that the new Commission's proposals for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF refer to a sole Member State's application, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

9.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

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

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

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

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

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

(2)  The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

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

(4)  Lithuania submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the construction industry, on 23 September 2009. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, therefore the Commission proposes to deploy an amount of EUR 1 118 893.

(5)  The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Lithuania.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 118 893 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

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

Done at

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (3) EGF/2009/017 LT/Construction of buildings. (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Additional Protocol to the Cooperation Agreement for the Protection of the Coasts and Waters of the North-East Atlantic against Pollution (COM(2009)0436 – C7-0163/2009 – 2009/0120(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0045 A7-0009/2010

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2009)0436),

–   having regard to Articles 175(1) and 300(2), first subparagraph, as well as to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0163/2009),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),

–   having regard to Articles 196(2) and 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0009/2010),

1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the Additional Protocol;

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

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on consumer protection (2009/2137(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0046 A7-0024/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 28 January 2009 entitled ‘Monitoring consumer outcomes in the single market – Second edition of the Consumer Markets Scoreboard’ (COM(2009)0025) and to the accompanying Commission staff working document entitled ‘Second Consumer Markets Scoreboard’ (SEC(2009)0076),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2009 on the enforcement of the consumer acquis (COM(2009)0330),

–   having regard to the Commission report of 2 July 2009 on the application of Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation) (COM(2009)0336),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 7 July 2009 on a harmonised methodology for classifying and reporting consumer complaints and enquiries (COM(2009)0346) and to the accompanying draft Commission recommendation (SEC(2009)0949),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document of 22 September 2009 on the follow up in retail financial services to the Consumer Markets Scoreboard (SEC(2009)1251),

–   having regard to its resolution of 18 November 2008 on the Consumer Markets Scoreboard(1),

–   having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0024/2010),

A.   whereas the Consumer Markets Scoreboard (the Scoreboard), along with the Internal Market Scoreboard, aims to improve the functioning of the internal market and make it more responsive to the expectations and concerns of citizens,

B.   whereas, in the political guidelines for the next Commission, President Barroso calls for a more systematic and integrated approach to completing the single market, for example through ‘a market monitoring initiative’,

C.   whereas the 499 million consumers in the EU are central to the effective functioning of the internal market and have a crucial role to play in achieving the Lisbon agenda goals of increasing growth, employment and competition, since consumer expenditure generates half of the EU's wealth,

D.   whereas, as part of the Post-Lisbon Strategy 2020, policy on consumers should be geared to sustainable development which respects the environment and devotes attention to the social dimension of the internal market,

E.   whereas an internal market that responds efficiently to consumer demands also helps to deliver a more innovative and healthy economy, given that efficient and responsive consumer markets across the economy are key drivers of competitiveness and citizens‘ welfare,

F.   whereas a well-functioning internal market should offer consumers a wide choice of high-quality products and services at competitive prices and, at the same time, a high level of consumer protection,

G.   whereas it is in their role as consumers that most EU citizens experience the internal market on a daily basis,

H.   whereas the effectiveness of consumer policy will be enhanced by consumers and businesses knowing their rights and obligations under existing legislation and being able to apply them to their commercial transactions,

I.   whereas confident, well-informed and empowered consumers are key to the efficient functioning of markets, as they reward traders who operate fairly and respond best to consumers‘ needs,

J.   whereas an active consumer policy – by creating informed and empowered consumers who will in turn demand high quality products and services – will play an important role in making the European Union globally competitive, dynamic, and innovative,

K.   whereas the increased complexity of retail markets, and particularly the retail services market, makes it more and more difficult for consumers to make an informed choice when purchasing goods and services,

L.   whereas a coordinated approach to consumer education is necessary for enabling consumers to act confidently when exercising their rights,

M.   whereas consumers have a right to compensation when they are affected by illegal practices, but in reality they face substantial barriers in bringing such cases to court due to high costs, long and complex procedures and the risks associated with litigation,

N.   whereas the Scoreboard shows that only four out of ten consumers find it easy to resolve disputes with sellers and providers through alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms and only three out of ten find it easy to resolve disputes through the courts,

O.   whereas about half of EU consumers who make a complaint are not satisfied with the way their complaint is dealt with and only half of them take further action,

P.   whereas the economic crisis has increased pressure on low-income consumer groups, who are spending most of their revenue on food and housing, and whereas growing numbers of consumers are consequently becoming over-indebted,

Q.   whereas the cross-border dimension of consumer markets is growing rapidly with the emergence of e-commerce but consumers remain reluctant to reap the benefits that market integration provides, mainly because they do not feel confident that their rights will be equally protected when making cross-border purchases and because of uncertainty over the right to compensation,

R.   whereas a high level of consumer protection is crucial for the development of cross-border trade within a single market that meets consumers‘ needs,

S.   whereas the increasing cross-border dimension of consumer markets brings new challenges to enforcement authorities, which are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and the fragmentation of the regulatory framework,

T.   whereas the Commission and national enforcement authorities need to increase their efforts in order to achieve a high level of consumer protection and to furnish consumers with the confidence to exploit the single market to its full potential,

U.   whereas EU consumer protection rules serve little purpose if they are not properly transposed, implemented and enforced at national level,

V.   whereas, once national legislation is in place, the Commission should be active in helping national authorities to apply the legislation in a correct manner,

W.   whereas, given the current economic downturn, strong and consistent enforcement is all the more important, as the crisis is causing increased consumer vulnerability, and low compliance levels may lead to additional consumer detriment, while enforcement authorities may face increased pressure on resources and must carefully establish their priorities and maximise the impact of their activities,

X.   whereas the European Parliament and national parliaments can actively contribute to improved transposition and enforcement of consumer protection legislation by continuing to work closely together,

Introduction

1.  Takes the view that the appointment in 2007 of a dedicated Commissioner for Consumer Affairs and her strong personal engagement, great openness and very proactive role brought about progress in European consumer protection policy and consumer issues, much to the benefit of EU citizens;

2.  Fears that splitting responsibility for consumer affairs between two Commissioners‘ portfolios may lead to a reduction of the consumer focus in the new Commission and, similarly, fears that the new organisational structure in different Directorates-General may cause fragmentation or adversely affect the coherence and effectiveness of consumer policy;

3.  Stresses that, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Article 12 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reaffirms – as a provision of general application – that consumer protection requirements should be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities; calls on the Commission, therefore, to ensure the effective integration of consumer interests into all EU policies, and to examine in its impact assessments the potential effects of any new legislation and policies directly or indirectly affecting consumers; urges each relevant Commission Directorate-General to publish an annual report on how consumer policy is integrated into its area of responsibility;

4.  Stresses the need for an active consumer policy to enable citizens to benefit fully from the internal market; considers that an active consumer policy is all the more essential in the current economic crisis to support social policy in fighting against growing inequalities and to protect vulnerable consumers and low income groups;

5.  Emphasises that consumers should be able to make informed choices, without being subject to psychological conditioning by producers making tendentious or untruthful claims about products, as this generates greater competition among traders to raise the quality of the goods and services they provide and to keep prices at competitive levels;

6.  Believes that a responsible approach by the business world, with respect for the principle of corporate responsibility, the rules of competition and consumers‘ economic interests, will help inspire confidence among consumers;

7.  Reiterates that consumer organisations have a crucial role to play in alerting public authorities to the problems consumers experience in their daily lives and that the instruments at their disposal should be improved in order to improve their capacity to act effectively at EU and national level; calls on Member States to ensure that consumer organisations are adequately consulted at all stages of decision-making process and in the transposition and implementation of consumer law;

8.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen consumer awareness and training in order to empower consumers throughout their lives; encourages Member States to ensure that clear and intelligible information is provided, in particular, to young consumers for products and services aimed at them; encourages, in particular, Member States to include consumer aspects in their national curricula at all levels of education in order to equip children with the necessary skills to take complex decisions later in life, and to consider educational programmes for parents and adult consumers, with the longer-term aim of developing and consolidating consumer awareness; points out that these programmes should be geared to educational requirements and student capabilities at each level while making use of modern teaching methods based on real-life experience and examples; recalls that educated consumers who are aware of their rights and who know where to turn in the event of non-compliance are also important for detecting non-compliant behaviour;

9.  Stresses the need to promote sustainable consumption, emphasising the fact that service providers and retailers, as well as consumers, must be better educated and informed with regard to the concept of sustainable consumption so that they can adapt their behaviour accordingly;

10.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to launch a well-targeted communication strategy in order to raise awareness amongst EU citizens of the risks of exposure and of their rights as consumers, in particular by putting in place user-friendly web portals, awareness-raising campaigns and information points at local, regional and national level; stresses the need to use specific communication channels to reach the most vulnerable consumers, by ensuring the reliability, credibility and impartiality of the organisations responsible for the management and organisation of communications media;

The Consumer Markets Scoreboard

11.  Reaffirms that the Scoreboard is an important tool for improved monitoring of consumer markets, with a view to providing information useful in ensuring better policymaking and regulation, and also for demonstrating to citizens that their concerns are duly taken into account;

12.  Welcomes the five main indicators in the Scoreboard – complaints, prices, satisfaction, switching and safety – which are important in identifying those markets at greatest risk of malfunctioning in terms of economic and social outcomes for consumers; considers, however, that criteria should also be applied which will make it possible to measure the extent to which goods and services accord with the objective of sustainable development;

13.  Acknowledges that, although the five indicators do not capture all aspects of the consumer environment, they provide a sufficient basis for setting priorities and drawing conclusions as to where further analysis is needed, provided that the information provided by Member States is comprehensive and can be compiled on an easily comparable basis;

14.  Considers that the current evidence on consumer complaints, prices, satisfaction, switching and safety is still not sufficient to draw definite conclusions and that more high-quality data are needed in order to develop a solid consumer evidence base; stresses that indicators therefore need to be further developed and data collection needs to be organised taking into account the differences between national systems;

15.  Suggests that, once the five basic indicators and the associated methodology have been sufficiently developed to produce results of high quality, the Commission should consider including in the Scoreboard additional long-term indicators such as those relating to market shares, quality, advertising, transparency and comparability of offers, indicators related to enforcement and consumer empowerment, social, environmental and ethical indicators, as well as indicators to measure redress and consumer detriment; considers, however, that this should be done gradually in order to ensure a focused and intelligible Scoreboard, with a view to ensuring a more comprehensive approach to consumer protection and enabling consumers to benefit fully from the advantages offered by the internal market;

16.  Reiterates that the Scoreboard should cover all the main categories of consumer expenditure, in order to identify the most problematic markets and set the ground for further, more detailed sector-specific analysis, in particular where evidence reveals problems common to different markets; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to ensure adequate financing and staffing for the further development of the Scoreboard;

17.  Is aware that consumers are less satisfied, and experience more problems, with services than with goods, which partly reflects the greater complexity of contractual relations and of delivery in respect of services; urges the Commission to carry out in-depth analyses of all problematic sectors identified in the Scoreboard; calls also on the Commission to ensure that such exercises are followed up, where appropriate, with specific legislative initiatives and policy recommendations for Member States, and to provide feedback to Parliament;

18.  Welcomes the interest and quality of the work done by the Commission in its study on retail financial services, published as a follow-up to the Scoreboard; notes the problems identified in the field of financial services, further aggravated by the financial crisis; welcomes in particular the revelations which emerged from this study regarding, for example, major problems concerning the transparency and comparability of current-account costs in the EU; considers that all appropriate conclusions should be drawn as to the need for better regulation of this sector;

19.  Points out that, while consumer complaints are important in detecting market malfunctioning, an absence of complaints does not always mean that markets are functioning well, since in some Member States consumers have less of a tendency to complain due to different consumer traditions or perceptions of the likelihood of success; points out, on the other hand, that a high number of complaints in a single Member State should not necessarily be interpreted as a sign of a failing market but may be due to the presence of effective complaint-handling bodies or a recent information campaign on consumer rights;

20.  Notes that there are more than 700 third-party organisations collecting consumer complaints in the EU but the arrangements for doing so differ considerably and relatively few such organisations collect data about the nature of the complaint and the sector concerned; considers that, while this might be sufficient for purposes of offering advice or information, it is not at all adequate for identifying potential market failures from a consumer perspective; calls on all complaints bodies, therefore, to adopt a harmonised methodology for classifying and reporting consumer complaints and encourages them to report complaints data corresponding to all fields – recommended and voluntary – proposed by the Commission in its draft recommendation; believes that the development of a harmonised methodology will allow Member States to collect more meaningful data and to construct a more complete picture of national consumer markets, leading to the establishment of an EU-wide database which will enable comparison of consumer problems across the EU;

21.  Draws attention to the analysis of the available price data which shows unexplained cross-border variations in a number of goods and services; considers that, although price differences are often linked to differences in demand, expenditure levels, taxes or cost structure, they are also often a sign of internal market fragmentation or malfunctioning; suggests that, where the price of a given product is higher than a benchmark, it is necessary to look at the relationship between import and consumption prices and to examine carefully the reasons for the different price levels;

22.  Believes that the available price data are not sufficient for monitoring the internal market properly and calls on the national statistical offices and Eurostat to work together with the Commission to provide more data and to develop further the methodology for collecting average prices of comparable and representative goods and services; recalls, in this context, that national statistical offices need to validate, and to participate more fully in the work of gathering data on, and calculating, average prices; stresses that the provision of more transparent price data would inspire greater confidence among consumers and would show them that their everyday concerns are being addressed;

23.  Acknowledges that consumer satisfaction is an important indicator in understanding how well or poorly markets are delivering for consumers; asks the Commission to develop further its methodology and measuring techniques for carrying out consumer satisfaction surveys and to cover additional sectors in the future;

24.  Holds the view that the ability to switch providers is an essential feature of competition in a market economy; urges the Commission and the Member States to take measures to facilitate switching in all important retail services;

25.  Notes that surveys indicate a generally high level of consumer confidence in product safety although consumer perceptions of safety differ significantly between Member States; asks the Commission and the Member States to improve the data currently available on the safety of consumer products, which are compiled mainly on the basis of reported accidents and injuries from defective products, or through risk notification systems; stresses in particular the need for vigilance on the safety of toys;

26.  Urges all Member States, in the interests of improving consumer safety, to collect systematically and record details of accidents or injuries in a common database;

27.  Notes that the prevalence of cross-border activity still varies significantly across the EU, and although average expenditure on cross-border purchases is considerable (EUR 737 per person per year), the great majority (75%) of retailers sell only to consumers in their own country, while only a quarter of EU consumers make cross-border purchases; considers that, while there are a number of structural barriers, such as language, distance, and differences in consumer protection law, stronger consumer confidence would substantially increase the levels of cross-border trade; considers that the development of cross-border trade should not reduce the level of regulation but, on the contrary, that it renders even more necessary efforts to maintain an optimal level of consumer protection in the EU;

28.  Takes note of the fact that online shopping is becoming more widespread but cross-border e-commerce is not developing as fast as domestic shopping; asks the Commission to include in future Scoreboards more complete data on the real level of cross-border sales and the problems encountered by cross-border consumers;

29.  Notes that just over half of EU consumers (51%) feel that they are adequately protected by existing consumer measures, more than half (54%) believe that public authorities protect their rights well and a slightly higher proportion (59%) believe that sellers and providers respect their rights;

30.  Stresses that almost a third (30%) of EU consumers who have made a distance purchase over the Internet, by telephone or by post report that they have experienced delivery problems; notes, however, that nine out of ten of those who tried to return a purchase or to cancel a contract within the cooling-off period managed to do so;

31.  Recalls that several Member States have developed tools, such as price observatories, to monitor their national markets from the consumer perspective or comprehensive complaints systems to inform policymaking, whereas other Member States do not use data to monitor consumer markets and have difficulties in aggregating data; with this in mind, stresses the need for exchanges of best practices between Member States;

32.  Emphasises that significant input from national statistical offices and Eurostat, as well as close cooperation between these bodies, the Commission, consumer policymakers, national enforcement authorities and consumer and business organisations, will be crucial in ensuring the quality and completeness of data and further developing the evidence base needed; calls on Eurostat, the Member States and all stakeholders to take steps to facilitate such cooperation;

33.  Takes the view that market-relevant data can play a crucial role in driving both innovation and competitiveness; emphasises, therefore, the importance of the Scoreboard as an enabling tool for identifying consumer preferences and demands; notes that this data can stimulate innovation by providing businesses with incentives to enter new markets and creating pressure on firms to improve their products and services;

34.  Takes the view that the Scoreboard, once backed up by reliable and easily comparable data for the 27 Member States, should serve as a rich source of comparative data for national policymakers in competition, consumer and other policy areas and should help them to identify at national level the markets that do not function well for consumers;

35.  Calls on the Commission to benchmark the consumer environment in each Member State, taking account of differences in consumer law and consumer traditions; reiterates that comparing consumer outcomes between Member States and benchmarking the consumer environment across the EU helps indentify best practices and ultimately deliver an internal market that works for consumers;

36.  Encourages all Member States to carry out a broad market-monitoring exercise on an annual basis in order to identify markets which are failing for consumers and to provide complete data that will allow the Commission to monitor and compare the problems faced by consumers in the internal market;

37.  Maintains that the Scoreboard should not only be used to deliver a better consumer policy but must also feed through all policies that affect consumers, ensuring thereby a better integration of consumer interests into all EU policies and incorporation of the objective of sustainable development into consumer protection policy; underlines that the Scoreboard should also stimulate a more general debate on consumer policy issues;

38.  Asks the Commission to develop, with the support of the Member States, a strategy to communicate the Scoreboard better to a wider audience, inter alia by ensuring that it is easily accessible and visible on relevant websites, and to promote its proper dissemination to the media, national authorities, consumer organisations and other stakeholders; considers that it is necessary to continue annual publication of the Scoreboard in a brochure and to make it available in all the official EU languages; calls on the Commission and Member States to take appropriate steps to promote the use by European citizens of the ‘eYou Guide’ website, which was specially set up by the Commission as a guide to citizens‘ rights;

Enforcement of the consumer acquis

39.  Welcomes the five priority action areas identified by the Commission in its communication on the enforcement of the consumer acquis;

40.  Emphasises that the effective implementation and enforcement of EU consumer protection rules acts as a driver for increasing consumer confidence and as a forceful deterrent to businesses seeking to evade those rules; calls on the Commission to closely monitor, and help Member States with, the transposition and implementation of the EU consumer acquis; invites the Commission, in that context, to explore options, using the legal basis provided by Article 169 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for raising the profile of consumer protection policy through measures that support and supplement Member State policies, potentially including the creation of a European Consumer Agency;

41.  Notes that enforcement across the EU is far from uniform and that most countries have strong and weak points; points out that figures show important differences between Member States in terms of budgets for market surveillance and numbers of inspectors involved; urges Member States to redouble their efforts and increase resources in order to ensure that laws protecting consumers and guaranteeing competition are enforced in retail markets;

42.  Considers that enhancing market surveillance and enforcement mechanisms and applying them efficiently and comprehensively to encourage consumer confidence is crucial, as consumer spending will be an important factor for the economic recovery; takes the view that public authorities must be given more resources to investigate and ultimately stop illegal commercial practices;

43.  Stresses that consumer markets evolve rapidly and enforcement authorities must be able to face the new challenges that economic and technological changes bring to their ability to be effective in a cross-border environment such as the internal market, and, in order to achieve this, efforts must be combined to make enforcement effective and consistent throughout the EU; considers that a review of the regulatory framework is also necessary to fill any regulatory gaps;

44.  Encourages the establishment in all Member States of independent consumer protection agencies to provide information and bring proceedings before national courts in order to protect consumers‘ interests; encourages, accordingly, cooperation between consumer protection agencies in all Member States;

45.  Urges all Member States to consider the benefits of introducing a Consumer Ombudsman; points out that this institution exists in some Member States as an extrajudicial body for the amicable settlement of consumer disputes and also as a consultative body working alongside the State to resolve problems falling within its remit;

46.  Shares the Commission's view that alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration or out-of-court settlements, can be an expedient and attractive option for consumers who have been unsuccessful in informally resolving their dispute with a trader or a publicly owned organisation providing services; urges Member States to encourage the development of alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms to enhance the level of consumer protection and maximise compliance with legislation, but emphasises that such mechanisms should complement, rather than replace, judicial or administrative means of enforcement; considers also that the setting of fixed deadlines for replies from agencies and undertakings in respect of practices reported could significantly help consumers who plan to take action to resolve a dispute;

47.  Recalls that evidence shows major differences between Member States and room for improvement in terms of redress mechanisms; recalls that judicial collective redress systems currently exist in 13 Member States and calls on the Commission to provide follow-up to its Green Paper of 27 November 2008 on Consumer Collective Redress (COM(2008)0794) as quickly as possible;

48.  Stresses the need for proper training and education of civil servants and judicial authorities as regards EU consumer protection rules;

49.  Notes that the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network review indicates that the authorities handling cross-border cases are experiencing difficulties due to lack of resources; calls on the Commission to examine ways of securing adequate resources in order to comply with existing obligations under the Regulation on consumer protection cooperation;

50.  Expresses its support for concerted enforcement actions (sweeps), in which national authorities simultaneously screen a targeted sector for compliance with EU legislation; stresses that such actions should be carried out more frequently (twice yearly), on the basis of a common methodology, and should be combined with other tools;

51.  Recognises the legal complexity surrounding the publication of the results of market surveillance and enforcement activities, and the fact that investigative work is often subject to strict confidentiality rules, but holds the view that the Commission and the Member States should make such results public, providing a breakdown by individual company, in cases where a recurrence of illegal practices has been identified; considers that this will ensure greater transparency, give more visibility to the national authorities‘ enforcement work and enable consumers to make well-informed choices;

52.  Calls for the strengthening of market surveillance structures in all Member States so that products circulating on their markets meet high safety standards and defective or dangerous products are rapidly removed from the market; calls on the Commission to monitor and periodically revise the guidelines for the rapid alert system, RAPEX, in order to improve its functioning;

53.  Calls on the Commission, in this connection, to do more to monitor the Member States‘ implementation of the market surveillance regulations, particularly Regulation (EC) 765/2008, and, if necessary, to bring infringement proceedings without delay;

54.  Supports the Commission's efforts to analyse the latest technical surveillance possibilities in order to ensure global traceability of products throughout the supply chain (e.g. using RFID tags or barcodes); calls on the Commission to present to Parliament its current initiatives and latest findings in relation to the development of a global traceability network;

55.  Recalls that the European Consumer Centres Network needs appropriate funding in order to promote consumer confidence by advising citizens on their rights as consumers and by providing easy access to redress in cases where consumers have made cross-border purchases;

56.  Points out that, given the ever-growing volume of imports into the EU from third countries, customs authorities have an important role in protecting consumers from imported unsafe products, and that ever-closer cooperation is therefore required between market surveillance and customs authorities and also between the customs authorities of different Member States;

57.  Stresses that ensuring the safety of products circulating within the internal market necessitates combining efforts with third-country authorities; supports, therefore, the Commission's initiative to step up international cooperation and pursue formal agreements with enforcement authorities in third countries, in particular China, the USA and Japan; notes that continued dialogue and information-sharing on product safety is in the interest of all parties and central to building consumer confidence; calls on the Commission to report back to Parliament on its dialogue with third countries at regular intervals;

o
o   o

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

(1) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0540.

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on SOLVIT (2009/2138(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0047 A7-0027/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on Effective Problem Solving in the Internal Market (‘SOLVIT’)(1),

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 7 December 2001 on principles for using ‘SOLVIT’ – the Internal Market Problem Solving Network(2),

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions of 1 March 2002, whereby the Council confirmed the commitment of Member States to the effective operation of the SOLVIT system and to its principles,

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 12 July 2004 on the transposition into national law of Directives affecting the internal market(3),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working paper of 20 July 2005 on an Action plan to improve communicating Europe by the Commission(4), inter alia by streamlining information and assistance networks supported by the Commission,

–   having regard to the Commission staff working paper of 8 May 2008 on an Action plan on an integrated approach for providing Single Market Assistance Services to citizens and business(5),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working paper on Internal Market Scoreboard No 19(6),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market Review: tackling barriers and inefficiencies through better implementation and enforcement(7),

–   having regard to its resolution of 23 September 2008 on the Internal Market Scoreboard(8),

–   having regard to the SOLVIT 2008 Report entitled ‘Development and performance of the SOLVIT network in 2008’(9),

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 29 June 2009 on measures to improve the functioning of the single market(10),

–   having regard to the Council conclusions (Competitiveness - Internal Market, Industry and Research) of 24 September 2009 on ‘How to make the Internal Market work better’(11),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document on Commission activities to improve the functioning of the single market(12),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document on administrative cooperation in the single market(13),

–   having regard to Rule 119(2) 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 Petitions (A7-0027/2010),

A.   whereas the Commission, Parliament, the European Ombudsman and the Member States need to do more to define and provide information on citizens‘ rights and to help citizens enjoy those rights; whereas this would also enable the internal market to work better,

B.   whereas increasing transparency is key to overcoming obstacles to movement across borders and to enforcing free-movement rights,

C.   whereas there needs to be a marked improvement on the part of the Commission and the Member States in raising awareness of the opportunities that the internal market offers for citizens and businesses,

D.   whereas the internal market has made major progress but obstacles to its full and proper functioning still exist,

E.   whereas, when internal market rules are misapplied, speedy redress not necessarily involving legal action needs to be available,

F.   whereas the SOLVIT network, when it is fully operational, will be able to prevent excessive recourse being had to the judicial system, where procedures are often complex, and mechanisms for guaranteeing the defence of individuals frequently hamper access to justice,

G.   whereas training and cross-border exchanges, inter alia via the electronic networks set up by the Commission, are essential for better application of the Community's internal market acquis,

H.   whereas citizens and businesses rely on effective enforcement of internal market rules to help them to benefit fully from the internal market's potential,

I.   whereas Member States should, with the support of the Commission, improve problem-solving mechanisms‘ ability to help citizens assert their rights,

J.   whereas the SOLVIT network was created by the Commission and the Member States in 2002 with the aim of solving problems that arise for citizens and businesses due to the misapplication of internal market law,

K.   whereas SOLVIT is an online problem-solving network in which EU Member States (as well as Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) work together to solve – without legal proceedings – problems encountered by citizens and businesses as a result of the misapplication of internal market law by public authorities,

L.   whereas SOLVIT is considered a relatively successful system providing redress, without formal procedures, within an average of 10 weeks, and whereas the solving of internal market problems by SOLVIT could be a model of good practice for other Single Market Assistance Services,

M.   whereas, where deemed necessary by an individual Member State, especially with a view to any forthcoming publicity campaigns, SOLVIT's capacity should be increased to avoid problems of understaffing,

N.   whereas SOLVIT should, however, be neither a substitute for the Commission's legal work on infringements, nor an excuse to work less ambitiously in the Member States in order to transpose EU directives in a timely and proper fashion,

O.   whereas many citizens who have a problem relating to the internal market that comes within the scope of SOLVIT are not aware of SOLVIT and therefore turn to the European Ombudsman with their problem;

Introduction

1.  Welcomes the Commission's initiative of July 2002 to establish the SOLVIT network of national administrations using an online inter-active database, which has been a successful tool which has enhanced transparency and created peer pressure to speed up problem resolution;

2.  Calls on the Commission to use all its powers to ensure effective application of internal market rules in order to reduce the administrative burden on citizens and businesses;

Effective problem solving in the internal market

3.  Highlights the fact that problems relating to the implementation of internal market rules are often detected through the SOLVIT network;

4.  Emphasises that SOLVIT experience should be fed into national and EU policy-making, resulting in structural or regulatory changes where necessary;

5.  Calls on the Commission systematically to include in the Internal Market and Consumer Market Scoreboards more detailed information on the application and enforcement of internal market legislation, both with a view to increasing transparency and as a useful tool for SOLVIT staff;

6.  Calls for the Internal Market Scoreboard, the SOLVIT Report, the Citizens Signpost Service and the Consumer Market Scoreboard to be published at the same time once a year (not changing the frequency of their publication) in order to provide a global picture of the development of the internal market and to better coordinate the work that has been done in those areas while maintaining the particular nature of those instruments; calls on the Commission to consider including in the Consumer Market Scoreboard a detailed account of the progress, achievements and shortcomings of SOLVIT; calls on the Commission to take immediate action to resolve recurrent problems detected through the SOLVIT network;

Horizontal problems identified at national level

7.  Notes that some SOLVIT centres are understaffed, and that in 2008 the number of cases resolved decreased, while the average number of days needed for their resolution increased; calls on all SOLVIT centres to recruit staff who are appropriately qualified and experienced for the positions they will hold; takes the view that there should be more training for staff employed by SOLVIT; commends the work done by SOLVIT, in particular its case resolution rate, which has remained high (83%) even though its workload increased in 2008 (rising by 22% to 1000 cases) and despite the fact that some SOLVIT centres are faced with staffing problems;

8.  Notes that many citizens and small businesses are not sufficiently aware of the work of SOLVIT and that businesses either use commercial legal services in cases where SOLVIT could be used to their benefit or even accept requests to such effect from Member States, although those requests are not in accordance with the Community's internal market acquis;welcomes the fact that SOLVIT's activities have resulted in cost savings for European citizens and businesses, which are estimated to have amounted to EUR 32.6 million in 2008;

9.  Notes that the portfolio of the ministry hosting the national SOLVIT centre in a given country may affect public perception of the type of work carried out by SOLVIT in that country and that the level of successful resolution and expedition of cases depends on the willingness and ability of Member States to cooperate closely with SOLVIT centres;

10.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that their SOLVIT centre has strong political support so that it can persuade the authorities about whom complaints are made to cooperate actively within the SOLVIT procedure and within the relevant deadlines;

11.  Considers that Member States should enhance the efficiency of cooperation among national, regional and local authorities and SOLVIT; considers, in addition, that Member States should initiate a more intensive and broader exchange of best practices;

12.  Stresses the importance of the exchange of information between SOLVIT centres, and therefore recommends that Member States‘ SOLVIT centres meet regularly to allow for the exchange of information and to share examples of best practice and systems;

Measures to be envisaged

13.  Calls on the Member States to promote SOLVIT, using all forms of media to ensure a wide outreach to citizens and businesses, especially about how to assert their rights, and to allocate sufficient resources to make this promotion more effective; calls, furthermore, on the Commission and the Member States to promote online alternative dispute settlement systems within the SOLVIT network; calls also on its Members to promote SOLVIT in their constituencies;

14.  Calls on each Member State to promote SOLVIT as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, by means of national information campaigns;

15.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to promote SOLVIT on the Internet; urges the Commission to make available one single internet address for all national SOLVIT centres - www.solvit.eu - to facilitate access by citizens pending the re-launch of the Your Europe Portal, which will eventually group all Single Market Assistant Services, including SOLVIT, together;

16.  Calls on the Member States to set up web pages linked to the European SOLVIT portal, featuring a compilation of successful cases and of best practice with regard to settling disputes by means of this mechanism;

17.  Calls on the Member States to increase the efficiency of SOLVIT centres by providing civil servants from within the relevant departments in order to facilitate the resolution of cases which are outside the remit of SOLVIT (SOLVIT+), as well as by ensuring proper access to legal expertise for SOLVIT centres within their administration; urges the Commission to speed up the provision of informal legal assessments to SOLVIT centres;

18.  Calls on the Member States to appoint a SOLVIT liaison officer in public services involved in implementing internal market rules, with a view to ensuring better cooperation;

19.  Calls on the Member States to organise information campaigns on SOLVIT at local, regional or national level, targeting specific groups, such as SMEs, which currently lag behind in terms of awareness of SOLVIT, and encourages Member States to cooperate and exchange best practices so that SOLVIT is promoted as efficiently as possible; points out that, in parallel with its own procedure, Parliament's Committee on Petitions refers petitioners to SOLVIT in cases where it considers that a solution may be achieved more rapidly through SOLVIT;

20.  Acknowledges the effectiveness of SOLVIT as a cooperation network which endeavours to solve, on an informal basis, problems that arise for EU citizens and businesses as a result of the misapplication of internal market law by public authorities;

21.  Notes that SOLVIT's 2008 annual report states that SOLVIT attracts a large volume of non-SOLVIT cases, and that this is slowing down the handling of SOLVIT complaints in SOLVIT centres;

22.  Notes that there are various entities to which EU citizens may submit their problems, including Parliament's Committee on Petitions, SOLVIT, the Commission and the European Ombudsman;

23.  Requests SOLVIT to refer cases of misapplication of EU legislation which are too complex for it to resolve not only to the Commission but also, where appropriate, to Parliament's Committee on Petitions;

24.  Recalls that petitions are dealt with in an open and transparent manner in close cooperation with the competent legislative committees, the Commission and the relevant authorities in the Member States;

25.  Considers that the petitions process can make a positive contribution to better law-making; recalls that, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament's power actively and directly to shape, review and improve EU legislation will greatly increase; points out, furthermore, that an enhanced role for the national parliaments should also be taken into consideration;

26.  Notes that there is no single entity responsible for following up citizens‘ complaints from start to finish, as these are submitted through various channels; calls for greater coordination among the various entities involved in receiving and dealing with citizens’ complaints;

27.  Requests SOLVIT to include on its website a link to Parliament's Committee on Petitions as well as to the relevant committees of the national parliaments, so that citizens may be made aware of their right to petition Parliament as a means of obtaining non-judicial remedies and solutions through the political and legislative process;

28.  Supports, furthermore, the development of a common website of the European institutions intended to assist EU citizens and refer them directly to the institution or body competent to handle their complaint;

29.  Calls on its Members to take initiatives to promote SOLVIT and to make efforts to raise awareness about SOLVIT among members of national parliaments for instance by presenting SOLVIT achievements at COSAC meetings; stresses, furthermore, the need for national governments and parliaments to become more involved in the promotion of SOLVIT at national level; calls on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate a hearing of the SOLVIT centres to determine good practice in and existing obstacles to the proper functioning of the centres, with the aim of making administration and work routines more efficient;

30.  Calls on the Member States to increase the staffing of SOLVIT centres, using all available means, including alternative financing arrangements, in order to build up the administrative capacity in the relevant government ministries in proportion to the country's population and the number of cases dealt with previously;

31.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission jointly to examine and analyse the causes of the low success rates of certain SOLVIT centres, as well as the causes of their relatively long case-handling times, in order to provide useful information for the design of a better problem-solving strategy, to the benefit of citizens and businesses in the internal market;

32.  Calls on the Commission to submit SOLVIT annual reports containing much more detailed information and statistical data, which would also allow the effectiveness of each national centre to be assessed, since it is otherwise difficult to make long-term assessments of trends and propose specific targeted measures to improve the situation in individual Member States;

33.  Calls on the Commission to create a single web portal for all SOLVIT centres at an address that is as easy to find as possible (www.solvit.eu); is of the opinion, at the same time, that a marked improvement in the visibility of the SOLVIT network on the Internet is essential and that for this purpose use must be made of both social networking sites and search engines;

34.  Considers that, in view of the large number of cases involving individuals and the recognition of qualifications or social and residence entitlements, the SOLVIT network must cooperate much more intensively and must broaden its information campaigns to include expatriate associations and consulates of Member States;

35.  Considers that, in view of the large number of cases involving entrepreneurs, the SOLVIT network must cooperate much more intensively and must broaden its information campaigns to include European and national business associations, with particular emphasis on small and medium-sized enterprises;

36.  Calls on the Commission to finalise as a matter of priority the Single Market Assistance Services project for streamlining information, advice and problem-solving assistance services to make them more accessible and more effective;

37.  Calls on the European Ombudsman to cooperate more closely with the SOLVIT centres and to forward all incoming complaints for which he is not competent, without delay and without red tape, to the SOLVIT centre presumed to be competent where those complaints relate to the internal market and could come within the scope of SOLVIT; calls on the Commission to initiate an accelerated Treaty infringement procedure if an unresolved SOLVIT complaint reveals a prima facie breach of Community law;

o
o   o

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

(1) COM(2001)0702. (2) OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 79. (3) OJ L 98, 16.4.2005, p. 47. (4) SEC(2005)0985. (5) SEC(2008)1882. (6) SEC(2009)1007. (7) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 80. (8) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0421. (9) SEC(2009)0142. (10) OJ L 176, 7.7.2009, p. 17. (11) Council document 13024/09. (12) SEC(2009)0881. (13) SEC(2009)0882.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals (COM(2009)0268 – C7-0035/2009 – 2009/0077(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2009)0268),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 37 and 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0035/2009),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) and Articles 43(2) and 168(4)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the opinion of 6 October 2009 of the European Economic and Social Committee(1),

–   after consulting the Committee of Regions,

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0082/2009),

1.  Adopts the position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Approves the statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and draws attention to the Commission statements annexed hereto, which will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union together with the final legislative act;

3.  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;

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 9 March 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 438/2010.)

ANNEX

Statement by the Commission

The Commission has the intention to propose a revision of Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 in its entirety before 30 June 2011, and, in particular, the aspects of delegated and implementing acts.

Statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

The European Parliament, Council and Commission declare that the provisions of this Regulation shall be without prejudice to any future position of the institutions as regards the implementation of Article 290 TFEU or individual legislative acts containing such provisions.

Statement by the Commission concerning the notification of delegated acts

The European Commission takes note that, except in cases where the legislative act provides for an urgency procedure, the European Parliament and the Council consider that the notification of delegated acts shall take into account the periods of recess of the institutions (winter, summer and European elections), in order to ensure that the European Parliament and the Council are able to exercise their prerogatives within the time limits laid down in the relevant legislative acts, and is ready to act accordingly.

(1) OJ C 318, 23.12.2009, p. 121.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 9 March 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as regards movement of persons with a long-stay visa (COM(2009)0091 – C6-0076/2009 – 2009/0028(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0049 A7-0015/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2009)0091),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 62(2)(a) and (3) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted that proposal to Parliament (C6-0076/2009),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2009)0090),

–   having regard to Article 67 and Article 63, first paragraph, point (3)(a) of the EC Treaty pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament in relation to that proposal (C6-0107/2009),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing inter-institutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),

–   having regard to Article 294(3), Article 77(2)(b) and (c) and Article 79(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

–   having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposed legal basis,

–   having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 24 February 2010 to approve the European Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

–   having regard to Rules 55 and 37 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0015/2010),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Considers procedure 2009/0025(COD) to have lapsed as a result of the incorporation into procedure 2009/0028(COD) of the contents of the Commission proposal (COM(2009)0090) and of the draft reports in relation thereto;

3.  Approves the joint declaration by Parliament and the Council annexed to this resolution;

4.  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;

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 9 March 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement and Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 as regards movement of persons with a long-stay visa

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 265/2010.)

ANNEX

DECLARATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

The Council and the European Parliament recognise the importance of the existence of a comprehensive and coherent set of rules, at the level of the European Union, providing for a high level of protection of personal data in the framework of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II).

If there would be further, important delays in implementing the SIS II, that will go beyond 2012, the European Parliament and the Council invite the Commission to present the necessary legislative proposals amending the relevant provisions of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement in order to ensure a level of protection of the personal data entered into the Schengen Information System equivalent to the standards established for SIS II.

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on the Report on Competition Policy 2008 (2009/2173(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0050 A7-0025/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 107(3)(b) and (c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex-Article 87(3)(b) and (c) of the EC Treaty),

–   having regard to the Commission's Report on Competition Policy 2008(1),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty(2),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (EC Merger Regulation)(3),

–   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices(4),

–   having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector(5),

–   having regard to Commission Decision 2005/842/EC of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation grated to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest(6) (Commission Decision on State aid to public services),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 5 December 2008 entitled ‘The recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition(7),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 17 December 2008 on a temporary Community framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis(8),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 9 February 2009 entitled ‘Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings’(9),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 25 February 2009 on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector(10),

–   having regard to Commission Communication of 23 July 2009 on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules(11),

–   having regard to the Commission Communication of 13 August 2009 on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (2008/C 270/02)(12),

–   having regard to the Commission White Paper of 2 April 2008 on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules(13) (White Paper on Damages) and to Parliament's resolution of 26 March 2009 in that regard(14),

–   having regard to the Commission Notice on a Best Practices Code on the conduct of State aid control proceedings(15), the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for the treatment of certain types of State aid(16) and the Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts(17) (Simplification Package),

–   having regard to the Commission Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection(18),

–   having regard to the State Aid Scoreboards for 2008 and 2009,

–   having regard to the Commission's review of 7 August 2009 of guarantee and recapitalisation schemes in the financial sector in the current crisis,

–   having regard to its resolution of 22 February 2005 on State aid in the form of public service compensation(19),

–   having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2009 on the Reports on Competition Policy 2006 and 2007(20),

–   having regard to its resolution of 26 March 2009 on food prices in Europe(21),

–   having regard to Parliament's written declaration of 19 February 2008 on investigating and remedying abuse of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union(22);

–   having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedures,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0025/2010),

A.   whereas the exceptional economic circumstances of the last two years have necessitated exceptional measures,

B.   whereas the European Union has taken the unprecedented step of having recourse to Article 107(3)(b) and (c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

C.   whereas at times of crisis well-functioning markets are essential, and competition rules should be applied flexibly but strictly,

D.   whereas protectionism and a distortion of competition would only deepen and prolong the crisis,

E.   whereas the growing budget deficit and public debt in many Member States may slow down economic recovery and economic growth for years, possibly decades, to come,

F.   whereas Member State governments have granted guarantees on bank funding as a response to the financial crisis since October 2008; whereas the issuance of guaranteed bonds has been sizeable and has provided banks with a significant source of funding and insurance against the risks faced by the financial system,

G.   whereas empirical analyses suggest that the Member State governments‘ guarantees have generated a number of effects and distortions, such as a reduction of the spread of private bonds, which need to be taken into account when considering extending them in 2010,

H.   whereas the ability of transnational businesses to make extensive use of tax havens and offshore centres as part of their tax avoidance strategies contravenes the principle of fair competition,

I.   whereas tax governance is an important factor in maintaining favourable conditions for fair competition, and in enhancing the functioning of the internal market,

General remarks

1.  Welcomes the Report on Competition Policy 2008, particularly its focus chapter on cartels and consumers; supports the creation of the Consumer Liaison Unit; notes that the existence of cartels harms consumers; regrets the difficulty for consumers to reap the benefits of competition;

2.  Highlights the fact that cartels are among the most serious violation of competition law, disrupt the value chain, are detrimental to consumers and have a very negative impact on the economy; encourages the Commission to maintain its strong enforcement to prevent and act against cartels; welcomes instruments such as the settlement package, which allows the Commission to settle cartel cases by means of a simplified procedure where companies, having seen the evidence, choose to acknowledge their involvement in the cartel and the fine imposed on the parties is reduced; recalls that competition policy and the comprehensive enforcement of competition rules are essential for a properly functioning and competitive European internal market, enhancing efficiency, entrepreneurial excellence and the protection of consumers; takes the view, in particular, that the fight against cartels is central to ensuring that consumers benefit from a competition regime through lower prices and a broader choice of products and services;

3.  Demands to be involved on a broad basis in the shaping of competition policy, including the introduction of a co-legislative role and a requirement that Parliament be regularly informed about any initiative in that field;

4.  Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament during the course of 2010 what specific action in the field of competition it intends to take as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;

5.  Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament in detail and annually about the follow-up to Parliament's recommendations, and explain any departure from Parliament's recommendations;

6.  Encourages the Commission to initiate a steady and permanent dialogue with consumers‘ associations to identify competition problems and enforcement priorities; requests a full report on the activities of the Consumer Liaison Unit of DG Competition;

7.  Calls on the Commission to make publicly available all evaluations and studies referred to in its future annual competition reports and to make use of independent and reliable expertise for those evaluations and studies;

8.  Recalls its request to the Commission to undertake an urgent review of staff resources at the Directorate-General for Competition and ensure that the resources allocated meet the increasing workload;

9.  Stresses the need for clear, robust and SME-friendly competition rules based on the ‘think small first’ principle anchored in the Small Business Act for Europe;

10.  Calls on the Commission, in the next report, to include a dedicated focus chapter on SMEs and competition; points to the high cost of the patent system for SMEs, due in particular to the threat of litigation from non-practising entities; draws attention to open innovation and knowledge commons; calls on SMEs to exploit FP7 results under open access;

11.  Calls on the Commission to make use of Article 12 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 153(2) of the EC Treaty), which states clearly that ‘consumer protection requirements shall be taken into account in defining and implementing other Union policies and activities’, as a legal basis for future internal market legislation;

12.  Asks the Commission to push for the implementation of the telecom package;

13.  Regards positively the publication of the Commission Communication entitled ‘Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 82 of the EC Treaty to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings’; believes that the Guidance is a step forward since it means more transparency and predictability regarding a possible intervention by the Commission but that it should never limit or restrict the capacity of the Commission to act in that field under what is now the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

14.  Highlights that in 2008, for the first time in the history of EU competition policy, coercive fines have been imposed for failure to comply with a previous Commission decision;

State aid

15.  Stresses that it is important for the Commission to monitor the use of State aid carefully in order to ensure that these support arrangements are not used to protect national industries in a manner detrimental to the internal market and European consumers;

16.  Considers it essential, therefore, when assessing whether State aid is compatible with the Treaty, to find the right balance between the negative effects of State aid on competition and public finances and its positive effects in terms of common interests;

17.  Calls on the Commission to evaluate the external dimension of the effects of the types of bank regulation envisaged, particularly on the competitiveness of European banks;

18.  Takes the view that State aid policies taken in relation to financial institutions and the economic recovery process were helpful to stabilise financial market and to tackle the effects of the credit crunch on the real economy;

19.  Notes that State aid policy is an integral part of competition policy and that State aid control reflects the need to maintain a level playing field for all undertakings carrying out activities in the European single market; in this context, wonders to what extent State aid granted to the financial market has caused distortions of competition; calls for an independent report to be drawn up about the potential distortive effects of State intervention in the financial sector; asks the Commission to report on restructuring progress made by the beneficiaries of State aid and to provide more clarity concerning the repayment of State aid and possible sanctions for failure to repay; urges the Commission to clarify the binding restructuring measures related to potential distortive effects resulting in differences in repayment conditions between Member States; calls for greater clarity on the criteria for divestments and on their medium-term impact on the firms in question;

20.  Is concerned about the subsidies and distortions generated by the guarantees on bank funding granted by Member State governments; urges the Commission to assess the extent of subsidies related to guarantees on bank funding and thus analyse their conformity with EU competition law and the measures needed to correct any distortions related to those guarantees;

21.  Calls on the Commission to investigate further, as a matter of urgency, why State aid granted to banks is not being passed on to the real economy, and to take measures against banks that demonstrably fail or refuse to pass on the benefits of State aid;

22.  Notes that the Commission has already started the process of phasing out State support and mandating restructuring and divestitures; acknowledges that those processes must be flexible in order to be successful; calls, nevertheless, for guidance by the Commission concerning those processes; believes that State intervention should not be unduly prolonged and that exit strategies should be elaborated as soon as possible;

23.  Insists upon the need to coordinate exit strategies, in particular as regards the phasing out of the support to the banking sector; underlines that such coordination is essential to avoid any distortion of competition resulting from a situation where banks could be subsidised to some extent in those countries where bank support programmes are retained in contrast to countries where such programmes are phased out;

24.  Believes that the system of competition rules has weathered the storm so far, but that the crisis has brought home the urgent need for an EU framework for cross-border crisis management in the financial sector, including a solution for the ‘too-big-to-fail’ institutions, a quick and full implementation of the recommendations of the de Larosière Report, including a single European regulator, a deposit guarantee system and a bail-out fund or equivalent system;

25.  Requests that the Commission report on national State aid measures, the differences between the national schemes, their possible distortive effects on competition and the economic divergence that might result therefrom; calls on the Commission to prepare proposals for a more coherent, single European approach;

26.  Calls on the Commission to step up its investigation of the scope for illegally combining State aid on the one hand and Community instruments such as the structural funds and the Globalisation Adjustment Fund on the other, so as to ensure the consistency of its action;

27.  Invites the Commission to explain what criteria will be used to decide on a possible extension of the Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures;

28.  Insists that State aid should be compatible with the goals of the Lisbon-Göteborg Strategy and the climate-energy package; urges Member States to remove harmful subsidies which, inter alia, foster fossil fuel consumption or production that increase greenhouse gas emission; more broadly, emphasises the need to undertake Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) of policies and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of projects foreseen in the ambit of the recovery package;

29.  Welcomes the new guidelines on State aid for environmental protection within the framework of the climate-energy package introducing normalised evaluation for minor issues and detailed evaluation for significant issues;

30.  Calls on the Commission to publish, during the course of 2010, a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of State aid granted for ‘green recovery’ (bringing about a substantial shift towards sustainability, in particular in the automotive sector) and State aid for environmental protection;

31.  Calls for similar reporting on State aid granted for support to SMEs, training, R&D and innovation;

32.  Suggests that the phase-out of the Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis should take into consideration the economic situation (the length of recovery and the size of the fall in GDP) of the Member State concerned;

33.  Calls on the Commission to sustain, within the telecom sector, its efforts to achieve greater transparency in the charge rates for fixed and especially mobile operators;

34.  Emphasises the need to look into the challenge presented by tax havens and off-shore centres as regards, inter alia, unfair competition and financial stability;

35.  Reiterates its call for the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base;

36.  Urges the Commission to inform Parliament about its review of the Commission Decision on State aid for public services, which has been due since 19 December 2008 and which should now take into consideration the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty;

37.  Notes with concern that the recovery of illegal State aid is a lengthy and cumbersome process, and that a small number of Member States is responsible for nearly all pending cases; encourages the Commission to tighten up procedures further and to keep up the pressure on Member States, in particular on repeat offenders;

38.  Asks the Commission for a thorough investigation into the generalised large-scale use, by some European firms, of low-cost highly skilled temporary labour contracts and internships, as an abusive economic strategy that is detrimental to the principles of decent work and a source of competition distortion;

39.  Underlines that facilitating risk capital financing for SMEs is essential to promote fair competition;

40.  Calls on the Commission to evaluate and report on the degree to which, if at all, the different national support schemes in the automobile industry have contributed to other Community objectives, in particular sustainability and environmentally-friendly technologies; urges the Commission to assess competitiveness within this market, in particular the relationship between OEMs and first- and second-tier suppliers;

41.  Welcomes the publication of the Simplification Package;

Antitrust

42.  Welcomes the adoption by the Commission of the White Paper on damages actions for breach of antitrust rules; believes this is a victory for consumer protection within the European Union;

43.  Recalls that cartels harm the economy and represent some of the most serious violation of competition law; believes that such infringements of competition law counteract the interests of citizens of the Union since they imply that the advantages of lower prices resulting from competition cannot be passed on to consumers; reiterates in this context that any forthcoming proposal on collective redress must respect Parliament's view expressed in its resolution of 26 March 2009 on damages actions for breach of the EU antitrust rules and insists that Parliament must be involved in the adoption of such act by means of the co-decision procedure;

44.  Calls on the Commission to improve coordination between the competition law approach and the consumer law approach in its initiatives;

45.  Welcomes the very firm stance the Commission has taken on anti-competitive behaviour in recent years, as it causes great harm to consumers and to the economy; highlights the need for broad public support for competition policy, and democratic legitimacy ensured by involvement of the European Parliament; is concerned that the use of ever higher fines as the sole instrument may be too blunt, not least with a view to potential job losses as a result of the inability to pay, and calls for the development of a wider range of more sophisticated instruments, covering such issues as individual responsibility, transparency and accountability of firms, shorter procedures, the right of defence and due process, mechanisms to ensure the effective operation of leniency applications (in particular to overcome the interference caused by discovery processes in the US), corporate compliance programs and the development of European standards; favours a ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach with penalties that serve as an effective deterrent, in particular for repeat offenders, while encouraging compliance;

46.  Takes the view that, when multiple infringements of competition law are committed by the same company, stronger deterrence measures are needed to implement antitrust rules in cartel cases or to combat abuses of dominant position;

47.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to introduce the principle of individual liability;

48.  Calls on the Commission to consider the role of compliance programmes as an instrument in the fight against anti-competitive behaviour;

49.  Calls on the Commission to define specific criteria pursuant to which undertakings should be considered to have acted intentionally or negligently;

50.  Calls on the Commission to define specific criteria pursuant to which parent companies should be made jointly and severally liable for cartel-like behaviour on the part of their subsidiaries;

51.  Points out that SMEs are comparatively harder hit by disproportionate fines than larger companies;

52.  Feels that fines should be proportionate to the breach; also proposes that, in appropriate circumstances, relevant amounts paid in compensation be taken into account when calculating the fine; asks the Commission to review the basis for calculating fines and, if appropriate, to incorporate the new fining principles in Regulation (EC) No 1/2003;

53.  Calls on the Commission to introduce a ‘one-stop shop’ for leniency applications;

54.  Asks to be duly informed and consulted concerning any amendment of the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation, within a timeframe which allows Parliament to undertake adequate scrutiny and to make a thorough contribution, taking into account the urgent need to provide the sector with a predictable horizon that allows it to take the appropriate measures;

55.  Emphasises the need for effective cooperation with Parliament, and with consumer and small businesses organisations, concerning any amendments of the Block Exemption Regulation applicable to Vertical Agreements; stresses that a regulatory framework which encourages cohesive action by various market operators is the best way to address potential consumer detriment caused by lack of choice;

56.  Recalls the request to carry out a proper scrutiny, including a hearing in Parliament of end user organisations, of the Commission's Draft Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation and the Draft Supplementary Guidelines; asks the Commission to ensure future-proof rules as of 1 June 2010;

57.  Welcomes, in this respect, the Commission's proposal for a more stringent regulatory framework for after-sales services, to reduce the high level of consumer expenditure on repair and maintenance caused by distortive practices such as the exclusion of independent service providers.

58.  Expects due account to be taken of the interests of small and medium-sized motor vehicle dealers in the forthcoming competition law regime on the motor vehicle sector; failing that, considers that the Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation should be retained in its present form;

59.  Asks to be consulted on any proposed amendment of the Block Exemption Regulation applicable to Vertical Agreements, within a timeframe which allows Parliament to undertake adequate scrutiny and to make a thorough contribution;

Merger control

60.  Welcomes the aim for further improvement of the referral mechanisms and greater consistency in the evaluation of comparable merger operations, and encourages the Commission to review the effects of the two-thirds rule further;

61.  Welcomes the revision of the Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and under Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004, which codifies recent judgments of the Court of Justice, takes into account the conclusions drawn from the Remedies Study, and the addresses the points raised during the public consultation;

62.  Requests the Commission to draw up a country-by-country report on the application of Article 21(4) of the EC Merger Regulation, which allows for public policy considerations to take precedence over competition considerations;

63.  Emphasises that the current economic crisis does not justify a relaxation of EU merger control policies;

Sector inquiries

64.  Invites the Commission to set out the criteria applicable for launching a sector inquiry; takes the view that the Commission should act not only on complaints from industry or consumers, but also on the recommendation of Parliament;

65.  Calls on the Commission to investigate the margin share in the production and distribution chains in line with Parliament's resolution of 26 March 2009 on food prices in Europe; requests the Commission to propose appropriate measures, including regulation, to protect consumers, workers and producers from any abuse of dominant position or negative impacts identified in the course of that investigation;

66.  Reiterates in this context its earlier calls for sector inquiries into online advertising and relations between the producers of agricultural goods (in particular dairy produce), intermediate purchasers, major distributors and end consumers; calls for an inquiry into media concentrations, including all channels for distribution of content, such as print, television and radio and the internet; requests that the Commission present an analysis of competition in the telecoms, car and financial services sectors;

67.  Stresses the need for comprehensive sector inquiries and follow-up measures in close cooperation with the authorities of the European Competition Network (ECN) into the food industry and, in particular, into the distribution chain for dairy products;

68.  Requests the Commission to continue to monitor the prices of food products in the European Union and the conditions of competition in the food industry;

69.  Highlights the need to improve competition in the pharmaceutical sector by taking the appropriate measures to fight those practices of the pharmaceutical enterprises that may result in delaying or blocking the entry of generic products on the market, in accordance with the results of the sector enquiry conducted by DG Competition;

70.  Welcomes the Commission's enquiry into the energy sector; requests the Commission to investigate the extent to which a lack of investment in infrastructure, particularly gas and electricity interconnections, is hampering competition; notices that security of supply and effective competition in the energy market cannot be achieved without an interconnected and well-functioning energy infrastructure;

71.  Is concerned about insufficient competition in telecoms; requests a further sector enquiry; insists that the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) foster competition, in particular through pertinent market analysis; insists therefore that its secretariat be given sufficient resources for this purpose;

72.  Deplores the fact that the Commission, in its report, addresses inter-institutional cooperation with Parliament only briefly and does not respond to the following requests made by Parliament in its resolution of 10 March 2009:

73.  Reiterates its call for an inquiry into the application of public procurement rules, and whether national differences lead to a distortion of competition;

o
o   o

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

(1) COM(2009)0374. (2) OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1. (3) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1. (4) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999, p. 21. (5) OJ L 203, 1.8.2002, p. 30. (6) OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67. (7) OJ C 10, 15.1.2009, p. 2. (8) OJ C 16, 22.1.2009, p. 1. (9) OJ C 45, 24.2.2009, p. 7. (10) OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, p. 1. (11) OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, p. 9. (12) OJ C 270, 25.10.2008, p. 8. (13) COM(2008)0165. (14) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0187. (15) OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 13. (16) OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 3. (17) OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 1. (18) OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1. (19) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2005)0033. (20) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0099. (21) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0191. (22) OJ C 184 E, 6.8.2009, p. 23.

European Parliament resolution of 9 March 2010 on the Internal Market Scoreboard (2009/2141(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0051 A7-0084/2009

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 29 June 2009 on measures to improve the functioning of the single market(1),

–   having regard to the Commission Recommendation of 12 July 2004 on the transposition into national law of Directives affecting the internal market(2),

–   having regard to the Commission Staff Working paper on the Internal Market Scoreboard (SEC(2009)1007),

–   having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on the Single Market Review: tackling barriers and inefficiencies through better implementation and enforcement(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 23 September 2008 on the Internal Market Scoreboard(4),

–   having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2008 on the role of the national judge in the European judicial system(5),

–   having regard to the Council Conclusions (Competitiveness - Internal Market, Industry and Research) of 24 September 2009 entitled ‘How to make the Internal Market work better’(6),

–   having regard to Rules 48 and 119(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0084/2009),

A.   whereas an effectively functioning internal market is imperative for the creation of a stable and innovative economic environment within which consumers can purchase high-quality goods and services and businesses can create new jobs,

B.   whereas, although the internal market has come a long way, there is still a great deal of work to be done in order to ensure that it reaches its full potential,

C.   whereas the internal market cannot work properly without the correct transposition, application and enforcement of Communit rules which affect its functioning,

D.   whereas it is imperative that Member States transpose internal market legislation on time,

E.   whereas the European Parliament and national parliaments can actively contribute to a better transposition of internal market legislation by continuing to work together closely with each other during the negotiation and transposition process,

F.   whereas representatives of the EU institutions and Member States should meet on a regular basis to take stock of the implementation of internal market legislation,

G.   whereas the publication of the Internal Market Scoreboard helps to reduce the transposition deficit, but it is necessary to adopt a more qualitative approach aimed at looking beyond the figures and identifying the reasons for the deficit,

H.   whereas although the Internal Market Scoreboard and the Consumer Market Scoreboard have different methodologies with different scopes and different sets of indicators, they share the overall aim of improving the functioning of the internal market,

I.   whereas the current average deficit of 1% is in accordance with the target of 1% agreed by the Heads of State and Government in 2007, but nine Member States still remain short of this target,

J.   whereas the fragmentation factor is 6%, meaning that 100 directives have not been transposed in at least one Member State,

K.   whereas 22 directives are more than two years behind their transposition deadline, in direct violation of the ‘zero tolerance’ target set by the Heads of State and Government in 2002,

L.   whereas it is particularly important to track the transposition of certain directives that are key for the development of the internal market,

M.   whereas more publicly accessible information on which directives have not been transposed by individual Member States could be useful as a means of raising awareness among the general public and applying peer pressure, including by Members of the European Parliament on Members of national parliaments,

N.   whereas the continuing cases of non-transposition or incorrect transposition are not necessarily the result of reluctance on the part of Member States, but may be due to a lack of clarity or consistency in the relevant EU legislation, and it is therefore desirable that the Internal Market Scoreboard should be not only a means of putting pressure on the Member States, but also an instrument for dialogue that might improve understanding of the difficulties encountered by Member States in transposing legislation,

O.   whereas more information is needed on the quality of transposition,

P.   whereas, keeping in mind the general shift from legislation to implementation in the internal market area, the Internal Market Scoreboard should on a regular basis provide more detailed information on the application and enforcement of internal market legislation, including objective indicators as to the functioning of the internal market, allowing better tracking of performance and trends,

Q.   whereas Members of the European Parliament should inform their constituents about the implementation of internal market legislation that affects them and ways in which they are able to enforce their rights,

R.   whereas the work of its Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection has provided useful insights into the implementation, transposition and enforcement of key internal market legislation, through own-initiative reports, studies, workshops and hearings, and will continue to do so in the future,

S.   whereas training and cross-border exchanges, inter alia via the electronic networks set up by the Commission, are essential for the better application of the Community's internal market acquis,

T.   whereas citizens and businesses rely on effective enforcement of internal market rules to help them to fully benefit from its potential,

Introduction

1.  Welcomes the Commission's above-mentioned Recommendation on measures to improve the functioning of the single market; stresses that Member States should not cherry-pick the measures that suit them best but undertake to implement them all;

2.  Urges Member States to work closely with the Commission and with each other, and to assume their share of responsibility and ownership to exploit the potential of the internal market fully; calls on the Commission to use all its powers in ensuring effective application of internal market rules including effective market monitoring, harmonisation, further simplification of legislation and other tools to reduce the administrative burden on citizens and businesses;

3.  Takes the view that it is important to act at an earlier stage in order to limit the risk of a transposition deficit and that the Commission should do more to support the Member States throughout the transposition period; takes the view that this should involve in particular dialogue and a greater exchange of information aimed at anticipating possible problems and seeking to resolve them before the end of the deadline for transposition;

4.  Particularly supports the idea of close involvement of national parliaments and enhanced cooperation with other stakeholders, such as the social partners, during negotiations and the transposition process;

5.  Underlines the importance of open dialogue and closer cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament with a view to further discussion and detailed consideration of the problems encountered by Member States during the transposition process, as the correct transposition and implementation of directives at national level are basic preconditions for the effective operation of the internal market, competition and economic and social stability within the EU;

6.  Calls on the Commission to organize an annual Internal Market Forum bringing together representatives of EU institutions and Member States and other stakeholders in order to establish a clearer commitment to transposition, application and enforcement of internal market legislation;

7.  Underlines that such an Internal Market Forum should hold meetings at working group level as well as at ministerial level in order to provide an important platform for the sharing of best practice between national administrations;

8.  Calls on the Commission to regularly include in its Internal Market Scoreboard more detailed information on the application and enforcement of internal market legislation, including objective indicators as to the functioning of the internal market;

9.  Calls for the Internal Market Scoreboard, the SOLVIT Report, the Citizens Signpost Service and the Consumer Market Scoreboard to be published at the same time once a year (not changing the frequency of their publication)y in order to provide a global picture of the development of the internal market and to better coordinate the work that has been done in those areas while maintaining the particular nature of those instruments;

10.  Calls on the Commission to look into new ways to eliminate remaining barriers to completing the internal market, including the creation of a ‘internal-market test’ for all proposed new EU legislation, to ensure that proposed new measures do not undermine the internal market;

11.  Considers that the Internal Market Scoreboard has important overlaps with the Commission's annual review of the application of Community law; therefore encourages the Commission to use that annual review in a more strategic way by focusing on vertical policy areas which could improve the qualitative analysis of the Internal Market Scoreboard;

12.  Calls on the Commission to present a more reader-friendly press release together with the Internal Market Scoreboard in order to raise awareness of its results and to increase pressure on the Member States to ensure the correct and timely transposition of directives;

Transposition

13.  Welcomes the fact that the transposition deficit of 1,0% has been met for the third consecutive time; urges the nine Member States which failed to reach this objective to take action to improve their record;

14.  Considers that there is a clear link between the timely and correct transposition of internal market directives and the quality of the original legislation; therefore notes the importance of upstream work, including a commitment to comply with better regulation principles, full consultation with Member States on transposition and enforcement methods, and the need for thorough impact assessments and analysis of the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice before proposing new legislation;

15.  Recalls that the number of directives that have not been transposed by one or more Member States remains too high and calls on the Commission and the Member States to work together to bring this number down as a matter of urgency, starting with those directives whose transposition has been overdue for two years or more;

16.  Calls on the Commission to provide more detailed information on its website on the directives which have not been implemented in the individual Member States;

17.  Urges Member States to provide the Commission with correlation tables containing detailed information on the national measures taken to transpose directives in order for it to be able to provide more detailed information on the quality of transposition; calls on the Commission to identify best practices of timely and correct transposition and to communicate these to the Member States;

Application

18.  Considers that Member States should enhance the efficient cooperation among national, regional and local authorities involved in applying internal market rules by ensuring and strengthening an internal market coordination function within their national administrations;

19.  Calls on Member States to provide national and local civil servants and judicial authorities with regular training on internal market rules in the framework of existing Community programmes and networks;

20.  Shares the Commission's view that Member States need to ensure that the cross-border networks of electronic information systems established by the Commission (e.g. the Internal Market Information system (IMI), the Rapid alert system for non-food dangerous products (RAPEX), the Rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF) or the Consumer Protection Cooperation network (CPC)) are operational by taking the necessary measures, including the allocation of resources;

21.  Calls on the Commission to view internal market legislation as a circular process in which ex-post evaluations should play an important part and should be used to establish whether the legislation meets or surpasses the original impact assessment and, if not, to identify how it should be amended or recast to ensure that it meets its original objectives;

Enforcement

22.  Holds the view that Member States should step up their efforts in providing information to citizens and businesses about their rights in the internal market, enabling them to exercise those rights in practice; calls on the Commission to finalise as a matter of priority the Single Market Assistance Services project for streamlining information, advice and problem-solving assistance services and making them more accessible;

23.  Takes the view that the internal market information that the Commission posts on the internet is comprehensive but overly fragmented; calls on the Commission, with the participation of the Enterprise Europe Network, to establish and strengthen the ‘Your Europe - Business’ portal as an electronic one-stop-shop for business information relating to the internal market in order to avoid unnecessary and costly parallel structures and to exploit possible synergies, particularly in connection with the information to be provided under the Services Directive(7);

24.  Highlights the key role played by the Enterprise Europe Network in enabling SMEs to make use of the opportunities offered by the internal market; stresses that bureaucratic obligations tie up valuable resources and thereby prevent a stronger focus on the Enterprise Europe Network's core task of providing tailor-made support for SMEs; calls on the Commission to make greater use of the Enterprise Europe Network for the targeted distribution of information and to reduce bureaucracy for the Network's partners;

25.  Believes that Member States should, with the support of the Commission, improve the capacity of problem-solving mechanisms, in particular SOLVIT, so as to provide more effective redress; emphasises that experiences from SOLVIT should be fed into national and EU policy-making, resulting in structural or regulatory changes where necessary; calls on Member States to further reinforce the networks of SOLVIT centres by allocating additional financial and human resources;

26.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary measures in order to make the SOLVIT centres and their free-of-charge problem-solving services more visible to European businesses and citizens;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 176, 7.7.2009, p. 17. (2) OJ L 98, 16.4.2005, p. 47. (3) OJ C 187 E, 24.7.2008, p. 80. (4) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0421. (5) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0352. (6) Council document 13024/09. (7) Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 36).