Texts adopted - Tuesday, 14 December 2010

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

Texts adopted

Tuesday, 14 December 2010 - Strasbourg

		Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: Portugal - floods; France - storm Xynthia
		Draft amending budget No 9/2010: EU Solidarity Fund (floods in Portugal, storm Xynthia in France) - Economic recovery: European offshore wind grid system
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: SI/Mura, Slovenia
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG/Germany
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Wielkopolskie Automotive from Poland
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Aragón - Retail trade from Spain
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Comunidad Valenciana - Textiles from Spain
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Communidad Valenciana - natural stone from Spain
		Mobiliation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Lear from Spain
		Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: H. Cegielski-Poznań from Poland
		Extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection ***I
		Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***
		EU rapid response capability
		Regulation of trading in financial instruments - ‘dark pools’ etc.
		Strengthening Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Security in the European Union - an EU CBRN Action Plan
		Good governance and EU regional policy
		Creation of an immigration liaison officers network ***I
		European Protection Order ***I
		Trafficking in human beings ***I
		Agreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation ***
		Territorial, social and economic cohesion

Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: Portugal - floods; France - storm Xynthia

204k

37k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 26 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0578 – C7-0323/2010 – 2010/2237(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0453

A7-0335/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0578 – C7-0323/2010),

– 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), and in particular point 26 thereof,

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(2),

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

– having regard to the letter of the Committee on Regional Development,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0335/2010),

1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

2. 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;

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

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of xxx

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

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(3), and in particular point 26 thereof,

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(4),

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

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

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

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

(4) Portugal submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by landslides and flooding on Madeira Island.

(5) France submitted an application to mobilise the Fund, concerning a disaster caused by storm ‘Xynthia’,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Union Solidarity Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 66 891 540 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 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.
(3)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Draft amending budget No 9/2010: EU Solidarity Fund (floods in Portugal, storm Xynthia in France) - Economic recovery: European offshore wind grid system

199k

32k

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on Council's position on Draft amending budget No 9/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, Section III – Commission (17633/2010 – C7-0409/2010 – 2010/2238(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0454

A7-0341/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 314 thereof and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

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

– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, as finally adopted on 17 December 2009(2),

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

– having regard to Draft amending budget No 9/2010 of the European Union for the financial year 2010, which the Commission presented on 13 October 2010 (COM(2010)0577),

– having regard to Council's position on Draft amending budget No 9/2010, which the Council established on 10 December 2010 (17633/2010 – C7-0409/2010),

– having regard to Rules 75b and 75e of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0341/2010),

A. whereas Draft amending budget No 9/2010 to the general budget 2010 covers the following items:

	–	mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for an amount of EUR 66,9 million in commitment and payment appropriations relating to the effects of landslides and severe flooding on Madeira island, Portugal, and the effects of storm ‘Xynthia’ in France,
	–	a corresponding reduction in payment appropriations of EUR 66,9 million from line 06 04 14 03 ‐ Energy projects to aid economic recovery ‐ European Offshore wind grid system,

B. whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 9/2010 is to formally enter this budgetary adjustment into the 2010 budget,

1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 9/2010;

2. Approves the Council's position on Draft amending budget No 9/2010 unamended and instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 8/2010 has been definitively adopted and to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

(1)	OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.
(2)	OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.
(3)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: SI/Mura, Slovenia

214k

44k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/014 SI/Mura from Slovenia) (COM(2010)0582 – C7-0334/2010 – 2010/2243(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0455

A7-0336/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0582 – C7-0334/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0336/2010),

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

B. whereas 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,

C. 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,

D. whereas Slovenia has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 2 554 redundancies in the enterprise Mura, European Fashion Design, which operates in the wearing apparel sector,

E. 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 ensuring 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 and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

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

4. Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well, including an evaluation of the effects these temporary and personalised services have on the long-term reintegration into the labour market of the workers who have been made redundant;

5. Welcomes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused European Social Fund has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified;

6.Notes, however, that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing the programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

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

8. Welcomes the new format of the Commission's proposal, which presents in its explanatory memorandum clear and detailed information on the application, analyses the eligibility criteria and explains the reasons which led to its approval, 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 to 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

of xxx

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/014 SI/Mura from Slovenia)

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 Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund(4), 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 for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation 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) Slovenia submitted an application on 28 April 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Mura and supplemented it with additional information on 24 June 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 247 940.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 247 940 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG/Germany

215k

43k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/018 DE/Heidelberger Druckmaschinen from Germany) (COM(2010)0568 – C7-0332/2010 – 2010/2241(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0456

A7-0337/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0568 – C7-0332/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0337/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Germany has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1 181 redundancies distributed over the four production sites of the enterprise Heidelberger Druckmaschinen in Baden-Württemberg, which operates in the manufacturing of printing machinery sector,

E. 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;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/018 DE/Heidelberger Druckmaschinen from Germany)

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 proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(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 on 27 May 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, and supplemented it with additional information up to 1 July 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 8 308 555.

(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 shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 8 308 555 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Wielkopolskie Automotive from Poland

216k

43k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 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 (application EGF/2010/004 PL/Wielkopolskie Automotive from Poland) (COM(2010)0616 – C7-0347/2010 – 2010/2253(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0457

A7-0359/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0616 – C7-0347/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0359/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Poland has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 590 redundancies in two enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 29 (Manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers) in the NUTS II region Wielkopolskie,

E. 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;

6 Notes however that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing the programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

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(3), 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(4), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(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) Poland submitted an application on 5 February 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in two enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 29 (manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers) in the NUTS II region of Wielkopolskie (PL41) and supplemented it with additional information up to 6 July 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 633 077.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 633 077 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Aragón - Retail trade from Spain

216k

43k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/016 ES/Aragón Retail trade from Spain) (COM(2010)0615 – C7-0346/2010 – 2010/2252(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0458

A7-0358/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0615 – C7-0346/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0358/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Spain has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1154 redundancies in 593 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 47 (Retail trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles) in the NUTS II region of Aragón,

E. 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;

6. Notes however that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing the programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

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 proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(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) Spain submitted an application on 6 May 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 593 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 47 (‘Retail trade, except for motor vehicles and motorcycles’) in the NUTS II region of Aragón (ES24) and supplemented it with additional information up to 1 July 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 560 000.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 560 000 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Comunidad Valenciana - Textiles from Spain

215k

43k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/009 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Textiles from Spain) (COM(2010)0613 – C7-0345/2010 – 2010/2251(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0459

A7-0357/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0613 – C7-0345/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0357/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Spain has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 350 redundancies in 143 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 13 (Manufacture of textiles) in the NUTS II region of Comunidad Valenciana,

E. 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;

6. Notes, however, that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing the programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

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 proposal from the European Commission,

whereas:

(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) Spain submitted an application on 22 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in 143 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 13 (manufacture of textiles) in a single NUTS II region, Comunidad Valenciana (ES52) and supplemented it with additional information up to 17 June 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 2 059 466.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 2 059 466 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Communidad Valenciana - natural stone from Spain

215k

43k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (application EGF/2010/005 ES/Comunidad Valenciana Natural Stone from Spain) (COM(2010)0617 – C7-0344/2010 – 2010/2250(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0460

A7-0356/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0617 – C7-0344/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0356/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Spain has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 300 redundancies in 66 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 23 (Manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products) in the NUTS II region of Comunidad Valenciana,

E. 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;

6. Notes, however, that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing the programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

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 proposal from the European Commission,

whereas:

(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) Spain submitted an application on 9 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 66 enterprises operating in NACE Revision 2 Division 23 (manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products) in a single NUTS II region, Comunidad Valenciana (ES52), and supplemented it with additional information up to 25 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission therefore proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 422 850.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 1 422 850 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobiliation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Lear from Spain

214k

44k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 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 (application EGF/2010/023 ES/Lear from Spain) (COM(2010)0625 – C7-0360/2010 – 2010/2265(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0461

A7-0351/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0625 – C7-0360/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0351/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Spain has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 508 redundancies in the enterprise Lear Automotive (EEDS) Spain, S.L. Sociedad Unipersonal, which operates in the automotive sector,

E. 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;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

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 (application EGF/2010/023 ES/Lear from Spain)

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 proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(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) Spain submitted an application on 23 July 2010 to mobilise the EGF in respect of redundancies in the enterprise Lear and supplemented it with additional information on 10 August 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 382 200.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 382 200 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: H. Cegielski-Poznań from Poland

217k

46k

		Resolution
		Annex

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 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 (application EGF/2010/006 PL/H. Cegielski-Poznań from Poland) (COM(2010)0631 – C7-0361/2010 – 2010/2266(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0462

A7-0352/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0631 – C7-0361/2010),

– 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 letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0352/2010),

B. whereas 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,

D. whereas Poland has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 189 redundancies in H. Cegielski-Poznań and four of its suppliers, which operate in the manufacture of marine diesel engines sector,

E. 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;

9. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

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

of xxx

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 proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(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) Poland submitted an application on 8 March 2010 to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the enterprise H. Cegielski-Poznań Poland S.A. and supplemented it with additional information up to 10 August 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 114 250.

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

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 114 250 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)	OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(4)	OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

Extension of the scope of Directive 2003/109/EC to beneficiaries of international protection ***I

196k

32k

		Resolution
		Text

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection (COM(2007)0298 – C6-0196/2007 – 2007/0112(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0463

A7-0347/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0298),

– having regard to Article 63(3) and (4) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0196/2007),

– having regard to its position of 23 April 2008(1),

– having regard to the Commission Communication to 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 294(3), 79(2)(a) and (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 18 November 2010 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0347/2010),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 December 2010 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2011/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection

P7_TC1-COD(2007)0112

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2011/51/EU).

(1)	OJ C 259 E, 29.10.2009, p.126.

Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas ***

190k

30k

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (11324/2010 – C7-0391/2010 – 2010/0106(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0464

A7-0345/2010

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the draft Council decision (11324/2010),

– having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the facilitation of the issuance of visas (10304/2010),

– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0391/2010),

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

– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0345/2010),

1. Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

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

EU rapid response capability

133k

50k

European Parliament recommendation to the Council of 14 December 2010 on setting up an EU rapid response capability (2010/2096(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0465

A7-0332/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Article 196 of the Lisbon Treaty which states that ‘the Union shall encourage cooperation between Member States in order to improve the effectiveness of systems for preventing and protecting against natural or man-made disasters’ and that ‘Union action shall aim to promote consistency in international civil-protection work’,

– having regard to Article 214 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which states that the Union's operations in the field of humanitarian aid are intended to provide ‘assistance and relief and protection for people in third countries who are victims of natural or man-made disasters’ and that its operations shall be ‘conducted in compliance with the principles of international law and with the principles of impartiality, neutrality and non-discrimination’,

– having regard to the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid jointly signed in December 2007 by the Presidents of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission, and the Action Plan presented by the Commission in May 2008 for the implementation of the consensus,

– having regard to the Council conclusions of December 2007 inviting the Commission to make the best use of the Community Civil Protection mechanism and to further strengthen cooperation between Member States,

– having regard to the guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets in the event of disaster (Oslo Guidelines), as revised on 27 November 2006,

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament of 23 February 2009 on an ‘EU strategy for supporting disaster risk reduction in developing countries’,

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council of March 2008 on ‘Reinforcing the Union's Disaster Response Capacity’ (COM(2008) 0130) and the European Parliament resolution of 19 June 2008 on stepping up the Union's disaster response capacity(1),

– having regard to the report of 9 May 2006 by Michel Barnier entitled ‘For a European civil protection force: europe aid’,

– having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 10 February 2010 on the recent earthquake in Haiti(2),

– having regard to its resolution of 21 September 2010 on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters,

– having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council of 23 March 2010 on setting up an EU rapid response capability, presented by Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Charles Goerens, Louis Michel, Marielle De Sarnez and Frédérique Ries on behalf of the ALDE Group pursuant to Rule 121(1) of the Rules of Procedure (B7-0228/2010),

– having regard to Rule 121(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0332/2010),

A. whereas disasters causing significant human, economic and environmental damage are on the increase worldwide; whereas such crises are happening with greater impact, frequency and scope in more parts of the world, mainly due to the effects of climate change; and whereas the European Union is making considerable efforts to respond to these crises,

B. whereas the multiplication and greater frequency of interventions inside and outside the European Union are compounded by the global financial situation and budgetary constraints which underline the need for more cost effective operations,

C. whereas sharing of resources among the 31 states that are members of the Community civil protection mechanism (EU-27, Norway, Lichtenstein, Croatia, Iceland), or in the context of enhanced cooperation between Member States, can represent an operational and financial asset,

D. whereas the Commission's budget for humanitarian disasters, and specifically that of DG ECHO , has not merely been frozen but has fallen slightly in real terms over the last five years,

E. whereas progress has been made in recent years towards a more coherent EU disaster response, notably through progressive strengthening of the civil protection mechanism, better interaction/coordination between civil protection and humanitarian aid, and the recognition that an integrated approach to disaster management involves not only response but also prevention and preparedness,

F. whereas the European Union's response to the earthquake in Haiti triggered not only a rapid, significant and large scale humanitarian aid intervention but also the activation of the civil protection mechanism which was able to deploy immediately and for the first time two modules (a water purification unit and an advanced medical post) financed through a 2008 Preparatory Action for an EU rapid response capability,

G. whereas lessons learned from recent crises continue to demonstrate the need to improve the EU's disaster response in terms of efficiency, coordination and visibility, and whereas these disasters have once again highlighted the need for an EU rapid response capability (European civil protection force),

H. whereas the EU's capacity to protect citizens' lives and property is a decisive factor for its credibility,

1. Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

(a)

acknowledges that the inclusion of civil protection and humanitarian aid within the portfolio of a single Commissioner responsible for Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response creates better synergies within the Commission and helps enhance the coherence of the overall EU disaster response;

(b)

calls for greater integration between civil protection and humanitarian working methodologies within DG ECHO, while preserving their specific features by maintaining a clear distinction and demarcation of roles between them, in order to maximize synergies and complementarities and to enhance efficiency; calls also for military and civilian personnel and humanitarian workers involved in disaster response or humanitarian operations to act in accordance with the principles of neutrality, independence and impartiality;

(c)

reiterates that the use of civil protection resources, where deployed in any humanitarian crisis, should be needs driven and complementary to, and coherent with, humanitarian aid, in accordance with the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and the United Nations guidelines (Oslo guidelines), with a view to ensuring compliance with the humanitarian principles of neutrality, humanity, impartiality and independence;

(d)

insists that EU assistance in the event of natural or man-made disasters should aim, wherever possible, at helping the local economy, for example by purchasing locally or regionally produced foodstuffs as well as providing the necessary materials for farmers in order to relaunch the rural economy;

(e)

asks the Council and the Commission to clarify the arrangements for cooperation and coordination between the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission for the management of a large-scale disaster response outside the territory of the European Union;

(f)

suggests localised coordination efforts, in cooperation with the national government of the affected state, using EU and Member States' representatives on the ground to ensure a targeted and competent response to affected localities;

(g)

urges the Council to strengthen the EU's disaster response capacity as a high priority, especially in view of the discussions on setting up an EU Civil Protection Force, and to follow up the European Parliament's repeated requests that the proposals put forward in the Barnier report in 2006 should be implemented;

(h)

calls for the immediate establishment of an EU Civil Protection Force which must be adequately equipped with the necessary technological and technical resources;

(i)

calls also, in the context of operations following a natural disaster, for better coordination between the humanitarian agencies and the civil protection mechanisms of the Member States and DG ECHO, and any future European civil protection force;

(j)

urges the Commission to develop programs with national governments, local authorities and civil society organisations in beneficiary countries with regard to community-based disaster prevention and response management capacity;

(k)

encourages the Council to adopt, under the ordinary legislative procedure, measures (to be proposed by the Commission) for improving the predictability and the forward-planning capacity of the current EU civil protection mechanism, which is currently based on ad-hoc and voluntary contributions from Member States; suggests that these measures may include arrangements tested under the EU Preparatory Action including EU-level assets, voluntary pooling of resources, mapping of existing capacities, identification of scenarios and the development of further training activities;

(l)

calls also for realistic budgets in which appropriations for natural disasters or humanitarian action are allocated on the basis of previous years' spending;

(m)

considers that the EU civil protection force should build on the EU Civil Protection mechanism, should optimise the tools available, which would gain in efficiency and visibility, should involve the voluntary pooling of existing logistical and human resources with regard both to disaster-response training and disaster management by developing initiatives taken during preparatory actions, and it should be capable of providing initial aid within 24 hours of the occurrence of a disaster;

(n)

recommends that the EU civil protection force be based on the principles that it should:

	–	be based on an assessment of needs, with the participation of all humanitarian actors,
	–	be civilian,
	–	operate under the banner of the EU,
	–	observe international humanitarian law,
	–	respect the voluntary nature of the Member States' participation in the intended arrangements,
	–	be based on the principle of burden-sharing,
	–	be open to contributions from non-EU countries,
	–	recognise the UN's overall role in coordinating international relief outside the territory of the European Union,
	–	be organised on a preventive basis, according to specific scenarios;

(o)

considers that, with particular reference to humanitarian aid operations, and based on the lessons learned from intervention in Haiti and Pakistan, the EU should, as far as possible, operate under the coordinating umbrella of the UN, concentrating on those fields where its intervention can contribute greater added value;

(p)

considers that the European civil protection force could be based on a commitment by some Member States to voluntarily make available pre-determined civil protection modules that are ready to intervene immediately in EU operations coordinated by the MIC, that most of these modules, which are already available nationally and thus would not entail significant additional costs, would remain under their control, and that the deployment of these modules placed on standby would form the nucleus of the EU's civil protection system for responding to disasters inside and outside the EU;

(q)

considers that additional civil protection modules could be financed by the EU for certain specific requirements where gaps have been identified and where the European level would add value, and stresses the importance of increasing funding for transport and developing standby transport modules;

(r)

underlines the need to develop a comprehensive and proactive approach in response to disasters, coordinating the various means of action available to the Union and its Member States, such as crisis management (civil and military), financial assistance and development or social and environmental policies; believes in this context that the transition between disaster response and post-disaster reconstruction should be managed more efficiently; recalls the proposal to set up a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty (Article 214(5)), and with a view to the European Year of Volunteering 2011 encourages the European Commission and the Council to work, together with the European Parliament, on the rules and procedures for the operation of the Corps as soon as possible, especially in the light of similar initiatives taken by some Member States;

(s)

reminds the Council that the use of military assets and capabilities in disaster response, particularly for logistics, transport and infrastructure support for humanitarian aid operations, should be exceptional, used as a ‘last resort’ and always in compliance with existing agreements such as the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and the Oslo guidelines on the use of military and civil defence assets in international disaster relief;

(t)

acknowledges that military and civil defence assets in disaster relief should be used as a last resort, in compliance with the European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid and the Oslo guidelines; recalls that military means often constitute an important contribution to disaster response, along with civil protection and humanitarian aid, and notes that military assets can be necessary for filling critical capacity gaps (particularly strategic lift, specialised assets, heavy engineering and transport); therefore stresses the need to develop a comprehensive approach and to improve synergies between civil and military capabilities, and to identify areas in which Member States can pool their efforts and capabilities at EU level to contribute to EU disaster response, which is particularly important in a difficult economic climate;

(u)

emphasises the need to build up permanently available civilian capabilities in the EU which operate independently from military structures and to identify areas in which Member States can pool their efforts and capabilities at EU level in this respect;

(v)

urges the Council and the Commission to cooperate on the implementation of a visibility action plan that should include concrete measures to enhance the visibility of the EU's disaster response;

(w)

encourages the utilisation of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) system to keep potential crisis areas under surveillance, allowing for better preparedness in sending humanitarian support, and stresses the critical importance of establishing a follow-up mechanism on EU efforts and assessment of deployed assistance;

(x)

encourages the development of research budgets and industrial capacity (for example satellite imagery in the GMES programme) to improve disaster management phases;

(y)

invites the Council to take the above recommendations into consideration when examining and reaching conclusions on the forthcoming Commission Communication on reinforcing the European Union's Disaster Response Capacity, announced by the European Commission;

2. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission.

(1)	. OJ C 286 E, 27.11.2009, p. 15.
(2)	. Texts Adopted, P7_TA(2010)0015.

Regulation of trading in financial instruments - ‘dark pools’ etc.

226k

59k

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on regulation of trading in financial instruments – ‘dark pools’ etc. (2010/2075(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0466

A7-0326/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Directive 2004/39/EC on markets in financial instruments (MiFID)(1),

– having regard to Directive 2003/6/EC on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse)(2),

– having regard to the G20 declarations of 2 April 2009 in London, of 25 September 2009 in Pittsburgh and of 26 and 27 June 2010 in Toronto,

– having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID Review – Equity Markets (Ref.: CESR/10-394),

– having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID review –Transaction Reporting (Ref.: CESR/10-292),

– having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID review – Investor Protection and Intermediaries (Ref.: CESR/10-417),

– having regard to the CESR call for evidence on micro-structural issues of the European equity markets (Ref.: CESR/10-142),

– having regard to the Report to the French Minister of Economy, Industry and Employment on the revision of the MiFID from February 2010,

– having regard to the IOSCO consultation report on ‘Policies on direct electronic access’ of February 2009,

– having regard to the CPSS and IOSCO recommendations for central counterparties of November 2004,

– having regard to the concept release of the Securities and Exchanges Commission on Equity Market Structure (No. 34-61358; File No. S7-02-10),

– having regard to the CESR technical advice to the European Commission in the context of the MiFID review and responses to the European Commission request for additional information (Ref: CESR/10-802, Ref: CESR/10-799, Ref: CESR/10-808, Ref: CESR/10-859, Ref: CESR/10-860),

– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0326/2010),

A. whereas the G20 set out that no financial institution, no financial product and no territory should remain outside the scope of intelligent regulation and effective supervision and agreed that all standardised OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate,

B. whereas the lack of transparency and the accompanying opacity of risk patterns in the financial system was an aggravating factor in the financial crisis, facilitating the spread of general distrust and thereby contributing to drastically reduced liquidity flows,

C. whereas consumer protection, transparency, particularly as regards the price formation process, efficient and liquid markets and competition on a level playing field were the key objectives when MiFID came into force, but have not yet been achieved and must therefore remain a priority; whereas, following the financial crisis , limiting systemic risk must also be prioritised in the review of MiFID,

D. whereas changes to MiFID should always take into account its importance in governing capital flows into the real economy and therefore the potential impact on jobs, investments and pensions,

E. whereas up to 40% of trading volume is still carried out OTC; whereas market participants should be encouraged to transact more on organised trading venues,

F. whereas the inclusion in the MIFID of waivers to pre-trade transparency requirements and the establishment of MTF and dark pools were intended to facilitate a shift towards more regulated and transparent venues,

G. whereas MiFID defines OTC trading as having the characteristics of being ad hoc and irregular, carried out with wholesale counterparties, and being part of a business relationship which is itself characterised by dealings above standard market size and where the deals are carried out outside the systems usually used by the firm concerned for its business as a systematic internaliser,

H. whereas despite the provision in MiFID of waivers to allow dark trading on organised markets, the establishment of MTFs and Systematic Internalisers (SIs) and the definition of OTC trades as being irregular and ad hoc, OTC trades not carried out on an SI basis continue to account for a high proportion of equities trading at 38% of all reported trades according to CESR/10-394, and whereas this proportion has not declined since the implementation of MiFID; whereas tighter and more effective enforcement of MiFID rules and waivers should therefore be ensured,

I. whereas market fragmentation in equities trading has had an undesired impact upon liquidity and market efficiency owing to a decrease in transparency based on an increase in dark pools and crossing networks, the effect of an increased number of venues both in the on-exchange and off-exchange space, and increasingly technology-driven trading, and has decreased average transaction size from EUR 22 266 in 2006 to EUR 9 923 in 2009, increasing the total cost of transactions for some users,

J. whereas the decrease in transaction size has led to a reduction in the capacity of market participants to instantly execute large orders on a particular market and the desire to prevent market impact for large orders has encouraged the expansion of dark-pool trading; whereas less than 10% of all trading in EEA equities shares on organised markets use the MiFID pre-trade transparency waivers (CESR/10-394), whereas these MiFID waivers allows for dark-pool trading as a more transparent and better regulated alternative to dark trading in the OTC space but whereas the absence of sufficient regulation for OTC transactions, including Broker Crossing Networks, provides a competitive advantage to the OTC space and encourages an increase in trading in the dark, undermining market transparency in general; whereas in total around half of trades are currently not covered by pre-trade transparency requirements, but half of OTC transactions are below market size and therefore do not require protection against market impact,

K. whereas, to ensure a level playing field, broker crossing networks (BCNs) should be subject to an in-depth investigation of their business models, to ensure that where they provide services which mean they are essentially functioning as regulated markets (RMs), multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) or as Systematic Internalisers they are regulated as such,

L. whereas the benefits of competition in terms of more competitive and innovative trading infrastructure has not been proved, as the total transaction costs have not been reduced, and opacity has increased, while at the same time it is clear that quality and integrity for all participants in a more fragmented market are not properly guaranteed,

M. whereas given that HFT claims to provide liquidity to financial markets it would be useful to determine whether there are risks associated with electronic order systems and the significant share of trading volumes attributable to HFT strategies, estimated at 70 % in the US, particularly in view of the conclusions of the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the US ‘flash crash’ on 6 May 2010 when HFT liquidity providers exited the market,

N. whereas HFT strategies are a relatively new phenomenon in Europe and are now estimated to make up 35% of the market by volume,

O. whereas greater transparency via pre- and post-trade reporting of trading activity across all asset classes should be established in order to provide improved early warning of the build-up and scale of developing problems, as well as to improve the efficiency of the price formation process and foster trust between market actors,

P. whereas the G20 decisions of 24 and 25 September 2009 in Pittsburgh stated that ‘all standardised OTC derivative contracts should be traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms’,

Q. whereas divergence of implementation between Member States has led to an incomplete application of the MiFID framework,

MIFID Trading Venues

1. Recognises that market infrastructures have been resilient throughout the crisis and calls upon the Commission to nonetheless strengthen market infrastructures across all trading venues and clearing systems to enable them to cope with future risk through enhanced transparency, improved resilience and regulatory oversight of all aggregated trades;

2. Welcomes the Commission's proposal for a Regulation on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories as a necessary prerequisite for increasing transparency and safety within the markets in financial instruments and regards it as the first step towards shifting the significant proportions of OTC trade to trade venues subject to MIFID regulation;

3. Suggests that, in the interests of equitable treatment, MTFs should be subject to the same level of supervision as, and therefore regulated in a comparable way to, competition between MTFs and that RMs should happen on a level playing field, while noting the important role of MTFs for market entry;

4. Asks for ESMA to conduct an investigation into the functioning and purpose of the Systematic Internaliser (SI) regime and the bringing forward of improvements to the way in which this category is regulated in order to ensure that this regime is used for execution of orders on a bilateral basis with the financial counterparty;

5. Demands that investment firms which provide a portfolio management service and act in a portfolio management capacity must be provided with best execution by the investment firms with whom they place orders, notwithstanding the fact that the portfolio manager is categorised by MiFID as an eligible counterparty;

6. Calls for ESMA to conduct a review of whether order-by-order best execution needs to be better served by regulation in relation to the availability of data, both post-trade and in relation to execution quality, and in relation to market technology, such as order routers and venue connections;

7. Calls for thorough enforcement of the provisions in MIFID in order to ensure that BCNs that are carrying out activities equivalent to an RM, MTF or SI are regulated as such, and, in order to facilitate this enforcement, insists that all BCNs should be required to submit to the competent authorities all necessary information including:

	–	a description of the system, ownership and clients,
	–	details on access to the system,
	–	orders matched in the system,
	–	trading methodologies and broker discretion,
	–	arrangements for immediate post-trade reporting;

8. Asks for an investigation into OTC trading of equities and calls for improvements to the way in which OTC trading is regulated with a view to ensuring that the use of RMs and MTFs in the execution of orders on a multilateral basis and of SIs in the execution of orders on a bilateral basis increases, and that the proportion of equities trading carried out OTC declines substantially;

9. Asks for an investigation by the Commission into the effects of setting a minimum order size for all dark transactions, and whether it could be rigorously enforced so as to maintain adequate flow of trade through the lit venues in the interests of price discovery;

Pre-Trade Transparency Waivers

10. Calls on the Commission to conduct a review of the existing MiFID pre-trade transparency waivers to:

	–	consider whether a suitable minimum threshold should be introduced for the Reference Price waiver to encourage the use of lit venues,
	–	consider broadening the Reference Price waiver to include trades that fall within the current spread in the reference market,
	–	introduce a maximum volume of transactions that could use pre-trade transparency waivers in order to guarantee efficient price discovery,
	–	give ESMA the possibility of adapting and restricting pre-trade waivers as necessary, taking into account the impact of dark trading on the efficiency of markets;

11. Asks for a uniform application of pre-trade waivers across Member States to limit implementing differences that can lead to uncertainty, regulatory arbitrage and an uneven playing field; suggests that technical standards defined by ESMA could be an appropriate way of achieving this, in keeping with the concept of a single rule book for financial services;

Consolidated Tape

12. Welcomes the recent announcement by market participants that they will be unbundling their pre- and post-trade data, and calls for further efforts towards common data standards and better availability of data;

13. Calls on the Commission to establish a working group to overcome the difficulties preventing the consolidation of market data in Europe and particularly the poor quality of reporting data across all transactions;

14. Calls upon ESMA to draw up common reporting standards and formats for the reporting of all post-trade data, both on organised trading venues and OTC, to aid in data consolidation;

15. Asks that all reporting venues be required to unbundle post-trade data from pre-trade data so information can be made available to all market participants at a commercially reasonable and comparable cost; further, asks the Commission to consider the introduction of Approved Publication Arrangements (APAs) in order to introduce quality standards for trade publication and reduce the number of venues that trades can be reported to, as well as the use of internet pages, which are an obstacle to consolidation;

16. Calls for a reduction in the time limit for deferred publication so transactions are reported to the regulators within twenty-four hours of taking place; takes the view, with regard to publication of transactions, that in ordinary circumstances delays of more than one minute should be considered unacceptable;

17. Deems that it is essential to analyse the breakdown and business models of OTC trading, and therefore calls for the introduction of specific flags in pre- and post-trade transparency for OTC trades with a view to further understanding the characteristics of such OTC trades and assessing which types of transaction can legitimately be done OTC owing to their specific characteristics;

Micro-structural issues

18. Insists that post-‘flash crash’, all trading platforms must be able to demonstrate to national supervisors that their technology and surveillance systems are able to withstand the kind of barrage of orders experienced on 6 May 2010 so as to ensure that they could successfully deal with the activity associated with HFT and algorithmic trading in extreme circumstances and show that they are able to re-create their order books by end of day so that causes of unusual market activity can be pinpointed and any suspected market abuse identified;

19. Calls on ESMA to conduct an examination of the costs and benefits of algorithmic and high-frequency trading (HFT) on markets and its impact upon other market users, particularly institutional investors, to determine whether the significant market flow generated automatically is providing real liquidity to the market and what effect this has on overall price discovery, as well as the potential for abuses by manipulation of the market leading to an uneven playing field between market participants, and its impact on overall market stability;

20. Calls for the practice of ‘layering’ or ‘quote stuffing’ to be explicitly defined as market abuse;

21. Calls for an investigation into whether to regulate firms that pursue HFT strategies in order to ensure that they have robust systems and controls with ongoing regulatory reviews of the algorithms they use, the capacity for intra-day monitoring and interrogation about real-time outstanding positions and leverage, and the ability to demonstrate that they have strong management procedures in place for abnormal events;

22. Calls for an examination of HFT's challenges in terms of market monitoring; recognises the need for regulators to have the appropriate means to detect and monitor potential abusive behaviour; with this in mind, calls for the reporting to the competent authorities of all orders received by regulated markets and MTFs, as well as of trades done on these platforms;

23. Calls for all trading venues allowing co-location of servers, whether directly or through third-party data providers, to ensure that equal access for all co-located clients is maintained and where possible under the same infrastructure latency arrangements in order to comply with non-discriminatory practice outlined in MiFID;

24. Calls upon regulators to monitor and regulate the provision of sponsored access and upon the Commission to consider additional measures including:

	–	expressly prohibiting unfiltered sponsored access to companies, regardless of whether they belong to the same corporate group as the sponsor,
	–	requiring broker-dealers and investment firms to establish, document and maintain a system of risk-management controls, pre- and post-trade, and supervisory procedures to manage the financial, regulatory and other risks related to its market access;

25. Calls, notwithstanding the necessary application of safeguards, for ESMA to further investigate whether sponsored access crosses the threshold of non-discriminatory access;

26. Calls on the Commission to adopt the principles being developed by the Technical Committee of IOSCO on direct electronic access, including sponsored access, which will cover the criteria for selecting clients who can be given sponsored access and the contractual relationship between the platform, the member and the client and will outline their respective responsibilities regarding their use with suitable controls and filters;

27. Takes the view that, in order to comply with the principle that all investors should be treated equally, the practice of flash orders should be explicitly ruled out;

28. Calls for an investigation by ESMA into fee structures to ensure that execution fees, ancillary fees, investment firms' commission fees, and any other related incentives are transparent, non-discriminatory and consistent with reliable price formation and are designed and implemented so as not to encourage trading for improper purposes and to assess whether a minimal charge should be paid by users posting orders, whether these orders are executed or not, as these orders need to be processed by the market infrastructure;

29. Suggests ESMA conduct a study of the maker/taker fee model to determine whether any recipient of the more favourable ‘maker’ fee structure should also be subject to formal market maker obligations and supervision;

30. Asks for ESMA supervision and definition by implementing acts of robust volatility interrupts and circuit breakers which operate simultaneously across all EU trading venues in order to prevent a US-style ‘flash crash’ event;

Scope

31. Requests that no unregulated market participant be able to gain direct or unfiltered sponsored access to formal trading venues and that significant market participants trading on their own account be required to register with the regulator and allow their trading activities to be subject to an appropriate level of supervision and scrutiny for stability purposes;

32. Calls for proprietary trading activities conducted via algorithmic trading strategies by unregulated entities to be transacted solely through a regulated financial counterparty;

33. Calls for the extension of the scope of the MiFID transparency regime to all ‘equity-like’ instruments including depository receipts (DRs), exchange traded funds (ETFs), exchange traded commodities (EDCs) and certificates;

34. Asks the Commission and ESMA to consider introducing a transparency requirement, pre- and post-trade, on all non-equity financial instruments, including government and corporate bond markets and CCP eligible derivatives, to be applied in a manner that differentiates across asset classes where appropriate and at the same time combines with measures that bring about further standardisation of OTC derivative products in order to enable greater application of transparency;

35. Takes the view, taking into account the issues that have been experienced in relation to data quality and consolidation of post-trade data for European equities, that the Commission should ensure that post-trade data for non-equity products are provided in a form which is readily consolidated;

36. Supports the Commission's intention to apply a wider range of MiFID provisions to derivative instruments, as the trading of such products moves increasingly to organised trading venues and is subject to increasing standardisation and central clearing requirements;

37. Calls for a proposal from the Commission to ensure that all OTC derivative contracts that can be standardised are traded on exchanges or electronic trading platforms, where appropriate, in order to ensure that the price of such contracts is formed in a transparent, fair and efficient manner, free from conflict of interest;

38. Requests a review of the IOSCO standards for clearing houses, securities settlement systems and systemically important payment systems with a view to improve further market transparency;

39. Believes that it is necessary for regulators across the different physical and financial commodities markets to have access to the same data in order to identify trends and cross linkages, and calls on the Commission to coordinate efforts both within the EU and globally;

o
o o

40. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the European Central Bank.

(1)	OJ L 145, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
(2)	OJ L 96, 12.4.2003, p. 16.

Strengthening Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Security in the European Union - an EU CBRN Action Plan

414k

104k

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security in the European Union – an EU CBRN Action Plan (2010/2114(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0467

A7-0349/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to Article 3 TEU and Articles 2(5), 67, 74, 196 and 222 TFEU,

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

– having regard to the Programme of the Council and the Commission of 20 December 2002 to improve cooperation in the European Union for preventing and limiting the consequences of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorist threats (2002 CBRN Programme)(1),

– having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism(2), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA(3),

– having regard to the 2003 EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Means of Delivery,

– having regard to the 2003 European Security Strategy - A Secure Europe in a Better World, as adopted by the European Council held in Brussels on 12 December 2003, as well as the 2010 EU Internal Security Strategy(4) and the Commission Comunication on it (COM(2010)0673),

– having regard to the 2004 EU Solidarity Programme on the consequences of terrorist threats and attacks(5),

– having regard to the 2005 EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy, as adopted by the Brussels European Council on 1 December 2005(6), and the implementing Action Plan(7),

– having regard to the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015(8) as adopted by the World Conference on Disaster Reduction held from 18 to 22 January 2005 in Japan,

– having regard to the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development(9), in particular its funding of the CBRN Emap project(10),

– having regard to Council Decision 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument(11),

– having regard to Council Decision 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (recast)(12),

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items(13),

– having regard to Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection(14), specifically in the case of actions with a cross-border impact, which, inter alia, lays down guidelines for an integrated approach to increasing capabilities for critical infrastructure protection at EU level, including the need for a Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN), and confers on the Commission a role of drawing up proposals and providing coordination in connection with the improvement of the protection of such critical infrastructures,

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Strengthening Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Security in the European Union - an EU CBRN Action Plan (COM(2009)0273),

– having regard to the Council conclusions of 30 November 2009 on strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) security in the European Union and approving an EU CBRN Action Plan(15),

– having regard to the Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens(16),

– having regard to the Communication on the EU Counter-Terrorism Policy: Main achievements and future challenges (COM(2010)0386),

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission on Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (COM(2010)0171),

– having regard to its past resolutions on CBRN topics and disaster prevention and response, and in that regard to its recent resolution of 10 February 2010 on the earthquake in Haiti(17), which calls for the establishment of a European civil protection force,

– having regard to its resolution of 21 September 2010 on the Commission communication: A Community approach on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters(18),

– having regard to the revised Council Presidency proposal of 25 October 2010 for draft Council conclusions on preparedness and response in the event of a CBRN attack, drawn up on the basis of the objectives set out in Action H.29, improving emergency planning, of the EU CBRN Action Plan(19), as adopted by the Council on 8 November 2010,

– having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (COM(2010)0600),

– having regard to Rule 48 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 Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0349/2010),

A. whereas the EU can point to a long-term involvement in CBRN programmes, starting with the conclusions of the Ghent European Council of 19 October 2001 and of the Laeken European Council of 13-14 December 2001; whereas a CBRN Programme was adopted in 2002, and then replaced by the EU Solidarity Programme in 2004, and whereas a new EU CBRN Action Plan was adopted by the Council on 12 November 2009,

B. whereas CBRN disasters, whether accidental or resulting from a terrorist attack, pose serious threats to the security and health of the people living in the EU, affecting their lives, the environment and assets, including their cultural heritage and the functioning of society in one or several EU Member States, by disrupting critical infrastructures and governance capabilities,

C. whereas both the Council and the Commission agree that the number of incidents involving CBRN material, including acts of terrorism, has so far been relatively small, and whereas the majority of the disasters involving CBRN substances have been due to industrial accidents or to the increase in, and worldwide spread of, dangerous pathogens,

D. whereas the existing and continuous risk of CBRN disasters on European Union territory, whether accidental or intentional, severely compromises the full enjoyment of all fundamental rights and freedoms, and is in contradiction with the promise to create and the development of a European area of freedom, security and justice,

E. whereas one of the greatest CBRN risks stem from proliferation of CBRN material by terrorist organisations, and whereas, therefore, an important measure concerns the strengthening of the non-proliferation regime and disarmament through the universal and full implementation of all relevant treaties and international agreements (namely the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention) and achieving agreement on a treaty on banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty),

F. whereas the manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons and explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons and instruction in the making or use of explosives, firearms or other weapons for illegal purposes is part of the EU definition of terrorism and training for terrorism as referred to in Council Framework Decisions 2002/475/JHA and 2008/919/JHA,

G. whereas measures regarding CBRN material are one of the cornerstones of the EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy, and whereas, consequently, an EU CBRN Action Plan was approved by the Council on 30 November 2009,

H. whereas the problem of the misuse of certain chemicals, which are widely available to the general public on the market, as precursors to home-made explosives, may give rise to a series of terrorist and other criminal incidents in the EU; whereas this calls for strong monitoring and scrutiny of the implementation of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the marketing and use of explosive precursors (COM(2010)0473),

I. whereas following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty a new balance of responsibilities between the various EU institutions, on one hand, and the EU and its Member States, including defence expertise, on the other, is being established; whereas the building of such a new framework is a continuous process demanding an understanding of shared values and a common goal,

J. whereas in principle the Member States are responsible for CBRN policy, but whereas close cooperation and coordination at EU level is nevertheless a necessity,

K. whereas the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) offers opportunities to improve the EU's overall crisis response through actions under the Instrument for Stability (IfS),

L. whereas an EU CBRN Action Plan should make for the efficient interaction of national and EU initiatives in addressing CBRN risks and in preparing the necessary responses, enhancing both ‘horizontal’ coordination between the Commission and Member States and ‘vertical’ coordination between the EU-level instruments and Member States' instruments, in order to increase the effectiveness and speed of information sharing, the exchange of best practices, analytical reporting at all stages, joint planning, the development of operational procedures, operational exercises and the cost-effective pooling of existing resources,

M. whereas several EU criminal law-enforcement agencies are involved in CBRN measures, for example Europol, through the establishment of a European Bomb Database and the Early Warning System for explosives and CBRN material; whereas this calls for the establishment of proper procedures for the exercise of scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments, as envisaged, for example, by Article 88 TFEU,

N. whereas health risks and the related prevalence of dangerous pathogens are increasingly occurring within the EU and globally, as has been demonstrated by the recent A/H1N1 outbreak,

O. whereas environmental pollution and contamination issues, including those of a cross-border nature, can be raised by CBRN incidents, making it necessary to include recovery and decontamination strategies in the EU CBRN policy,

P. whereas the overall goal of the new EU CBRN policy is ‘to reduce the threat and damage from CBRN incidents to the citizens of the European Union’, and whereas this is to be achieved by ‘minimising the likelihood of CBRN incidents occurring and limiting their consequences should they materialise’,

Q. whereas the Commission, in its Communication on the EU's Role in Global Health(20), recognises the need to coordinate measures at EU level and globally in order to respond rapidly to health threats and commits itself to improving preparedness and response mechanisms to epidemics or outbreaks, including deliberate acts, such as bioterrorism,

R. whereas, compared to nuclear technology and its precursors, biological materials, such as anthrax, are cheaper and much easier to acquire and spread, providing possibilities for unconventional terrorist attacks posing dire long-term threats to health and the environment, including agriculture and the food supply,

S. whereas first responders, including police, fire and ambulance services, are unable to assist victims at the site of a CBRN incident without risk to personal safety unless they have received pre-exposure protection in the form of medical countermeasures and adequate training,

T. whereas regional stockpiles of medical countermeasures provide adequate protection for citizens by balancing public health protection and economic concerns, while also ensuring Member State responsibility and solidarity,

U. whereas the World Health Organisation, with its Global Alert and Response(21) programme, seeks to strengthen bio-safety, bio-security and readiness for outbreaks of dangerous and emerging pathogens,

V. whereas the EU is an active participant, through its Member States and the Commission, in the discussions of the Global Health Security Initiative aimed at achieving concerted global action to strengthen public health preparedness and provide a response to the threat of international biological, chemical and radio-nuclear terrorism,

W. whereas the threat to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear safety arises not only from terrorist attacks or negligence, but also from the current areas polluted with chemical weapons from the Second World War that were dumped on the seabed or on nuclear waste sites in the EU,

X. whereas the appropriate level of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear safety in the EU also depends on the security level applied in third countries,

Y. whereas new threats to security could arise from the use of new technologies in planning new acts of terrorism, while security standards are not being adapted fast enough to technological progress,

Z. whereas a thorough review of the various standards currently applicable is needed in order to set necessary and sufficient security requirements,

AA. whereas the EU CBRN Action Plan is divided into three main parts: Prevention, Detection, and Preparedness and Response, and includes a fourth chapter on ‘Actions applicable to CBRN prevention, detection and response’; and whereas recognising the importance of each of the stages is crucial to ensure proper implementation of risk-assessment studies, responses and countermeasures, while adopting a cross-cutting and cross-border approach to dealing with CBRN materials, i.e. through the proper allocation of measurable goals and actions at each stage,

AB. whereas the changes made by the Council to the current EU CBRN Action Plan proposed by the Commission make the Action Plan weaker, making the commitment on the part of Member States non-binding and watering down the measures provided for, many of which are kept at national level instead of being given an EU-wide scope, as well as weakening the monitoring and scrutiny of their implementation by the Commission, sometimes even failing to include the Commission as an ‘involved actor’ along with the Member States,

General guidelines

1. Notes that the EU CBRN Action Plan straddles the new division of competences between the Member States and the EU following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, as envisaged in Article 5 TEU in connection with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality; points out that the EU CBRN Action Plan covers the area of shared internal competences (Article 4 TFEU) regarding the area of freedom, security and justice, common safety concerns, and transport; civil protection measures (Article 196 TFEU); as well as external actions of the Union (Articles 21 and 22 TEU);

2. Points out, however, that the implementation of the common CBRN security system should not reduce the competence of the Member States in this policy area;

3. Considers that the action plan will play a key role in ensuring the smooth interaction of national and European initiatives in addressing CBRN risks;

4. Acknowledges that it is crucial to leverage the competent expertise and avoid duplication, fragmentation and inconsistency in the EU institutions' and/or the Member States' efforts in the security and defence areas where the fundamental right to life is at risk and where the implications of carelessness and laxity know no borders;

5. Stresses that the EU should strengthen its common approach to CBRN prevention, detection and response through the creation of specific mechanisms (regulatory, legislative or non-legislative instruments) which make cooperation and the provision of means of assistance compulsory in the event of a CBRN disaster caused by an accident or terrorist attack; recalls that the main objective of the EU institutions should be to ensure the efficiency of a national or transnational response to a CBRN accident or terrorist attack, on the basis of EU solidarity, in a coordinated manner under the auspices of the Commission and with a pan-European outreach;

6. Recalls that an EU CBRN Action Plan offers an opportunity to enable the EU and its Member States to find the legislative means to effectively implement the Solidarity Clause included in Article 222 TFEU, and that Member States must be informed of each others' plans and best practices to deal with and counter CBRN disasters, whether caused accidentally or intentionally, so that they can come to each others' assistance in a coordinated and effective manner;

7. Stresses that it is essential to strengthen the scope for normative and regulatory intervention by the Commission, which in the present version of the EU CBRN Action Plan is afforded a somewhat vague role in connection with many of the goals and actions provided for; consequently, urges that the Commission should issue legislative proposals, as far as possible, in all areas covered by the Action Plan; and stresses that only if a robust regulatory role is entrusted to the Commission can gaps in the efforts developed by each Member State be filled;

8. Urges that the commitment of the Member States to CBRN control must go further than the simple sharing of best practices and information, and that technologies and infrastructures should also be pooled/shared, so as to avoid duplication and waste of resources, in order to create valuable and cost-effective synergies at EU level; calls on the Member States to agree on methods for the detection and prevention of CBRN disasters, the transferral of CBRN materials within the EU and response measures, including sharing of CBRN-related information and cross-border assistance;

9. Encourages, therefore, the most advanced Member States in the field of internal security, despite its vulnerable and quintessentially national nature, to share their information, technologies and infrastructures and launch joint strategic projects as referred to above; calls on the Commission and Council to create and regularly update a database of the medical countermeasures that are available in the Member States to respond to CBRN incidents, to encourage the sharing of existing capacities and to coordinate a cost-efficient policy for the acquisition of such countermeasures;

10. Calls for EU quality and security standards, as well as an EU system and network of laboratories for the certification of CBRN security equipment and technologies, to be developed; underlines that strict security standards and hiring procedures also need to apply to personnel employed at facilities with access to harmful agents; calls for the sharing and use of best knowledge and expertise from both the civil and military fields; again under the leadership of the Commission, stresses that the necessary research and development funding should be provided to ensure that applied research and major demonstration programmes with an EU dimension are carried out, and, given the fragmentation of this market, that an EU industrial policy in the field of civil security is needed, stimulating cooperation between enterprises in the EU and with specific support for small and medium-sized enterprises/small and medium-sized industries (SMEs/SMIs), which create a significant share of innovation under the FP7/Security, which should be increased, and that efforts should be made to stimulate cooperation (particularly cross-border cooperation) between European enterprises; wishes to see the emergence of a comprehensive project management capability to manage all aspects of CBRN security projects, covering the entire life cycle of the CBRN threat (prevention, detection and response); calls on the Commission to propose a strategy for developing the biodefence industry in Europe;

11. Welcomes the fact that CBRN protection is being addressed as a topic under the established European Framework Cooperation (EFC) for Security and Defence Research between the Commission, the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European Defence Agency (EDA); stresses that complementarity, coordination and synergy between defence R&T investment and research investment for civilian security by the Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme would require genuine improvements in the relevant legal conditions governing the exchange of information within the EFC and between activities at national and EU level, as provided for by Council Decision 2006/971/EC of 19 December 2006 concerning the Specific Programme Cooperation implementing the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013)(22); calls for the development of applied research with a European dimension concerning the safety of installations, in order to protect local communities and the environment, and for the launching of major demonstration programmes; encourages the creation of centres of expertise specialising in CBRN threats and mobility for researchers;

12. Insists on the implementation of suitable safeguards and security measures when dealing with pooled databases of Member States and sensitive research data, as such a focus on security of data will encourage greater cooperation and sharing of information amongst Member State authorities and bodies;

13. Stresses the importance of enhanced preparedness, and calls for regular mapping of national capabilities and assets, as well as joint exercises among Member States;

14. Calls for the urgent establishment of a European crisis-response mechanism, based in the Commission's services, which should coordinate civilian and military means so as to ensure that the EU has a rapid-response capability to deal with a CBRN disaster; and reiterates its call for the establishment of a European civil protection force based on the existing EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which will enable the Union to bring together the resources necessary for providing emergency assistance, including humanitarian aid, within 24 hours of a CBRN disaster inside or outside EU territory; stresses that suitable bridges and partnerships should also be built between bodies such as Europol, Interpol and law-enforcement authorities in the Member States with a view to creating an appropriate and effective network for proactive anticipation/real-time monitoring of emergencies and operational engagement/coordination to deal with CBRN-related disasters, and stresses the need to report to the Commission as well; recalls the 2006 Barnier report entitled ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe aid’(23) which Parliament strongly supported, and welcomes in that regard the new willingness by the Commission to create a European Emergency Response Capacity, as stated in the Commission Communication entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (COM(2010)0600);

15. Calls for dual-use civil-military technologies to be exploited as a source of synergies; within well-defined strategic collaboration frameworks, encourages cooperation with the EDA, NATO countries, such as the United States and Canada, and third countries which are pioneers in the field of CBRN security, through the exchange of good practices, structured dialogues between experts and joint capacity development; stresses the importance of the EU Member States' carrying out joint exercises in preventing and tackling CBRN security incidents, with the participation of the Member States' armed forces and civil protection forces and the EU Civil Protection Mechanism;

16. Notes that the existing EU Civil Protection Mechanism, as defined in Council Decision 2007/779/EC, is currently the appropriate instrument to deal with CBRN disasters, and stresses that this structure should be the forum where emergency decisions concerning CBRN disaster preparedness and response should be taken; notes, however, that in order to achieve this goal and to ensure proper prevention and detection, cooperation must be established with civil protection bodies, with the intelligence and law-enforcement authorities, as well as with security-service, military information and response centres in each of the Member States and at EU level, such as the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability (CPCC) of the Political and Security Committee (PSC) and the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen); recalls, further, the role of the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security (COSI), which is tasked with facilitating, promoting and strengthening operational cooperation among the relevant national authorities of the Member States in the field of internal security;

17. Recalls that the Joint Situation Centre (SitCen) has been placed within the new External Action Service, and that its personnel come mainly from the Member States' intelligence and police services; stresses that its role is of the utmost importance in supporting national crisis management centres;

18. Calls on the Member States to coordinate their efforts, under the supervision of the Commission, in order to enhance the interoperability of equipment, capabilities and technologies in the field of civil protection so as to efficiently put into practice the new solidarity clause in the event of a CRBN disaster;

19. Stresses that the strengthening of the EU's civil protection capacity must include besides the exploration of dual-use technologies, infrastructures and capabilities, as well the strategic cooperation with the EDA, as referred to above, the ESA, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and other international CBRN centres or programmes of excellence;

20. Urges the Member States to appoint or create a national authority which, in the event of a CBRN attack or disaster, would be tasked with the responsibility of acting as the main coordinator of all the national and local bodies involved, and of all the counter measures taken to respond to such an event;

21. Endorses the assessment that CBRN attacks are a serious threat to the security of people living in the EU; therefore supports all measures which offer greater protection against CBRN attacks;

22. Emphasises that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with full respect for international human rights law and European fundamental rights law, principles and values, including the principle of the rule of law; recalls the need to respect the principles of the Aarhus Convention on public access to information, participation and judicial review in matters relating to the environment;

23. Recalls that preventing terrorist access to CBRN materials is a key priority under both the current 2005 EU Counter-Terrorism Strategy and the future one, as well as under the 2003 EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Means of Delivery; requests, therefore, that the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator report regularly to Parliament, through the appropriate and relevant EU agencies and experts, on the level of any potential CBRN risks or threats within the Union or against EU citizens and interests elsewhere; insists that further clarification is needed of the appropriate roles of the various EU and national bodies involved in the fight against terrorism; acknowledges, in that connection, the coordination role of the COSI and the SitCen; calls for Parliament, as the only directly democratically elected body in the EU, and in the framework of its prerogatives, to guarantee democratic oversight of both these bodies and, thus, be kept promptly and fully informed about their activities, in a way that maintains their secure functioning;

24. Urges the EU institutions to maintain democratic scrutiny of and transparency regarding the development and implementation of all parts of the EU CBRN Action plan, respecting the public's right to access to all information and relevant documentation that concerns public security and the everyday risks associated with CBRN disasters;

25. Calls for the mainstreaming of the measures provided for in the CBRN Action Plan in all the EU‘s external relations instruments for economic cooperation and political dialogue with third countries (including in the EU’s non-proliferation clauses); urges the Commission and Council, in their political and economic dialogue with third countries, to use all available means (including Common Foreign and Security Policy and external relations instruments) to promote standards for the detection and prevention, including information sharing, and response to CBRN incidents in third countries, as outlined in the Action Plan;

26. Stresses the close link and mirror effect between security inside and security outside the European Union; welcomes, in this regard, the actions taken by CBRN regional centres of excellence in flashpoints outside the European Union with the aim of encouraging expertise networks, improving the capacity to control exports and prevent illegal trafficking in CBRN substances, and strengthening the regulatory arsenal available to these countries and regional cooperation in this field; encourages the idea of providing training in Europe for international experts from countries at risk in respecting the necessary security and confidentiality rules;

27. Urges the EU institutions and Member States to resist pressure from industry and other interested stakeholders seeking to escape the burden of more regulation, as is to be expected (and as emerges clearly from a comparison between the Commission and the Council versions of the EU CBRN Action Plan); considers that industry concerns about the quality and impact of the proposed regulatory measures should be taken into consideration, without losing sight of what is at stake, namely the rights to life, liberty and security of all people in Europe and their societies; stresses the priority of ensuring supervision and protection of CBRN materials throughout the EU and the efficiency of the EU response to a disaster, be it accidental or intentional and the importance of working towards the elimination of such threats;

28. Calls on the Member States to participate fully in the implementation phases of the EU CBRN Action Plan, cooperating in this respect with the EU bodies that are translating the goals and actions of the Action Plan into concrete steps, so that CBRN security is guaranteed in each of EU Member States;

Prevention

29. Calls on the Commission to act as the main facilitator and monitor in connection with the establishment and regular updating of EU lists on CBRN agents, whereby the Commission should be the one to decide on a reasonable timeframe; insists that the lists should also include possible preventive and response measures for each CBRN agent, in accordance with its level of dangerousness and potential for malicious use and vulnerability;

30. Takes the view that the EU CBRN Action Plan must set risk-based higher standards where security assessment criteria for high-risk CBRN facilities are concerned, and stresses the role and responsibility of national authorities to carry out regular checks of these facilities since the development of ‘criteria’, as stated in the current Action Plan amended and adopted by the Council, is in itself simply not enough and sets an astonishingly low standard, coupled with the low levels of responsibility allocated to the organisations dealing with CBRN materials, relevant Member States authorities and EU bodies; notes, further, that all measures taken should be proportionate to the probable risks;

31. Stresses that security arrangements and requirements at high-risk CBRN facilities throughout the EU must be the subject of EU regulations, rather than merely ‘good-practice documents’, through a consistent consultation process bringing together EU bodies, Member State authorities and organisations dealing with high-risk CBRN agents; urges that until such regulations are adopted and in place, a greater monitoring and inspection role should be entrusted to the Commission;

32. Welcomes the initiatives of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) in supporting IAEA programmes and nuclear inspections; recommends that measures should be taken to pool its databases and research findings with those of the Member States;

33. Supports the drawing-up of strategies to raise awareness among enterprises, the scientific and university community and financial institutions of the risks linked to the proliferation and trafficking of CBRN material in the context of their work and activities; takes the view, in more general terms, that confidentiality is a vital component of the effectiveness of certain security measures in the action plan, and that it is important to guard against any risk of disclosure that could render them ineffective;

34. Believes that the Commission and Member State authorities should oversee the activities carried out by the organisations dealing with high-risk CBRN materials and should ensure that these organisations comply with risk-based security and public safety standards, which implies that proper inspections of high-risk sites must be carried out regularly;

35. Considers that the ‘Prevention’ part of the EU CBRN Action Plan should be amended in such a way as to ensure that the chemicals industry replaces the use of high-risk chemicals with suitable lower-risk alternatives, where such replacement is scientifically, technologically and environmentally possible and there is a clear increase in security; recognises the economic costs such replacement may entail and their impact on the relevant industries, but urges the EU, the Member States and the private sector to put the safety of EU citizens first; recommends, in this connection, that a specific link should be established with the existing REACH Regulation(24), something which the version of the Action Plan proposed by the Commission rightly sought to do; calls on the Commission to deliver a study on the implementation of the REACH Regulation in this respect;

36. Stresses that the greatest CBRN risks stem from the proliferation of CBRN material by terrorists; stresses, therefore, the importance of making international control regimes more effective, and of improving border and export controls;

37. Calls on the Council and the Commission to urge all Member States to sign and to meet their commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and to do their utmost to promote the Additional Verification Protocol to the BWC, which includes lists of dangerous biological agents and pathogens and provisions on disclosure statements and monitoring inspections; also urges the Member States, the Council, the Commission and the international community to draw up, as part of the Verification Annex to the CWC, a list of all potentially harmful chemical substances, including white phosphorus;

38. Calls, further, on the Commission and the Council to continue to step up activities in support of the treaty system, in particular the conventions on chemical and biological weapons, therefore calling on all EU Member States to impose a strict ban on the production and use of biological and chemical weapons and to disarm their own weapons;

39. Is aware that proliferation increases the threat of diversion by terrorist groups and encourages the EU to continue its efforts towards universalising the legal framework for combating nuclear terrorism and ensuring that the current rules are complied with; supports cooperation projects with third countries, for example in the Mediterranean basin, in order to combat trafficking in nuclear and radiological material; calls on the EU to universalise the CWC and the BWC with a view to the Conference to review the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 2011;

40. Calls on the Commission to present comparative data and an overall assessment of the state of play in industries in Europe when it comes to securing and increasing control over high-risk CBRN materials, including an overview of all relevant national laws regarding implementation of the CWC, the BWC and other international instruments related to CBRN materials; that overview should include reporting on the degree to which Member States and industries fulfil their international obligations; recognises, nevertheless, that enforcement measures, such as the BWC and CWC, might be insufficient to tackle the risks stemming from CBRN use by non-state actors, namely by terrorist networks;

41. Calls on the Council and the Commission to promote the existing Draft Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, Transfer and Use of Uranium Weapons and on their Destruction, and to present this convention to the UN member countries to be signed and ratified; calls on all the EU Member States and the UN member countries to impose a moratorium on the use of depleted uranium weapons until such time as a global ban on these weapons has been agreed;

42. Encourages the introduction of measures to combat proliferation financing, following the model of the mechanisms set up to combat terrorism financing;

43. Welcomes the Commission's activities under the IfS to tackle CBRN activities; considers these activities complementary to the Action Plan and calls on the Commission to expand the projects to regions other than just the former Soviet Union (SEDE); building on the experiences under the Instrument for Stability calls on the Commission to launch a call for proposals aimed at strengthening the security and the protection of civilian laboratories in order to avoid future proliferation;

44. Considers that the EU CBRN Action Plan should unambiguously call for the development of EU guidelines on security training and standard requirements to be implemented in all 27 Member States, and should ensure that specific training programmes are provided for those security staff dealing with high-risk CBRN materials, including staff in industries and research centres where high-risk CBRN are present, and that requirements are laid down for CBRN officers (role, competence and training); stresses that safety and awareness training must also be provided to first responders;

45. Stresses that a future short-term revision of the EU CBRN Action Plan should not simply promote self-regulation among the industries concerned, and not merely advise the industries to adopt codes of conduct, but actually call on the Commission to develop pan-European guidelines and regulations applicable to all sectors dealing with high-risk CBRN agents;

46. Considers that it is of the utmost importance to keep a close track of all transactions involving high-risk CBRN materials in the EU, and that instead of merely ‘urging’ the industry to report on transactions, the Commission and the Member States should work on a proper legal framework to regulate and monitor transactions, thus upgrading the level of security and ensuring proper and rapid reporting of all suspicious transactions as well as the loss or theft of CBRN materials; emphasises that these regulations should establish a proper basis for full transparency in all sectors dealing with CBRN agents, thus holding industries accountable for such transactions; considers that the ability of the private sector to enforce the relevant laws and rules should be taken into account in connection with the monitoring of their reporting obligations so as to ensure proper supervision;

47. Stresses that the securitisation of both the transport and storage of CBRN materials is undeniably and inevitably part of the process to make access to these materials as difficult as possible, and so tackling CBRN-related security problems;

48. Stresses that the risks associated with the trading of chemicals over the Internet call for further investigations and specific action;

49. Calls for clarification regarding the strengthening of the import/export regime with regard to the roles of the Member States and the Commission; calls on the Member States to implement and ensure the application of the existing international regulations, and on the Commission to play a monitoring role, assessing and reporting on compliance; notes that it is important, taking into account the evolution of technology, to review and revise relevant legislation and regulations on the acquisition, import, sale, safe storage and transportation of CBRN materials;

50. Stresses the need to strengthen, where they exist, and create, where they do not, inspection and safety mechanisms in all postal services dealing with the distribution of correspondence, in view of the acts of terrorism committed in European countries by placing explosive substances in parcels sent through the post;

Detection

51. Calls on the Commission to launch a study, in cooperation with the Member State authorities, to assess the situation on the ground when it comes to the detection of CBRN and on the safety of nuclear power stations in the EU and its neighbourhood in the the event of an accident or intentional terrorist attack; encourages the Commission to build on the results of such an assessment and work on common EU guidelines on how to handle such accidents or intentional attacks, including finding the means to ensure that Member States allocate adequate human and material resources to such an effort;

52. Calls for the strengthening of the role of the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) which has already been established under the EU Civil Protection Mechanism so as to ensure proper exchanges of information and good practices between Member States, leading to pan-European standards in the detection of CBRN activities;

53. Requests the Commission to monitor, assess and report to Parliament on an annual basis on Member States' compliance, and requests national authorities to ensure that regulations and guidelines are being followed and complied with by the relevant industries and organisations dealing with high-risk CBRN materials;

54. Considers it essential to carry out proper studies with a view to engaging all relevant national and EU bodies and stakeholders on a mandatory basis, including an assessment of ways to make exchanges and cooperation faster and easier, thus making the response to a public safety threat more effective;

Preparedness and Response

55. Calls on the Council to entrust the Commission with the role of ‘coordinator’ with regard to emergency planning, so that it can act as a monitor, thus ensuring that local and national emergency plans do exist; stresses that the Commission should take the role of a depository of such plans, putting it in the best position to identify potential gaps and to act accordingly more promptly than the relevant authorities;

56. Welcomes the intention to strengthen the EU's civil protection capacity; notes, however, that in many EU Member States military defence departments become proficient through practical experience of tackling CBRN disasters; calls, in that connection, on the Member States and the Commission to share best practices and make a greater investment in thorough coordination between both civilian and military expertise;

57. Urges the Commission to continue identifying needs which must be met in order to improve civil protection capacities, with a view to common procurement projects; calls, in that connection, for a particular focus on defining the EU's needs in terms of CBRN preparedness and response capability, including medical counter-measures, so that the availability of medical counter-measures in the event of a CBRN incident is assessed at both EU and Member State levels;

58. Calls for the organisation of joint exercises between EU Member States, and between Member States and third countries, to prevent dangerous situations arising with regard to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security;

59. Welcomes the planning of EU exercises to simulate CBRN incidents or attacks and stresses that an EU CBRN Action Plan should make provision for the results and assessments of such exercises to feed into what should be an ongoing debate on the development of pan-European standards;

60. Draws attention to the fact that the Commission should be taking the lead in setting standards based on the needs of counter-measure capacities; stresses that this is the only way to achieve the highest possible standard of security throughout the EU, as it would be the only possible way to ensure that all Member States are following the same guidelines and applying the same principles when building up capacities and preparing the appropriate human and material resources to respond to a disaster, whether accidental or intentional;

61. Stresses the need to create regional/EU-wide stockpiles of response resources, the scale of which should, as far as possible, reflect the current level of threat, whether in the form of medical or other types of relevant equipment, under the coordination of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, funded by the EU and in line with commonly agreed EU guidelines; stresses the importance of keeping well-managed stockpiles to ensure that the response resources, medical or other relevant equipment, are fully functional, current and up to date; urges that until such time as this EU/regional pooling of resources comes into effect, the EU CBRN Action Plan should point to a possible way in which Member States would share counter-measures and resources in the event of a CBRN accident or terrorist attack, so as to put the new Solidarity Clause into practice; stresses that any act of assistance to specific EU Member States must be the result of a request from the relevant political authorities in the countries affected and should not collide with a Member State's ability to protect its own citizens;

62. Calls for a revision of the rules governing the European Solidarity Fund to make it more accessible in the event of natural disasters, and available in the event of industrial and man made disasters, and calls on the Member States to make use of the resources available under the the Structural Funds to enhance prevention and preparedness;

63. In order to prepare for the unfortunate event of an accident, outbreak or deliberate use of CBRN, calls on the Commission to establish reporting mechanisms to provide a link between the work of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and other EU early-warning systems in the relevant areas of health, the environment, food production and animal welfare; calls also on the Commission to establish mechanisms for exchanges of information and analyses with international bodies such as the World Health Organisation, the World Meteorological Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation;

64. Calls for the creation of EU/regional specialised response teams, including medical personnel, law-enforcement staff and military personnel, and notes that, if such teams are created, special training and operational exercises should be scheduled regularly;

65. Calls on the Commission to provide sufficient funding to develop improved equipment for the detection and identification of biological agents in the event of an attack or incident; deplores the fact that existing detection equipment has capacity and speed limitations resulting in the loss of valuable time in an emergency; emphasises that emergency personnel must be properly equipped and medically protected in advance in order to work with maximum personal safety in a disaster area where harmful pathogens may be present; stresses that improved equipment for the identification of agents and diagnostics are also required in hospitals and other facilities receiving victims from an incident;

66. Calls on the various EU and national bodies involved in information gathering to review their organisational structures and, where they are lacking, appoint appropriate persons with experience and understanding of identifying and assessing CBRN threats and risks;

67. Calls on the Commission to report regularly to Parliament on CBRN threat and risk assessments;

68. Calls for training and public awareness programmes to be launched at European level, considering the opportunities provided by the Internet as a key resource in informing citizens of CBRN issues; stresses the importance of coordinating early warning and information mechanisms for EU citizens in relation to CBRN incidents; notes with interest the feasibility study for a European nuclear security training centre within the JRC;

Environmental and health impacts

69. Notes the uncoordinated over-investment in vaccines during the A/H1N1 pandemic; welcomes the Draft Council Conclusions ‘On lessons learned from the A/H1N1 pandemic - health security in the European Union’ (12665/2010), which envisage the development of a mechanism for the joint procurement of vaccines and antiviral medication to be applied in the Member States on a voluntary basis, and encourages Member States to develop together regional preparedness solutions, including the sharing of existing capacity and the coordination of cost-effective procurement of medical countermeasures, whilst ensuring high levels of CBRN preparedness across the EU;

70. Notes that EU legislation (Council Decision 90/424/EEC, as amended by Council Decision 2006/965/EC) provides for a Community approach to the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases and zoonoses, including the purchase and stockpiling of veterinary medical countermeasures to protect animals from infection; regrets that no such Community approach is in place to coordinate the purchase and stockpiling of medical countermeasures to protect the EU's human population from infection by dangerous biological pathogens;

71. Points out that an incident or attack involving biological pathogens – for example, but not restricted to, anthrax – will contaminate the affected area for decades, seriously harming plant, animal and human life and health, and resulting in long-term economic costs; calls on the Commission to include recovery and decontamination strategies in the CBRN policy;

72. Stresses that an incident involving CBRN materials which affects the condition of the soil and/or the drinking water supply has the potential to produce devastating and far-reaching effects on the health and welfare of all the people in the affected area; calls on the Commission to take this into account when drafting the EU CBRN Action Plan;

73. Stresses the importance of ensuring that there is effective control of water-based contamination incidents, which involve pollution of the environment, soil contamination, disposal of waste and/or release of radioactive substances;

74. Regrets the insufficient attention paid to preparedness and response in the Commission Communication and the Council Conclusions on the EU CBRN Action Plan, which focus heavily on detection and prevention; calls on the Commission and the Council to give greater importance to developing the preparedness and response mechanisms required to protect public health and the environment should a CBRN incident actually take place on EU territory;

75. Regrets the lack of measures in the CBRN Action Plan to safeguard the security of radiological and nuclear facilities and materials and to improve response plans regarding the various types of radiological emergency and their consequences for the population and the environment;

76. Is alarmed by cases of individuals and activists being able to acquire nuclear waste material from various reprocessing installations in Europe, and calls for urgent, concerted action to enhance the security of radioactive and nuclear materials and facilities;

77. Regrets the lack of focus in the Commission Communication and Council Conclusions on the CBRN Action Plan on adequately protecting public transport networks and the health of their users, given the many terrorist attacks on transport in recent years and the generally increased risk of CBRN incidents occurring during transport of CBRN materials; calls on the Member States to guarantee pre-exposure protection of first responders to CBRN incidents and post-exposure treatment of victims, in particular against biological pathogens;

78. Points out that a CBRN incident could have long-lasting effects on the growth of food crops and thus has the potential to adversely affect EU food safety and food security; invites to Commission to take this into account when drafting the EU CBRN Action Plan;

79. Encourages cooperation and the sharing of best practices with countries which have developed expertise in the field of CBRN risk assessment, prevention, detection, communication and response, such as the United States, Australia and India;

80. Encourages joint policies for the remediation of land affected by chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear contamination, so that the soil and land can be restored to use as swiftly as possible, thereby reducing risks to health and the environment;

81. Calls on the Commission and Council to consider developing response models that provide an ideal response in the event of CBRN incidents, and in which special attention is paid to training establishments, medical care institutions and geriatric care centres;

82. Calls on the Member States, when drafting evacuation plans in the event of a CBRN incident, to give special attention to the needs of the elderly, children, people under medical care, persons with disabilities and other such vulnerable groups;

83. Calls on the Member States to assign special importance to the construction of civil protection shelters, both within (public and administrative) institutions and at local and regional level, in which the European public can take refuge in the event of a disaster;

84. Urges the Commission to seek an agreement on common minimum security standards with neighbouring third countries which have on their territory objects that could pose major threats to environmental and human security in the EU in the event of an accident;

85. Calls on the Commission to provide in its action plan for more flexible adaptation of security measures to technological development;

86. Urges the Commission thoroughly to assess existing security measures in terms of their impact on the environment and health, and to ensure that new measures are introduced only on the basis of the results of such an assessment, which should be carried out periodically;

o
o o

87. Calls on the Commission to draw up an EU CBRN Roadmap for the period between now and 2013, when the EU CBRN Action Plan will be reviewed, in which challenges and policy responses are set out and on which the Commission will regularly report back to Parliament regarding ongoing developments and progress to date;

88. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to rapidly review and apply the EU CBRN Action Plan in accordance with its recommendations, and expects them to implement it swiftly; further urges the Commission and the Council to refer the next EU CBRN Action Plan to Parliament at least one year before it enters the implementation phase, so that Parliament can deliver its opinion in due time;

89. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

(1)	14627/2002.
(2)	OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3.
(3)	OJ L 330, 9.12.2008, p. 21.
(4)	5842/2/2010.
(5)	15480/2004.
(6)	14469/4/2005.
(7)	5771/1/2006.
(8)	http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm.
(9)	Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (OJ L 412, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
(10)	https://www.cbrnemap.org.
(11)	OJ L 71, 10.3.2007, p. 9.
(12)	OJ L 314, 1.12.2007, p. 9.
(13)	OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1.
(14)	OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 75.
(15)	15505/1/2009 REV 1.
(16)	OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.
(17)	Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0015.
(18)	Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0326.
(19)	15465/2010.
(20)	Commission Staff Working Document ‘Global health – responding to the challenges of globalisation’ (SEC(2010)0380), Accompanying document to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘The EU Role in Global Health’ (COM(2010)0128).
(21)	http://www.who.int/csr/en/
(22)	OJ L 400, 30.12.2006, p. 86.
(23)	http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2004-2009/president/pdf/rapport_barnier_en.pdf
(24)	Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

Good governance and EU regional policy

208k

57k

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on good governance with regards to the EU regional policy: procedures of assistance and control by the European Commission (2009/2231(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0468

A7-0280/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 174 to178 thereof,

– having regard to the Commission proposal for the revision of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Union of 28 May 2010 (COM(2010)0260),

– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund(1),

– having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy(2),

– having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2010 on transparency in regional policy and its funding(3),

– having regard to the Committee of the Regions' White Paper on Multi-level governance of 17-18 June 2009 and the Consultation Report,

– having regard to the conclusions of the informal Ministerial meeting which took place on 16-17 March 2010 in Málaga,

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 6 September 2004 , entitled ‘The respective responsibilities of the Member States and the Commission in the shared management of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund - Current situation and outlook for the new programming period after 2006’ (COM(2004)0580),

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 14 May 2008 on the results of the negotiations concerning cohesion policy strategies and programmes for the programming period 2007-2013 (COM(2008)0301),

– having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial years 2006 and 2008,

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 19 February 2008, entitled ‘An action plan to strengthen the Commission's supervisory role under shared management of structural actions’ (COM(2008)0097),

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 February 2009, entitled ‘Report on the implementation of the action plan to strengthen the Commission's supervisory role under shared management of structural actions’ (COM(2009)0042),

– having regard to the Communication of 28 October 2009 from Commissioners Samecki and Špidla to the Commission giving an interim report on the follow-up to the action plan to strengthen the Commission's supervisory role under shared management of structural actions (SEC(2009)1463),

– having regard to the Commission Communication of 18 February 2010 on the impact of the action plan to strengthen the Commission's supervisory role under shared management of structural actions (COM(2010)0052),

– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0280/2010),

A. whereas implementation of the cohesion policy is predominantly decentralised and based on sub-national authorities assuming responsibility,

B. whereas cohesion policy plays a forerunner role in the application of multi-level governance, as an instrument to improve the quality of decision-making processes through the active involvement of sub-national authorities from the pre-legislative phase of the debates,

C. whereas ‘multi-level governance’ means coordinated action by the Union, Member States and local and regional authorities, as well as socio-economic partners and NGOs, based on the principles of partnership and co-financing and aimed at drawing up and implementing European Union policies, a definition which implies responsibility being shared between the different tiers of government,

D. whereas the 2006 report of the European Court of Auditors showed that the control systems in place for the cohesion policy were not effective enough, with a 12% error rate in the expenditure reimbursed, and the 2008 report confirmed these data with 11% of funds unduly reimbursed,

E. whereas the Commission needs to strengthen its supervisory role to reduce the level of error, improve the control system and increase assistance to sub-national authorities and beneficiaries, all of which will lead in the long term to a more result-oriented, user-friendly policy,

F. whereas funding application procedures that are too complicated, and an excessive number of checks, are likely to discourage potential beneficiaries of cohesion policy,

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

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

I. whereas an integrated approach should pay attention to the regions' special characteristics (geographical and natural disadvantages, depopulation, outermost region, etc.) if it is to meet local and regional challenges,

Applying multi-level governance

1. Welcomes the CoR White Paper on multi-level governance and the recognition of sub-national subsidiarity in the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that the multi-level approach should be applied not only vertically but also horizontally, among actors of the same level, in all shared-competence Union policies including the cohesion policy;

2. Welcomes the conclusions of the Málaga informal ministerial meeting of March 2010 and considers that multi-level governance is a precondition for achieving territorial cohesion in Europe; calls for this principle to be made compulsory for Member States in policy areas with a strong territorial impact in order to ensure balanced territorial development in line with the subsidiarity principle; points out that such a provision should in no way lead to more burdensome procedures;

3. Considers that satisfactory multi-level governance should be based on a bottom-up approach, taking account of the diversity of administrative arrangements existing in the different Member State; calls on the Member States to identify the most efficient means of implementing governance at the various levels and to improve their cooperation with the regional and local authorities as well as with the Community's administration by, for example, inviting officials from all tiers of government to the periodic meetings organised with the Commission or by establishing European Territorial Pacts that link on a voluntary basis the different tiers of government concerned;

4. Recommends that the territorial impact analysis should become standard practice through the involvement, upstream of the policy decision, of the various parties concerned in order to understand the economic, social and environmental repercussions on the regions of Community legislative and non-legislative proposals;

5. Stresses that multi-level governance allows better exploitation of the potential of territorial cooperation thanks to the relations developed among private and public actors across borders; urges those Member States which have not yet done so to adopt as soon as possible the necessary provisions allowing the setting up of European Groupings of Territorial Cooperation; recommends that the Commission promote exchange of information between the EGTCs already created and those in the process of being set up in the framework of existing programmes; congratulates the Committee of the Regions on the quality of its work on EGTCs and calls for its available instruments, in particular its Lisbon Monitoring Platform and its Subsidiarity Monitoring Network, to be used to promote the exchange of best practices between regions and Member States with a view to the joint identification and determination of objectives, subsequent planning actions, and, finally, a comparative evaluation of the outcomes of cohesion policy;

6. Calls on national, regional and local authorities to intensify their use of the integrated approach during the current programming period; proposes that this approach be made compulsory in the context of the future cohesion policy; considers that a flexible and integrated approach should not only take into account the economic, social and environmental aspects of territorial development but also enable coordination of the interests of the various partners, in the light of territorial characteristics, in order to respond to challenges at local and regional level;

7. Urges the Commission to develop a guide for public and private actors on how to implement in practice the principles of multi-level governance and the integrated approach; recommends that actions aimed at promoting these two approaches be financed under ERDF technical assistance;

8. Recommends that the Committee of the Regions use the 2011 Open Days, and as far as still possible at this stage, the 2010 Open Days as an occasion to promote and deepen the debate on identifying the most suitable means of promoting multi-governance; suggests that a European multi-level governance label be launched and put in place in all regions across the EU as from 2011;

9. Notes that decentralised delivery mechanisms are a key factor for multi-level governance; given the necessity for simplification, urges Member States and regions to sub-delegate the implementation of a part of an operational programme, where appropriate and in particular to better exploit the use of global grants; calls on them to take the decentralisation measures required, at both legislative and budgetary levels, so that the system of multi-level governance can work effectively and in keeping with the principles of partnership and subsidiarity; stresses that regional and local authorities, especially those having legislative powers, should be more closely involved, as they are the best informed on their regions' potentialities and needs and could therefore contribute to an improved implementation of cohesion policy;

10. Urges the Member States to involve relevant regional and local authorities and civil society actors from the very early stages of negotiations on Union legislation and on programmes benefiting from the Structural Funds so as to allow a timely dialogue between the different layers of government; calls for these authorities to participate in the responsible decision-making bodies on an equal footing with the national representatives;

11. Emphasises that for the efficient absorption of funds and maximisation of their impact there must be sufficient administrative capacity both at EU and at regional and local level; calls therefore on the Commission to improve its administrative capacity in order to increase the added value of the cohesion policy and ensure the sustainability of the actions and on the Member States to ensure adequate administrative structures and human capital in terms of recruitment, remuneration, training, resources, procedures, transparency and accessibility;

12. Calls on the Member States also to strengthen, where appropriate, the role of regional and local authorities in programme preparation, management and implementation as well as boosting the resources at their disposal; recommends the adoption in the cohesion policy of the local development methodology based on local partnerships, in particular for projects related to urban, rural and cross-border issues; calls on the Commission to encourage partnership between regions having a similar specific development potential and to ensure that there is an appropriate framework at EU level put in place for the coordination of macroregional cooperation;

13. Considers that the principles of partnership and co-financing foster the assumption of responsibility by sub-national authorities in the implementation of cohesion policy; reiterates its commitment to these principles of good management and calls for their continued application despite the restrictions on public spending arising from the economic crisis;

14. Recommends enhancing partnership practice and urges the Commission to come up with an agreed definition of the concept of partnership as a condition for building up real partnerships with regional and local authorities and civil society actors; asks the Commission to seriously verify the implementation of this principle by developing specific evaluation tools and to spread best practices in this area through ICT tools; emphasises that partnership can contribute to effectiveness, efficiency, legitimacy and transparency in all the phases of Structural Fund programming and implementation and can increase commitment to and ownership of programme outputs; underlines the important role of the voluntary sector in the partnership process;

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

16. Calls for the multi-level governance principle to be integrated into all phases of design and implementation of the EU2020 Strategy to ensure real ownership of the results by the regional and local authorities, which have to implement it; highlights in this connection the proposal for a ‘Territorial Pact of Local and Regional Authorities for Europe 2020’ to encourage regions and cities to contribute to the successful achievement of the objectives of the 2020 Strategy;

17. Recommends that the Commission re-analyse the possibilities of implementing the pilot project initiated by the European Parliament entitled ‘Erasmus for elected local and regional representatives’ and, with a view to raising the standard of proposed projects and meet the objective of efficiency, calls on the Commission to implement, under the ERDF operational technical assistance budget line, a training and mobility scheme for local and regional actors involved in running cohesion policy programmes together with the partners specialised in implementing the concepts of integrated approach and multilevel governance; asks the Commission, therefore, to allocate funding for these initiatives effectively and to reinforce networking with regional and local authorities, including through the Committee of the Regions;

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

Strengthening the Commission's role in supporting regional and local authorities

19. Is of the opinion that a stronger role for the regional and local level must correspond to a strengthened supervisory role for the Commission focusing on checking audit systems rather than single projects; calls in this connection for an EU certification system for national audit bodies; urges the Commission to complete the approval of the compliance assessment reports so as to avoid delays in payments and loss of funds due to decommittment, and to come up with a proposal on the tolerable risk of error before 2012;

20. Welcomes the findings of the Commission report on the February 2010 Action Plan and the corrective and preventive actions begun so far; calls on DG REGIO to continue with this exercise during the whole period of implementation to keep up the momentum generated by the Action Plan;

21. Stresses that European initiatives in the field of cohesion and structural policy need to be better coordinated so as not to jeopardise the coherence of regional policy; calls therefore for strengthened coordination in the Commission between DG REGIO, which is responsible for cohesion and structural policy, and the DGs responsible for the relevant sector-specific initiatives; calls, in view of the Lisbon Treaty's strengthening of the rights of regional and local authorities, for these authorities to be more closely involved in the development of policy at Commission level, in order to enhance project responsibility among project promoters; also calls, however, for more control of results by the Commission on the spot, so as to improve evaluation both of the efficiency of project structures and of the effectiveness of measures in terms of the objective they seek to achieve;

22. Invites the Commission to reinforce the ‘Train the trainers’ initiative for managing and certifying authorities; stresses that there should be constant monitoring to ensure that training contents are actually transferred to the lower levels in a balanced way, not neglecting the local actors;

23. Urges the Commission to quickly launch the new portal in the SFC 2007 database allowing direct access to relevant information for all actors dealing with Structural Funds; recommends that Member States promote and circulate information on this instrument among regional and local authorities as well as final beneficiaries;

24. Invites the Commission to put in place additional technical assistance mechanisms to promote knowledge at regional and local level on implementation-related problems, especially in Member States where, according to the Commission's ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2000-2006, there are very persistent problems regarding their administrative capacity when it comes to the implementation of these programmes;

25. Asks for a standardised application of the single information, single audit (SISA)- model at all audit levels to avoid duplication of audits and over-control; urges the Commission to issue a single audit manual including all the guidance notes produced so far;

26. Invites Member States to further exploit the financial engineering instruments as a means to increase the quality of the projects and the participation of private actors, especially SMEs, in European projects; calls on the Commission to simplify the functioning rules of these instruments, whose current complexity limits their use;

27. Is convinced that compliance with the procedures cannot be at the expense of the quality of interventions; asks the Commission for a more result-oriented policy in the future, focused on quality performance and strategic project development rather than on controls; to this end, urges the Commission to develop objective and measurable indicators which are comparable across the Union for better monitoring and evaluating systems and to give further consideration to the need for flexible rules in the event of economic crises;

28. Emphasises that transparent and clear procedures are factors in good governance; therefore welcomes the ongoing simplification of the Financial Regulation and of the Structural Funds rules and calls on the Member States to fully comply with the requirements of the revised Financial Regulation and to disclose information on final beneficiaries of Structural Funds; urges the Commission to propose understandable rules, which will not require frequent modifications; calls for a simpler architecture for the Funds after 2013, not as a consequence of the economic crisis but as a general principle of the future cohesion policy, in order to facilitate absorption of the funds, and recommends greater transparency and flexibility in the use of the EU Funds in order to avoid an additional administrative burden which may discourage potential partners from taking part in projects;

29. Welcomes the Commission's Strategic Report on the implementation of the Cohesion Policy Programmes 2010 as it can feed important information back to the policy-making process; considers that its findings also have to be seriously taken into account when formulating proposals for improving the effective implementation of Cohesion Policy programmes;

30. Reiterates its commitment to a strong and properly funded cohesion policy that ensures that all European Union regions develop harmoniously; calls for the budget for the policy to be maintained after 2013 and for any attempt to renationalise it to be rejected;

31. Calls on the Commission to take on board the principles of differentiation and proportionality in future regulations and to adapt requirements according to the size of programmes and nature of partners, especially when small public authorities are involved; asks for wider use of lump-sums and flat rates for all Funds, in particular for overheads and technical assistance; proposes that provision be made for more flexible evaluation criteria with a view to encouraging innovative projects and softer control requirements for pilot projects; encourages the Commission to develop the principle of a ‘bond of trust’ with Member States which undertake to, and succeed in, making good use of the Funds;

32. With a view to building up a more user-friendly policy in the future, calls for deeper harmonisation and integration of the Structural Funds rules, avoiding the breakdown of a project into different parts to apply to different funds; recommends that the focus be put not just on the regularity of expenditure but on quality of interventions and that resources be concentrated in potentiating assistance on the management side;

33. Calls on the Commission to present as soon as possible proposals for the next programming period regulations, to adopt the implementing regulation, elaborate the necessary guidance and provide training on them in due time, and to facilitate the process of negotiations and approval of the operational programmes in order to avoid any delay in the cohesion policy implementation and absorption of funds after 2013;

o
o o

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

(1)	OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 25.
(2)	OJ C 15 E, 21.1.2010, p. 10.
(3)	Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0201.

Creation of an immigration liaison officers network ***I

196k

31k

		Resolution
		Text

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network (COM(2009)0322 – C7-0055/2009 – 2009/0098(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0469

A7-0342/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2009)0322),

– having regard to Article 251(2), Article 63(3)(b) and Article 66 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0055/2009),

– 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), Article 74 and Article 79(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 1 December 2010 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0342/2010),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 December 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network

P7_TC1-COD(2009)0098

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 493/2011).

European Protection Order ***I

426k

162k

		Resolution
		Consolidated text
		Annex
		Annex

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection Order (00002/2010 – C7-0006/2010 – 2010/0802(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0470

A7-0354/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the initiative emanating from a group of Member States (00002/2010),

– having regard to Article 76(b) and point (d) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 289(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council submitted the draft act to Parliament (C7-0006/2010),

– having regard to Article 294(3) and (15) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

– having regard to the reasoned opinion submitted, in the framework of the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by a national parliament asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

– having regard to the contributions submitted by national parliaments on the draft legislative act,

– having regard to Rules 37, 44 and 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality pursuant to Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0354/2010),

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

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

P7_TC1-COD(2010)0802

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82(1)(a) and (d) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(1),

Whereas:

(1) The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.

(2) Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union shall be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions.

(3) According to the Stockholm programme, adopted by the European Council at its meeting on 10 and 11 December 2009, mutual recognition could extend to all types of judgments and decisions of a judicial nature, which may, depending on the legal system, be either criminal or administrative. It also calls on the Commission and the Member States to examine how to improve legislation on and practical support measures for the protection of victims. The programme also points out that victims of crime can be offered special protection measures which should be effective within the Union. This Directive forms part of a coherent and comprehensive set of measures on victims' rights.

(4) The resolution of the European Parliament of 26 November 2009 on the elimination of violence against women calls on the Member States to improve their national laws and policies to combat all forms of violence against women and to act in order to tackle the causes of violence against women, not least by employing preventive measures and calls on the Union to guarantee the right to assistance and support for all victims of violence. The resolution of the European Parliament of 10 February 2010 on equality between women and men in the European Union – 2009 endorses the proposal to introduce the European protection order for victims.

(5) In a common area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to ensure that the protection provided to a natural person in one Member State is maintained and continued in any other Member State to which the person moves or has moved. It should also be ensured that the legitimate exercise by citizens of the Union of their right to move and reside freely within the territory of Member States, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 21 of the TFEU, does not result in a loss of their protection.

(6) In order to attain these objectives, this Directive should set out rules whereby the protection stemming from certain protection measures adopted according to the law of one Member State (‘the issuing State’) can be extended to another Member State in which the protected person decides to reside or stay (‘the executing State’).▌

(7) This Directive takes account of the different legal traditions of the Member States as well as the fact that effective protection can be provided by means of protection orders taken by an authority other than a criminal court. This Directive does not establish obligations to modify national systems for adopting protection measures.

(8) This Directive applies to protection measures which aim at protecting a person against a criminal act of another person which may, in any way, endanger his or her life, physical, psychological and sexual integrity, such as by preventing any form of harassment, as well as his or her dignity or personal liberty, such as by preventing abductions, stalking and other forms of indirect coercion, and aiming at avoiding new acts of crime or at reducing the consequences of previous acts of crime. These personal rights of the protected person amount to fundamental values recognised and upheld in all Member States. It is important to underline that this Directive applies to protection measures which aim at protecting all victims and not only the victims of gender violence, taking into account the specificities of each type of crime concerned.

(9) This Directive applies to protection measures, independently of the nature − criminal, civil or administrative − of the judicial or equivalent authority that adopts the decision concerned, be it in the context of criminal proceedings or in the context of any other proceedings with regard to an act which has been or could have been the object of proceedings by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters.

(10) This Directive is intended to apply to protection measures issued in favour of victims, or possible victims, of crimes; it should not apply to measures issued with a view to witness protection.

(11) If a protection measure, as defined in this Directive, is issued for the protection of a relative of the main protected person, a European protection order may also be requested by and issued with regard to this relative, subject to the conditions laid down in this Directive.

(12) Any request for the issuing of a European protection order should be treated with adequate speed taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the case, including the urgency of the matter, the date foreseen for the arrival of the protected person on the territory of the executing State and, where possible, the degree of risk for the protected person.

(13) Where information is to be provided under this Directive to the person causing danger or to the protected person, this information should also be provided to the guardian or to the representative of the person concerned where relevant. Due attention should also be paid to the need for the protected person, the person causing danger or their representative in the proceedings, to receive information, as provided for by this Directive, in a language they understand.

(14) In the procedures for the issuing and recognition of a European Protection order, competent authorities should give appropriate consideration to the needs of victims, including particularly vulnerable persons, such as. minors or persons with disabilities.

(15) For the application of This Directive, a protection measure may have been imposed following a judgment, as defined by Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions(2), or following a decision on supervision measures as defined in Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention(3).

(16) In conformity with Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with Article 47, paragraph 2, of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the person causing danger should be provided, either in the procedure leading to the adoption of a protection measure or before issuing a European protection order, with the possibility to be heard and to challenge the protection measure.

(17) In order to prevent a crime or new crime being committed against the victim in the executing State, that State should be given a legal basis for recognising the decision previously adopted in the issuing State in favour of the victim, while also avoiding the need for the victim to start new proceedings or to produce evidence in the executing State again as if the issuing State had not adopted the decision. The recognition of the European protection order by the executing State implies inter alia that the competent authority of that State, subject to the limitations set out in this Directive, accepts the existence and validity of the protection measure adopted in the issuing State, acknowledges the factual situation described in the European protection order, and agrees that protection should be provided and should be continued to be provided in accordance with its national law.

(18) This Directive contains a closed number of obligations or prohibitions which, when imposed in the issuing State and contained in the European protection order, should be recognised and enforced in the executing State, subject to the limitations set out in this Directive. Other types of protection measures may exist at national level, such as, if provided by national law, the obligation on the person causing danger to remain in a specified place. Such measures may be imposed in the issuing State in the framework of the procedure leading to the adoption of one of the protection measures which, according to this Directive, may be the basis for a European Protection Order.

(19) Since in the Member States different kind of authorities (civil, criminal or administrative) are competent to issue and enforce protection measures, it seems appropriate to provide a high degree of flexibility in the cooperation mechanism between the Member States under this Directive. Therefore, the competent authority in the executing State does not in all cases have to take the same protection measure as adopted in the issuing State, but it has a degree of discretion to adopt any measure which it would deem adequate and appropriate under its national law in a similar case in order to provide continued protection to the protected person in the light of the protection measure adopted in the issuing State, and as described in the European protection order.

(20) The obligations or prohibitions to which this Directive applies include, among others, measures aimed at limiting personal or remote contacts between the protected person and the person causing danger, for example by imposing certain conditions on such contacts or imposing restrictions on the contents of communications.

(21) The competent authority of the executing State should inform the person causing danger, the competent authority of the issuing State and the protected person of any measure taken on the basis of the European protection order. In the notification of the person causing danger due regard should be taken of the interest of the protected person in not having his or her address or other contact details disclosed. Such details should be excluded from the notification, provided that the address or other contact details are not comprised in the obligation or prohibition imposed as an enforcement measure on the person causing danger.

(22) When the competent authority in the issuing State has withdrawn the European protection order, the competent authority in the executing State should end the measures which it has adopted in order to enforce the European protection order, it being understood that the competent authority in the executing State may - autonomously, according to its national law - adopt any protection measure under its national law in order to protect the person concerned.

(23) Given that this Directive deals with situations in which the protected person moves to another Member State, executing its provisions does not imply any transfer to the executing State of powers relating to principal, suspended, alternative, conditional or secondary penalties, or relating to security measures imposed on the person causing danger, if the latter continues to reside in the State that issued the protection measure.

(24) Where appropriate, it should be possible to use electronic means with a view to putting into practice the measures adopted in application of this Directive, in accordance with national laws and procedures.

(25) In the framework of cooperation among the authorities involved in ensuring the safeguard of the protected person, the competent authority of the executing State should communicate to the competent authority of the issuing State any breach of the measures adopted in the executing State with a view to executing the European protection order. This communication should enable the competent authority of the issuing State to promptly decide on any appropriate reaction with respect to the protection measure imposed in its State on the person causing danger. Such reaction may comprise, where appropriate, the imposition of a custodial measure in substitution of the non-custodial measure originally adopted, for example as an alternative to preventive detention or as a consequence of conditional suspension of a penalty. It is understood that such decision, since it does not consist in the imposition ex novo of a criminal sanction in relation to a new criminal offence, does not interfere with the possibility that the executing State may, where applicable, impose criminal or non-criminal sanctions in the event of breach of the measures adopted in order to execute the European protection order.

(26) Considering the different legal traditions of the Member States, where no protection measure would be available in the executing State in a case similar to the factual situation described in the European protection order, the competent authority of the executing State should report any breach of the protection measure described in the European protection order of which it is aware to the competent authority of the issuing State.

(27) In order to achieve the smooth application of this Directive in each particular case, the competent authorities of the issuing and the executing States should exercise their competencies in conformity with the provisions of this Directive, taking into account the principle of ne bis in idem.

(28) The protected person should not be required to sustain costs for the recognition of the European protection order which are disproportionate with respect to a similar national case. When implementing this Directive, Member States should ensure that, after and as a direct consequence of the recognition of the European protection order, the protected person should not be required to initiate further national proceedings to obtain from the executing authority the decision adopting any measure that would be available under its national law in a similar case in order to ensure the safeguard of the protected person.

(29) Bearing in mind the principle of mutual recognition on which this Directive is based, Member States should promote to the widest extent possible direct contact between the competent authorities in the application of this instrument.

(30) Without prejudice to judicial independence and differences in the organisation of the judiciary across the Union, Member States should consider requesting those responsible for the training of judges, prosecutors, police and judicial staff involved in the procedures aiming at issuing or recognising a European protection order to provide appropriate training with respect to the objectives of this Directive.

(31) In order to facilitate the evaluation of the application of this Directive, Member States should communicate to the Commission relevant data related to the application of national procedures on the European protection order, at least on the number of European protection orders requested, issued and/or recognised. In this respect, other types of data, such as for example the types of crimes concerned, would also be useful.

(32) Since the objective of this Directive, namely to protect persons who are in danger, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States alone, given the cross-border nature of the situations involved, and can therefore by reason of the scale and effects be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the TEU. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.

(33) This Directive should contribute to the protection of persons who are in danger, thereby complementing but not affecting the instruments already in place in this field, such as Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.

(34) When a decision relating to a protection measure falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters(4), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility(5), or the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children(6), the recognition and enforcement of that decision should be carried out in accordance with the provisions of that legal instrument.

(35) Member States and the Commission should include information about the European protection order, where it is appropriate, in existing education and awareness-raising campaigns on the protection of victims of crime.

(36) Personal data processed when implementing this Directive should be protected in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters(7) and in accordance with the principles laid down in the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, which all Member States have ratified.

(37) This Directive should respect the fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in conformity with Article 6 of the TEU.

(38) When implementing this Directive, Member States are encouraged to take into account the rights and principles enshrined in the Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Objective

This Directive sets out rules allowing a judicial or equivalent authority in a Member State, in which a protection measure has been issued with a view to protecting a person against a criminal act of another person which may endanger his or her life, physical or psychological integrity and dignity, personal liberty or sexual integrity, to issue a European protection order enabling a competent authority in another Member State to continue the protection of the person concerned in the territory of this Member State, following the commission in the issuing State of an act which has been or could have been the object of proceedings by a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters in particular.

Article 2

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply:
	1)	‘European protection order’ means a ▌decision, taken by a judicial or equivalent authority of a Member State in relation to a protection measure, on the basis of which a judicial or equivalent authority of another Member State takes any appropriate ▌ measure or measures under its own national law with a view to continuing to safeguard of the protected person.
	2)	‘Protection measure’ means a decision adopted in the issuing State in accordance with its national law and procedures by which one or more of the obligations or prohibitions, referred to in Article 5, are imposed on a person causing danger, to the benefit of a protected person with a view to protecting the latter against a criminal act which may endanger his or her life, physical or psychological integrity, dignity, personal liberty or sexual integrity.
	3)	‘Protected person’ means the natural person who is the object of the protection stemming from a protection measure adopted by the issuing State.
	4)	‘Person causing danger’ means the natural person on whom one or more of the obligations or prohibitions, referred to in Article 5, have been imposed.

5) ‘Issuing State’ means the Member State in which a protection measure has been ▌adopted, constituting the basis for issuing a European protection order.

6) ‘Executing State’ means the Member State to which a European protection order has been forwarded with a view to its recognition.

7) ‘State of supervision’ means the Member State to which a judgment, as defined in Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures, as defined in Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, has been transferred.

▌

Article 3

Designation of competent authorities

1. Each Member State shall inform the Commission which judicial or equivalent authority or authorities are competent under its national law to issue a European protection order and to recognise such an order, in accordance with this Directive, when that Member State is the issuing State or the executing State respectively.

▌

2. The Commission shall make the information received available to all Member States. Member States shall inform the Commission of any change related to the information referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 4

Recourse to a central authority

1. Each Member State may designate a central authority or, where its legal system so provides, more than one central authority, to assist its competent authorities.

2. A Member State may, if it is necessary as a result of the organisation of its internal judicial system, make its central authority or authorities responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of any European protection order, as well as for all other official correspondence relating thereto. As a consequence, all communications, consultations, exchanges of information, enquiries and notifications between competent authorities may be dealt with, where appropriate, with the assistance of the designated central authority or authorities of the Member State concerned.

3. Member States wishing to make use of the possibilities referred to in this Article shall communicate to the Commission information relating to the designated central authority or central authorities. These indications shall be binding upon all the authorities of the issuing Member State.

Article 5

Condition of existence of a protection measure under national law

A European protection order may only be issued when a protection measure has been previously adopted in the issuing State, imposing on the person causing danger one or more of the following obligations or prohibitions:
	(a)	a prohibition from entering certain localities, places or defined areas where the protected person resides or visits;
	(b)	a prohibition or regulation of contact, in any form, with the protected person, including by phone, electronic or ordinary mail, fax or any other means; or
	(c)	a prohibition or regulation on approaching the protected person within a prescribed distance.

Article 6

Issue of a European protection order

1. A European protection order may be issued when the protected person decides to reside or already resides in another Member State, or when the protected person decides to stay or already stays in another Member State. When deciding upon the issuing of a European protection order, the competent authority in the issuing State shall take into account, inter alia, the length of the period or periods time for which the protected person envisages staying in the executing State and the seriousness of the need for protection.

2. A competent authority of the issuing State may issue a European protection order only at the request of the protected person and after verifying that the protection measure meets the requirements set out in Article 5.

3. The protected person ▌may submit a request for issuing a European protection order either to the competent authority of the issuing State or to the competent authority of the executing State. If such a request is submitted in the executing State, its competent authority shall transfer this request as soon as possible to the competent authority of the issuing State ▌.

4. Before issuing a European protection order the person causing danger shall be given the right to be heard and the right to challenge the protection measure, if he or she has not been granted these rights in the procedure leading to the adoption of the protection measure.

5. When a competent authority ▌adopts a protection measure containing one or more of the obligations or prohibitions, referred to in Article 5, it shall inform the protected person in any appropriate way in accordance with the procedures under its national law about the possibility of requesting a European protection order in case he or she decides to leave for another Member State, as well as of the basic conditions for such request. The authority shall advise the protected person to submit an application before leaving the territory of the issuing State.

6. If the protected person has a guardian or representative, that person may introduce the request referred to in paragraph 2 and 3, on behalf of the protected person.

7. When the request to issue a European protection order is rejected, the competent authority of the issuing State shall inform the protected person about legal remedies available, where applicable, under its national law against its decision.

Article 7

Form and content of the European protection order

The European protection order shall be issued in accordance with the form set out in Annex I to this Directive. It shall in particular contain the following information:
	(a)	the identity and nationality of the protected person, as well as the identity and nationality of the person's guardian or representative if the protected person is a minor or is legally incapacitated;
	(b)	the date from which the protected person intends to reside or stay in the executing State, and the period or periods of stay, if known;
	(c)	the name, address, telephone and fax numbers, and e-mail address of the competent authority of the issuing State;
	(d)	the identification (for example through a number and date) of the legal act containing the protection measure on the basis of which the European protection order is adopted;
	(e)	a summary of the facts and circumstances which have led to the imposition of the protection measure in the issuing State;
	(f)	the obligations or prohibitions imposed in the protection measure underlying the European protection order on the person causing danger, their duration and the ▌ indication of the penalty or sanction, if any, in case of the breach of the respective obligation or prohibition;
	(g)	the use of a technical device, if any, that has been provided to the protected person or to the person causing danger as a means of enforcing the protection measure;
	(h)	the identity and nationality of the person causing ▌danger, as well as his or her contact details;
	(i)	where such information is known by the competent authority of the issuing State without requiring further inquiry, the fact as to whether the protected person and/or the person causing danger has been granted free legal aid in the issuing State;
	(j)	where appropriate, other circumstances that could have an influence on the assessment of the danger that confronts the protected person;
	(k)	the express indication, where applicable, that a judgement, as defined by Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures, as defined by Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, has already been transferred to the State of supervision and the identification of the competent authority of that State for the enforcement of such a judgment or decision.

Article 8

Transmission procedure

1. Where the competent authority of the issuing State transmits the European protection order to the competent authority of the executing State, it shall do so by any means which leaves a written record so as to allow the competent authority of the executing Member State to establish its authenticity. All official communication shall also be made directly between those competent authorities.

2. If the competent authority of either the executing or the issuing State is not known to the competent authority of the other State, the latter authority shall make all the relevant enquiries, including via the contact points of the European Judicial Network referred to in Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network(8), the National Member of Eurojust or the National System for the coordination of Eurojust of its State, in order to obtain the necessary information.

3. When an authority of the executing State which receives a European protection order has no competence to recognise it, that authority shall, ex officio, forward the European protection order to the competent authority and shall without delay inform the competent authority of the issuing State accordingly by any means which leaves a written record.

Article 9

Measures in the executing State

1. Upon receipt of a European protection order transmitted in accordance with Article 8, the competent authority of the executing State shall without undue delay recognise that order and take a decision adopting any measure that would be available under its national law in a similar case in order to ensure the safeguard of the protected person, unless it decides to invoke one of the grounds for non-recognition referred to in Article 10.

2. The measure adopted by the competent authority of the executing State in accordance with paragraph 1, as well as any other measure taken on the basis of a subsequent decision referred to in Article 11, shall correspond, to the highest degree possible, to the protection measure ordered in the issuing State.

3. The competent authority of the executing State shall inform the person causing danger, the competent authority of the issuing State and the protected person of any measures taken in application of paragraph 1, as well as of the possible legal consequence of a breach of such measure, as provided for under national law and in accordance with Article 11(2). The address or other contact details of the protected person shall not be disclosed to the person causing danger unless necessary in view of the enforcement of the measure taken in application of paragraph 1.

4. If the competent authority in the executing State considers that the information transmitted with the European protection order according to Article 7 is incomplete, it shall without delay inform the competent authority of the issuing State by any means which leaves a written record, assigning a reasonable term for it to provide the missing information.

Article 10

Grounds for non-recognition of a European protection order

▌

1. The competent authority of the executing State may refuse to recognise a European protection order in the following circumstances:

	(a)	the European protection order is not complete or has not been completed within the time-limit set by the competent authority of the executing State;
	(b)	the requirements set out in Article 5 have not been met;
	(c)	the protection measure relates to an act that does not constitute a criminal offence under the law of the executing State;
	(	d) the protection derives from the execution of a penalty or measure that is covered by an amnesty according to the law of the executing State and relates to an act or behaviour which falls within its competence according to that law;
	(e)	there is immunity conferred under the law of the executing State on the person causing danger, which makes it impossible to adopt ▌ measures on the basis of a European protection order;
	(f)	criminal prosecution against the person causing danger for the act or behaviour in relation to which the protection measure has been adopted is statute-barred under the law of the executing State, when the act or behaviour falls within its competence under its national law;
	(g)	recognition of the European protection order would contravene the ne bis in idem principle;
	(h)	under the law of the executing State, the person causing danger cannot, because of his or her age, be held criminally responsible for the act or behaviour in relation to which the protection measure has been adopted;
	(i)	the protection measure relates to a criminal offence which under the law of the executing State is regarded as having been committed wholly or for a major or essential part within its territory.

2. Where the competent authority of the executing State refuses to recognise a European protection order in application of one of the above grounds, it shall:

	(a)	inform the issuing State and the protected person without undue delay of this refusal and of the grounds relating thereto;
	(b)	where appropriate, inform the protected person about the possibility of requesting the adoption of a protection measure according to its national law;
	(c)	where applicable, inform the protected person about legal remedies available under its national law against its decision.

Article 11

Governing law and competence in the executing State

1. The executing State has competence to adopt and to enforce measures in that State following the recognition of a European protection order. The law of the executing State applies to the adoption and enforcement of the decision foreseen in Article 9(1), including rules on legal remedies against decisions adopted in the executing State relating to the European protection order.

2. In the event of a breach of one or more of the measures taken by the executing State following the recognition of a European protection order, the competent authority of the executing State has, in application of paragraph 1, the competence to:

	a)	impose criminal sanctions and take any other measure as a consequence of the breach of such measure, if the breach amounts to a criminal offence under the law of the executing State;
	b)	take any non-criminal decisions related to the breach;
	c)	take any urgent and provisional measure in order to put an end to the breach, pending, where appropriate, a subsequent decision by the issuing State.

3. If there is no available measure at national level in a similar case to be taken in the executing State, the competent authority of the executing State shall report to the competent authority of the issuing State any breach of the protection measure described in the European protection order of which it is aware.

Article 12

Notification in case of breach

The competent authority of the executing State shall notify the competent authority of the issuing State or of the State of supervision of any breach of the measure or measures taken on the basis of the European protection order. Notice shall be given using the standard form set out in Annex II.

Article 13

Competence in the issuing State

1. The competent authority of the issuing State shall have exclusive competence to take decisions relating to:

	(a)	the renewal, review, modification, revocation and withdrawal of the protection measure and, consequently, of the European protection order;
	(b)	the imposition of a custodial measure as a consequence of revoking the protection measure, provided that the protection measure has been applied on the basis of a judgement, as defined by Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or on the basis of a decision on supervision measures, as defined in Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.
	▌

2. The law of the issuing State shall apply to decisions taken pursuant to paragraph 1.

3. Where a judgment, as defined in Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures, as defined in Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, has already been transferred, or is transferred after the issuing of the European protection order, to another Member State, subsequent decisions shall be taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of those Framework Decisions.

4. The competent authority of the issuing Member State shall inform the competent authority of the executing Member State without delay of any decision taken in accordance with paragraph 1.

5. If the competent authority in the issuing State has revoked or withdrawn the European protection order in accordance with point a of paragraph 1, the competent authority in the executing State shall end the measures adopted in accordance with Article 9(1) as soon as it has been duly notified by the competent authority of the issuing State.

6. If the competent authority in the issuing State has modified the European protection order in accordance with point a of paragraph 1, the competent authority in the executing State shall, as appropriate

	(a)	modify the measures taken on the basis of the European protection order, acting in accordance with Article 9; or
	(b)	refuse to enforce the modified obligation or prohibition when it does not fall within the types of obligations or prohibitions referred to in Article 5 or if the information transmitted with the European protection order according to Article 7 is incomplete and has not been completed within the time-limit set by the competent authority of the executing State according to Article 9(4).

Article 14

Grounds for discontinuation of measures taken on the basis of a European protection order

1. The competent authority of the executing State may discontinue the measures taken in execution of a European protection order:

	(a)	where there is clear indication that the protected person does not reside or stay in the territory of the executing State, or has definitively left that territory;
	(b)	when, according to its national law, the maximum term of duration of the measures adopted in execution of the European protection order has expired;
	(c)	in the case referred to in Article 13(6)(b);
	(d)	where a judgment, as defined in Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, or a decision on supervision measures, as defined in Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA, is transferred to the executing State after the recognition of the European protection order.

2. The competent authority of the executing State shall immediately inform the competent authority of the issuing State and where possible, the protected person of such a decision.

3. Before discontinuing measures in accordance with point b of paragraph 1, the competent authority of the executing State may request that the competent authority of the issuing State provide information as to whether the protection provided for by the European protection order is still needed in the circumstances of the particular case at hand. The competent authority of the issuing State shall, without delay, reply to such a request.

Article 15

Priority in recognition of a European protection order

The European protection order shall be recognised with the same priority which would be applicable in a similar national case, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the case, including the urgency of the matter, the date foreseen for the arrival of the protected person on the territory of the executing State and, where possible, the degree of risk for the protected person.

▌

Article 16

Consultations between competent authorities

Where appropriate, the competent authorities of the issuing State and of the executing State may consult each other in order to facilitate the smooth and efficient application of this Directive.

Article 17

Languages

1. The European protection order shall be translated by the competent authority of the issuing State into the official language or one of the official languages of the executing State.

2. The form referred to in Article 12 shall be translated by the competent authority of the executing State into the official language or one of the official languages of the issuing State.

3. Any Member State may, either when this Directive is adopted or at a later date, state in a declaration deposited with the Commission that it will accept a translation in one or more other official languages of the Union.

Article 18

Costs

Costs resulting from the application of this Directive shall be borne by the executing State, in accordance with its national law, except for costs arising exclusively within the territory of the issuing State.

Article 19

Relationship with other agreements and arrangements

1. Member States may continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements which are in force upon the entry into force of this Directive, insofar as they allow the objectives of this Directive to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for taking protection measures.

2. Member States may conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements after the entry into force of this Directive, insofar as they allow the objectives of this Directive to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate the procedures for taking protection measures.

3. By …*(9), Member States shall notify the ▌Commission of the existing agreements and arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 which they wish to continue applying. Member States shall also notify the ▌Commission of any new agreements and arrangements as referred to in paragraph 2, within three months of signing such an agreement.

Article 20

Relationship with other instruments

1. This Directive shall not affect the application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 , nor of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, nor of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, nor of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

2. This Directive shall not affect the application of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA and Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA.

Article 21

Implementation

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with ▌this Directive by …*(10). They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof. When Member States adopt those measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by the Member States.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 22

Data collection

Member States shall, in order to facilitate the evaluation of the application of this Directive, communicate to the Commission relevant data related to the application of national procedures on the European protection order, at least on the number of European protection orders requested, issued and/or recognised.

Article 23

Review

By ….(11)*, the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Directive. The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.

Article 24

Entry into force

This Directive shall enter into force on the twentieth day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

ANNEX I

EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER

referred to in Article 7 of

DIRECTIVE 2011/…/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF… ON THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER(12)

The information contained in this form is to be treated with appropriate confidentiality

Issuing State :

Executing State:

(a) Information regarding the protected person:

Surname:

Forename(s):

Maiden or previous name, where applicable:

Sex:

Nationality:

Identity number or social security number (if any):

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Addresses/residences:

– in the issuing State:

– in the executing State:

– elsewhere:

Language(s) understood (if known):

Has the protected person been granted free legal aid in the issuing State (if such information is available without further enquiry)?

? Yes.

? No.

? Unknown.

Where the protected person is a minor or is legally incapacitated, information regarding the natural person's guardian or representative :

Surname:

Forename(s):

Maiden or previous name, where applicable:

Sex:

Nationality:

Office address:

(b) The protected person has decided to reside or already resides in the executing Member State, or has decided to stay or already stays in the executing Member State.

Date from which the protected person intends to reside or stay in the executing State (if known):

Period(s) of stay (if known):

(c) Have any technical devices been provided to the protected person or to the person causing danger to enforce the protection measure :

? Yes; please give a short summary of the devices used:

? No.

(d) Competent authority which issued the European protection order:

Official name:

Full address:

Tel. no.: (country code) (area/city code) (number)

Fax no.: (country code) (area/city code) (number)

Details of the person(s) to be contacted

Surname:

Forename(s):

Position (title/grade):

Tel. no.: (country code) (area/city code) (number)

Fax no.: (country code) (area/city code) (number)

E-mail (if any):

Languages that may be used for communication:

(e) Identification of the protection measure on the basis of which the European protection order has been issued:

The protection measure was issued on (date: DD-MM-YYYY):

The protection measure became enforceable on (date: DD-MM-YYYY):

File reference of the protection measure (if available):

Authority that adopted the protection measure:

(f) Summary of the facts and description of the circumstances, including, where applicable, the classification of the offence, which have led to the imposition of the protection measure mentioned under (e) above:

(g) Indications regarding the obligation(s) or prohibition(s) that have been imposed by the protection measure on the person causing danger:

Nature of the obligation(s): (you can tick more than one box):

? a prohibition from entering certain localities, places or defined areas where the protected person resides or visits;

– if you ticked this box, please indicate precisely which localities, places or defined areas the person causing danger is prohibited from entering:

? a prohibition or regulation of contact, in any form, with the protected person, including by phone, electronic or ordinary mail, fax or any other means;

– if you ticked this box, please provide any relevant details:

? a prohibition or regulation on approaching the protected person within a prescribed distance;

– if you ticked this box, please indicate precisely the distance which the person causing danger has to comply with in respect of the protected person:

Please indicate the length of time during which the abovementioned obligation(s) are imposed on the person causing danger:

Indication of the penalty or sanction (if any) in the event of the breach of the prohibition:

(h) Information regarding the person causing danger on whom the obligation(s) mentioned under (g) have been imposed:

Surname:

Forename(s):

Maiden or previous name, where applicable:

Aliases, where applicable:

Sex:

Nationality:

Identity number or social security number (if any):

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Addresses/residences:

– in the issuing State:

– in the executing State:

– elsewhere:

Language(s) understood (if known):

If available, please provide the following information:

– Type and number of the identity document(s) of the person (ID card, passport):

Has the person causing danger been granted free legal aid in the issuing State(if such information is available without further enquiry)?

? Yes.

? No.

? Unknown.

(i) Other circumstances that could have an influence on the assessment of the danger that could affect the protected person (optional information):

(j) Other useful information (such as, where available and necessary, information on other States where protection measures have been previously taken with respect to the same protected person):

(k) Please tick the box where appropriate and complete:

? a judgment, as defined by Article 2 of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, has already been transmitted to another Member State

– If you ticked this box, please provide the contact details of the competent authority to whom the judgment has been forwarded:

? a decision on supervision measures, as defined by Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA has already been transmitted to another Member State

– If you ticked this box, please provide the contact details of the competent authority to whom the decision on supervision measures has been forwarded:

Signature of the authority issuing the European protection order and/or of its representative to confirm the accuracy of the content of the order:

Name:

Position (title/grade):

Date:

File reference (if any):

(Where appropriate) Official stamp:

ANNEX II

FORM

referred to in Article 12 of

DIRECTIVE 2011/…/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL OF… ON THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER(13)

NOTIFICATION OF A BREACH OF THE PROTECTION MEASURE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER

The information contained in this form is to be treated with appropriate confidentiality

(a) Details of the identity of the person causing danger

Surname:

Forename(s):

Maiden or previous name, where applicable:

Aliases, where applicable:

Sex:

Nationality:

Identity number or social security number (if any):

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Address:

Language(s) understood (if known):

(b) Details of the identity of the protected person:

Surname:

Forename(s):

Maiden or previous name, where applicable:

Sex:

Nationality:

Date of birth:

Place of birth:

Address:

Language(s) understood (if known):

Order issued on:

File reference (if any):

Authority which issued the order:

Official name:

Address:

(d) Details of the authority responsible for the execution of the protection measure, if any, which was taken in the executing State in line with the European protection order:

Official name of the authority:

Name of the person to be contacted:

Position (title/grade):

Address:

Tel.: (country code) (area code) (number)

Fax: (country code) (area code) (number)

E-mail:

Languages that may be used for communication:

(e) Breach of the obligation(s) imposed by the competent authorities of the executing State following recognition of the European protection order and/or other findings which could result in taking any subsequent decision:

The breach concerns the following obligation(s) (you can tick more than one box):

? a prohibition from entering certain localities, places or defined areas where the protected person resides or visits;

? a prohibition or regulation of contact, in any form, with the protected person, including by phone, electronic or ordinary mail, fax or any other means;

? a prohibition or regulation on approaching the protected person within a prescribed distance;

? any other measure, corresponding to the protection measure as the basis of the European protection order, taken by the competent authorities of the executing State following recognition of the European protection order

Description of the breach(es) (place, date and specific circumstances):

In accordance with Article 11(2):

- measures taken in the executing State as a consequence of the breach;

- possible legal consequence of the breach in the executing State.

Other findings which could result in taking any subsequent decision

Description of the findings:

(f) Details of the person to be contacted if additional information is to be obtained concerning the breach:

Surname:

Forename(s):

Address:

Tel. no.: (country code) (area/city code) (number)

Fax no.: (country code) (area/city code) (number)

E-mail:

Languages that may be used for communication:

Signature of the authority issuing the form and/or its representative, to confirm that the contents of the form are correct:

Name:

Position (title/grade):

Date:

Official stamp (where applicable):

(1)	Position of the European Parliament of 14 December 2010.
(2)	OJ L 337, 16.12.2008, p. 102.
(3)	OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20.
(4)	OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
(5)	OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1.
(6)	OJ L 151, 11.6.2008, p. 39.
(7)	OJ L 350, 30.12.2008, p. 60.
(8)	OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 130.
(9)	* Three months after the entry into force of this Directive.
(10)	* Three years after the entry into force of this Directive.
(11)	** Four years after the entry into force of this Directive.
(12)	* Number and date of this Directive.
(13)	* Number and date of this Directive.

Trafficking in human beings ***I

200k

45k

		Resolution
		Text

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA (COM(2010)0095 – C7-0087/2010 – 2010/0065(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0471

A7-0348/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0095),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 82(2) and 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0087/2010),

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

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to the contributions submitted by national parliaments on the draft legislative act,

– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 21 October 2010,

– after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

– having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 25 November 2010 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

– having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality pursuant to Rule 51 of the Rules of procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0348/2010),

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

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 December 2010 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2011/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA

P7_TC1-COD(2010)0065

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2011/36/EU).

Agreement between the EU and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation ***

190k

30k

European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 December 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (15507/2010 – C7-0392/2010 – 2010/0108(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0472

A7-0346/2010

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the draft Council decision (15507/2010),

– having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Georgia on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (14654/2010),

– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 79(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0392/2010),

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

– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0346/2010),

1. Consents to conclusion of the agreement;

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

Territorial, social and economic cohesion

317k

67k

European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2010 on achieving real territorial, social and economic cohesion within the EU – a sine qua non for global competitiveness? (2009/2233(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0473

A7-0309/2010

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Title I and Title XVIII thereof,

– having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 25 and 26 March 2010,

– having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World – A Contribution to the EU's Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),

– having regard to the OECD Annual Report 2009,

– having regard to Successful partnerships: a guide, OECD LEED Forum for Partnerships and Local Governance, 2006,

– having regard to the Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010, World Economic Forum Geneva, Switzerland, 2009,

– having regard to ‘An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy – A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations’, independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, by Fabrizio Barca, April 2009,

– having regard to the Council of European Municipalities and Regions' policy paper on the ‘Future of EU Cohesion Policy’, Brussels, December 2009,

– having regard to the Assembly of European Regions (AER) resolution on regional policy post-2013, adopted by the AER General Assembly on 8 November 2007 in Udine, Italy,

– having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the results of the negotiations concerning cohesion policy strategies and programmes for the programming period 2007-2013 (COM(2008)0301),

– having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on implementation of the Structural Funds Regulation 2007-2013: the results of the negotiations on the national cohesion strategies and the operational programmes (1),

– having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on best practices in the field of regional policy and obstacles to the use of the structural funds (2),

– having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on governance and partnership at national and regional levels and a basis for projects in the sphere of regional policy (3),

– having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion and the state of the debate on the future reform of cohesion policy(4),

– having regard to its resolution of 16 June 2010 on EU 2020(5),

– having regard to the fourth report on Economic and Social Cohesion (COM(2007)0273),

– having regard to the Commission's 20th annual report on implementation of the structural funds (2008) (COM(2009)0617),

– having regard to the Commission communication to Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Mobilising private and public investment for recovery and long-term structural change: developing Public Private Partnerships’ (COM(2009)0615),

– having regard to paragraph 37 of its resolution of 14 February 2006 on State aid reform 2005-2009(6),

– having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0309/2010),

A. whereas promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States, is one of the European Union's objectives, as stipulated in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union,

B. whereas the Union can be globally competitive only insofar as internal policies bolster its capacity to respond to global challenges by running a sustainable, low-carbon economy which safeguards biodiversity – periods of recession having illustrated how less-developed regions have a lesser capacity for recuperation,

C. whereas competitiveness and cohesion are neither contradictory nor incompatible but have elements of complementarity,

D. whereas, even though significant progress has been made in terms of convergence within the Union, a trend can be observed towards worsening territorial disparities between EU regions, for instance in terms of accessibility, in particular for the structurally disadvantaged regions, but also at an intra-regional level and within EU territories, which could lead to spatial segregation, widen the differences between levels of prosperity in EU regions and impair the EU's global competitiveness,

E. whereas in its Annual Report 2009 the OECD made a recommendation for long-term growth that focused on the importance of taxation, investment in infrastructure, education and the workforce, and the regulation of production markets, hence emphasising their role,

F. whereas the World Economic Forum, in its Global Competitiveness Report 2009 as in other reports, pointed to the decisive role of infrastructure as the second of the 12 pillars on which global competitiveness is assessed, and specified that quality infrastructure is key to reducing the effect of distance, attracting foreign investment and ensuring that economic development is possible,

G. whereas competitiveness can ultimately be achieved only if economic growth is genuinely sustainable throughout the EU,

H. whereas the report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation, appointed following the Hampton Court Summit and chaired by Esko Aho, entitled ‘Creating an Innovative Europe’ identifies the key areas – e-health, pharmaceuticals, transport and logistics, environment, digital content, energy and security – where a market for innovation can work and public policy can have a significant role,

I. whereas, in order for the EU 2020 targets to be achieved, it is necessary that the starting position of disparity in levels of development and in limitations be acknowledged, and that objectives be set which tally with the real situation and the needs identified in consultation with all the actors involved at the various levels of government,

J. whereas the European Council of March 2010 acknowledged the importance of promoting economic, social and territorial cohesion inter alia through the development of infrastructure, to help ensure the success of the EU 2020 strategy in circumstances where this new strategy will be addressing blockages in economic development,

K. whereas cohesion policy has proved to be an effective instrument for responding flexibly to the socio-economic challenges arising from the financial crisis,

L. whereas, in addition to good infrastructure, the main prerequisites for competitiveness are the promotion of research, innovation and technological development and the provision of correspondingly high-quality training for people in the regions,

M. whereas regions will play a crucial role in limiting the impact of the crisis on the public and they should therefore embrace the partnership principle and develop suitable instruments for ex-ante assessment of the territorial impact of different policy types, with a view to facing major challenges such as adjusting to globalisation, demographic changes and the consequent depopulation of the regions, climate change, energy-related issues and the protection of biodiversity, as well as new challenges arising from the crisis,

N. whereas, as the outcome of the discussions on cohesion-policy strategies and programmes for the programming period 2007-2013 has shown, programme quality and stakeholder involvement have increased at every level of government, thereby representing a step forward towards achieving the Lisbon objectives of economic competitiveness and employment,

O. whereas the reform of cohesion policy needs to enhance that policy through better correlation and better coordination and synergy among European policies, without subordinating any one policy to another, on the basis of the Union's needs and objectives in terms of sustainable development,

P. whereas the involvement of local and regional actors in cohesion policy is reflected in their regional and local strategies to advance economic development and social inclusion,

Q. whereas the economic competitiveness of regions that are lagging behind is being bolstered by the development of their capacities, including the development of infrastructure of all types, enabling access to education, research and innovation,

R. whereas, while some elements of the architecture of these instruments, such as a common time frame and alignment with the Lisbon agenda, allow for synergies, there remain differences, such as different legal bases, thematic versus territorial focus, and shared versus centralised management,

Cohesion policy as a sine qua non for global economic competitiveness

1. Highlights the achievements of the EU cohesion policy and the fact that its implementation is indispensable for the success of the EU 2020 strategy as an instrument for eliminating the disparities between regions, making them more competitive, facilitating the launch of structural reforms and enhancing the regions' ability to adapt to the global economic climate;

2. Appreciates that, for the period 2007-2013, all the Member States have devoted a significant amount of their total financial allocations to R&D, innovation and development of a knowledge-based economy, resulting in 246 National or Regional Operational Programmes, with around EUR 86 billion allocated to research and innovation, of which EUR 50 billion has already been allocated for core R&D and innovation activities; stresses that, since research and innovation are essential for the improvement of EU competitiveness in the face of global challenges, investments in these fields must continue and regular results-based assessments of progress must be conducted; recommends, therefore, with a view to the next programming period, that the Member States and the Commission allocate sufficient resources from the structural funds for research and innovation, in particular sustainable innovation, and strengthen research capacities; stresses the need to promote and apply successful models in the knowledge triangle to ensure the sustainable development of regional research and strategic frameworks for innovation, in collaboration with enterprises, research centres, universities and public authorities; highlights the potential of knowledge-intensive regional innovative clusters in mobilising regional competitiveness and calls for better coordination of the structural funds and the Seventh Framework Programme for research and technological development;

3. Stresses that enhancing the concentration of cohesion-policy resources can ensure that this policy makes a significant contribution to fostering competitiveness, innovation and employment in the EU;

4. Stresses the key role played by both the public sector, at all levels of government, and the private sector in the implementation of cohesion policy, in rebuilding confidence and solidarity in times of recession and thereafter by guaranteeing equal opportunities in terms of access to public investment, especially in infrastructure, new technologies and human capital, and by ensuring sustainable development;

5. Underlines the fact that the economic competitiveness of the EU regions is closely linked to the existence of adequate levels of employment, educated and skilled workforces, social security and access to public services; notes, in this regard, that the support for social cohesion provided by the cohesion policy increases the importance of this policy in terms of overall regional competitiveness on a global scale;

6. Takes the view that, in accordance with the spirit of the Treaties, a cohesion policy which aims at reducing disparities in levels of development and prepares the regions to meet long-term and short-term challenges (globalisation, demographic change, the depopulation of rural areas, climate change and biodiversity protection), by taking into account their specific strengths and weaknesses, has proved to be essential to the process of European integration;

7. Points out that, by increasing the synergies between research, development and innovation and cohesion policies, the EU 2020 strategy challenges can be better met; stresses that cohesion policy must play a significant role in the implementation of the EU 2020 strategy, since it stimulates structural change across Europe and supports key investment priorities at all levels, local, regional, national and cross-border, ensuring social, economic and territorial cohesion; points out, however, that, while the priorities of the cohesion policy should be aligned with the EU 2020 objectives, it must remain an independent policy capable of accommodating regional specificities and of supporting the weaker and neediest regions so that they overcome their socio-economic difficulties and natural handicaps and reduce disparities; takes the view that ensuring the continuity of cohesion-policy guidelines already in operation will safeguard the regional dimension of RDI and generate jobs in innovative sectors;

Territorial cohesion – a reflection of the local-level impact of EU policies

8. Endorses the views expressed in the Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion concerning competitiveness, which ‘depends on building links with other territories to ensure that common assets are used in a coordinated and sustainable way’ in order to release the potential inherent in the EU's territorial diversity; stresses, in that connection, that the smooth and coordinated operation of transport services, sufficient access to telecommunications and the pooling, where appropriate, of energy, healthcare, research, education, environmental protection and infrastructure are basic conditions for further boosting competitiveness; calls on the Commission to bring forward concrete proposals for the definition and consistent implementation of the objective of territorial cohesion;

9. Takes the view that the Member States must support a place-based approach to framing and implementing cohesion policy; acknowledges that the role of the regions varies between Member States depending on their political and administrative structure; requests that the principle of subsidiarity, in its strengthened and widened concept as defined in the TFEU, should be duly applied and that improvement should be sought, over the current programming period, by promoting the principle of decentralisation down to local-authority level, with a view to improving the absorption of funds; considers it to be counterproductive, in this context, that regions administer on average only 30.5% of the overall budget allocated to cohesion policy, with the remainder being administered by central governments; considers, therefore, that in future the partnership principle must be significantly strengthened;

10. Takes the view that border territories, in particular, highlight the problems that the EU faces in connection with the challenges of opening up borders, completing the internal market and globalisation; emphasises that the competitiveness of such territories may be undermined by the need to cope with competing fiscal and welfare systems, complex administrative arrangements and migratory flows between regions and states; stresses the importance of developing the tools needed for cross-border cooperation and multi-level governance and calls on the Commission to encourage exchanges of information and best practice;

11. Points out that territorial cohesion has a horizontal, multi-sectoral character and that Union policies must therefore contribute to its achievement; reiterates that this concept is not confined to the effects of regional policy but also implies coordination with other Union policies which target sustainable development and offer tangible results at regional level, with a view to developing and fully using the specific forms of regional potential and increasing their impact on the ground, boosting regions' competitiveness and attractiveness and achieving territorial cohesion; is of the opinion that ‘concentration, cooperation and connection’ are the key coordinates of territorial cohesion with a view to more balanced territorial development in the EU;

12. Stresses that multi-level governance entails the devolution of responsibility for programmes, allowing for better exploitation of the potential of territorial cooperation, and that, therefore, in order for the Union to be able to pursue common objectives, using coherent and result-oriented measures while establishing specific regional and local priorities, the principles of multi-level governance should be implemented;

13. Welcomes the results of the URBAN and LEADER initiatives and highlights the need to use this past experience and the associated examples of best practice in providing the framework for integrated, balanced rural-urban development, in accordance with the necessities of each region; calls on the Commission to examine and propose working methodologies that promote urban-rural partnerships, combat the depopulation of rural areas and, at the same time, stimulate sustainable urban development, since nearly 80% of the EU population lives in urban areas; points out that both urban and rural areas play a dynamic role in regional economic development and stresses the need, with a view to the next programming period, for investment in urban as well as sub-urban projects and for better coordination with rural development programmes;

Maximizing the impact of cohesion policy to increase economic competitiveness

14. Views partnership as a key principle in the determination of cohesion-policy content, with the ‘bottom-up’ approach enhancing administrative capacities and the quality of the programming process; believes that all levels of government need to play a cohesive, complementary and productive role in boosting the economic competitiveness of the EU; calls on the Commission to give a clearer definition of the partnership principle in order to ensure that real partnerships with regional and local authorities are set up and to facilitate exchanges of best practice between regions;

15. Points out that co-financing is a principle fundamental to the sound management of cohesion policy; calls for its continued application despite the restrictions on public spending which the economic crisis has brought about;

16. Highlights the need to promote entrepreneurship and support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), recognising the key role they have played in fostering economic competitiveness and creating jobs; stresses the need to review and consolidate the role of the EU instruments that support European competitiveness with a view to rationalising administrative procedures, facilitating access to funding, especially for SMEs, introducing innovative incentive mechanisms based on achieving objectives linked to intelligent, sustainable and integrative growth, and promoting closer cooperation with the European Investment Bank and other financial institutions; appreciates, in this context, the added value offered by financial engineering instruments and encourages their use, as well as that of revolving funds and global grants, on the widest possible scale, with a view to achieving positive synergies and maximising results; calls, too, for simplified access to risk capital and micro-finance;

17. Emphasises, moreover, that the efficient implementation of cohesion policy depends strongly on how it is conceived and that it is, therefore, crucial to involve local and regional authorities at an early stage in shaping and implementing future cohesion policy; highlights, likewise, the need to develop horizontal and vertical partnerships between public authorities at all levels with a view to achieving the most efficient governance possible at a number of levels; recalls that multi-level governance is one of the key principles of cohesion policy and that it is fundamental to ensuring the quality of the decision-making process; stresses too, in this context, the importance of the partnership that regional authorities have with the Committee of the Regions;

18. Welcomes the amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 simplifying the procedures for utilisation of the structural funds and the Cohesion Fund and invites the Commission to continue simplifying such procedures to ensure their flexibility and reduce the administrative burden on funding beneficiaries, so that the authorities can address major challenges in a timely manner and with the appropriate resources; takes the view that public-private partnerships can provide genuine support by supplementing the efforts made at local and regional level, and calls on the Commission to bring forward concrete proposals for the consolidation of public-private partnerships within the framework of cohesion policy;

19. Stresses the importance, in the interests of eliminating disparities, of continuing to provide support primarily for projects aimed at regions that are lagging behind, so that the impact expected in this programming period can be maintained and will be in line with initial estimates; notes that improving accessibility and infrastructural facilities will help to make those regions which lag behind in the internal market more competitive, and will thus contribute to the external competitiveness of the EU as a whole; takes the view that withdrawing this support would reduce the impact of the positive initial results;

20. Stresses that, although cohesion policy traditionally focuses on the least prosperous regions, it concerns all European regions, regardless of their level of development; emphasises, therefore, the need to encourage the objective of regional competitiveness and employment; reiterates that a strong and well financed cohesion policy, with a budget at least equivalent to the current one in both absolute and relative terms, is a precondition for delivering the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy, in order both to secure an intelligent, sustainable and integrative economy, making the EU globally competitive, and to ensure that all regions develop harmoniously, achieving the objective of social, economic and territorial cohesion;

21. Takes the view that GDP must remain the principal criterion for determining the eligibility of regions for cohesion-policy assistance, while other measurable indicators might be added if proven to be relevant, leaving room for national authorities to apply, at the appropriate level of decision making, other indicators which take into account the specific attributes of regions and cities;

22. Stresses the importance of taking into account, in the allocation of funds, the specific characteristics of, for example, coastal, mountainous outermost regions, regions suffering from depopulation, or remote border regions and towns; encourages the regions to put forward initiatives for exploiting their regional specificity; calls on the Commission to adapt the various financial instruments so as to create added value in the short and medium term, while also taking into consideration the effects of the economic and financial crisis;

23. Invites the Commission to study ways in which new techniques in financial engineering can improve the effectiveness and impact of the cohesion policy, with a view to obtaining the best possible results in the projects chosen;

24. Emphasises the positive effects of gender equality on the EU's economic growth and social cohesion and, therefore, on its competitiveness;

Cohesion policy as a key policy for the post-2013 period

25. Emphasises the decisive role which regional development and territorial cohesion throughout Europe play, by virtue of their European added value, in enhancing the economic competitiveness of the EU and meeting the EU 2020 targets, with the place-based approach being one of the main ways of achieving economic balance;

26. Stresses the need for an integrated approach to the application of the structural funds as an important means of helping regions to achieve sustainable growth, employment and prosperity;

27. Stresses the need to keep transitional arrangements in place to consolidate and improve the current level of development, which could fall if financing is significantly reduced once a given objective is met; points out that this would ensure equal treatment for regions in similar situations, which would in turn lead to the efficient organisation of programmes;

28. Reminds the Commission and the Member States that the expectations of the European public are based on people's needs, and especially on the desire for access to adequate infrastructure and quality public services, which must be provided equitably and at prices affordable by all European citizens regardless of where they live and work; insists that the right to equal opportunities must be respected and stresses the need for disabled access to all infrastructure and projects financed under the structural funds;

29. Stresses that, in order to consolidate knowledge and innovation as motors of future economic growth and European competitiveness, it is necessary to improve the quality of education, build on the results of research, promote innovation and the transfer of knowledge Union-wide, exploit ICTs to the maximum, ensure that innovative ideas are reflected in new products and services which generate growth and quality jobs and contribute to meeting the challenges of social change in Europe and the world, encourage entrepreneurship, prioritise user needs and market opportunities, and guarantee accessible and adequate funding on the basis of a key role for the structural funds;

30. Highlights the fact that economic, social and territorial cohesion provides an opportunity to harness the full potential of research, development and innovation and to ensure that the European public have better living standards and greater confidence in the EU; selective and combined investment in research, development and innovation must take into account regional and urban capacities and potential and help to develop key areas such as e-health, pharmaceuticals, transport and logistics, environment, digital content, energy and security, by means of institutional development and capacity-building programmes;

31. Takes the view that some of the funding allocated to research, development and innovation under the cohesion policy should be used to attain and maintain the role of world leader in sectors where Europe already has a competitive advantage and in those where it has a fresh opportunity to become a world leader;

32. Takes the view that, in order to consolidate the internal market, specific measures are needed to stimulate competition at European level, without however creating an imbalance among Member States; believes that in this way a comfortable level of stability and economic prosperity can be achieved at European level;

33. Recommends that the Member States and the Commission pay greater attention to supporting major projects covering two or more operational programmes with a major impact at European level, which will generate added value, create high-quality jobs and safeguard the sustainable development of the regions;

34. Takes the view that the cohesion policy should continue promoting measures that will generate the greatest possible number of jobs, making it possible to harness local human resources and ensure their ongoing development so as to guarantee high productivity;

35. Maintains that the achievement of economic, social and territorial cohesion is a necessary condition but that it is not sufficient to guarantee economic competitiveness at world level, which requires significant investments in key areas such as energy, the environment, infrastructure, education, research and development, creative industries and services, logistics and transport;

o
o o

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

(1)	OJ C 117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 79.
(2)	OJ C 117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 38.
(3)	OJ C 15 E, 21.1.2010, p. 10.
(4)	OJ C 117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 65.
(5)	Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0223.
(6)	OJ C 290 E, 29.11.2006, p. 97.

Legal notice - Privacy policy