Texts adopted
Thursday, 29 October 2015 - Strasbourg
EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) ***I
 Reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions ***I
 Follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens
 Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market
 Safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in the field of civil aviation
 New challenges and concepts for the promotion of tourism in Europe
 Development of a satellite-based technology to enable global flight tracking systems

EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) ***I
PDF 244kWORD 61k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 October 2015 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Union agency for law enforcement training (Cepol), repealing and replacing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA (COM(2014)0465 – C8-0110/2014 – 2014/0217(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0465),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0110/2014),

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

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 29 June 2015 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 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0048/2015),

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.  Calls on the Commission to provide an overall analysis of the administrative cooperation between European Union agencies and of where such cooperation could create synergies in the future;

4.  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 29 October 2015 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/... of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and replacing and repealing Council Decision 2005/681/JHA


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2015/2219.)

Reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions ***I
PDF 244kWORD 92k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 October 2015 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on reporting and transparency of securities financing transactions (COM(2014)0040 – C7-0023/2014 – 2014/0017(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0040),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0023/2014),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank of 7 July 2014(1),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 10 July 2014(2),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 29 June 2015 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 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0120/2015),

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 29 October 2015 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/... of the European Parliament and of the Council on transparency of securities financing transactions and of reuse and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2015/2365.)

(1) OJ C 451, 16.12.2014, p. 56.
(2) OJ C 271, 19.8.2014, p. 87.

Follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens
PDF 196kWORD 91k
European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on the follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens (2015/2635(RSP))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the legal framework set by the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 21 thereof, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 20, 21, 42, 47, 48 and 52 thereof, the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular Articles 6, 8, 9, 10 and 13 thereof, and the case law of the European courts concerning security, privacy and freedom of speech,

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2014 on the US NSA surveillance programme, surveillance bodies in various Member States and their impact on EU citizens’ fundamental rights and on transatlantic cooperation in Justice and Home Affairs(1) (hereinafter ‘the resolution’),

–  having regard to the working document of 19 January 2015 entitled ‘On the Follow-up of the LIBE Inquiry on Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU citizens’(2),

–  having regard to the resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 21 April 2015 on mass surveillance,

–  having regard to the questions to the Council and to the Commission on the follow-up to the European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2014 on the electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens (O-000114/2015 – B8‑0769/2015 and O-000115/2015 – B8‑0770/2015),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

–  having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas in the resolution Parliament called on the US authorities and the Member States to prohibit blanket mass surveillance activities and bulk processing of personal data of citizens, and denounced the reported actions by intelligence services that have severely affected EU citizens’ trust and their fundamental rights; whereas the resolution pointed towards the possible existence of other motives such as political and economic espionage, given the capacity of the reported mass surveillance programmes;

B.  whereas the resolution launched ‘A European Digital Habeas Corpus – protecting fundamental rights in a digital age’, with eight specific actions, and instructed the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to address Parliament within one year with a view to assessing the extent to which the recommendations have been followed;

C.  whereas the working document of 19 January 2015 reported on developments since the adoption of the resolution, with the stream of revelations of alleged electronic mass surveillance activities continuing, and on the state of implementation of the proposed ‘European Digital Habeas Corpus’, indicating the limited response of the institutions, Member States and stakeholders called upon to act;

D.  whereas in the resolution Parliament called on the Commission and other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies to act on the recommendations, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU (‘failure to act’);

E.  whereas Wikileaks recently revealed the targeted surveillance of the communications of the last three French Presidents as well as of French cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US; whereas this strategic and economic espionage has been carried out on a large scale over the last ten years by the NSA, targeted on all the French state structures as well as the biggest French companies;

F.  whereas the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression states that encryption and anonymity provide the privacy and security necessary for the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age; whereas that report also states that any restrictions on encryption and anonymity must be strictly limited in accordance with the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality and legitimacy of objective;

1.  Welcomes the inquiries by the German Bundestag, the Council of Europe, the UN and the Brazilian Senate, the debates in several other national parliaments and the work of numerous civil society actors that have contributed to the raising of general awareness regarding electronic mass surveillance;

2.  Calls on the EU Member States to drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender;

3.  Is, however, highly disappointed by the overall lack of sense of urgency and willingness shown by most Member States and the EU institutions in terms of seriously addressing the issues raised in the resolution and implementing the concrete recommendations contained therein, as well as by the lack of transparency towards or dialogue with Parliament;

4.  Is concerned at some of the recent laws in some Member States that extend surveillance capabilities of intelligence bodies, including, in France, the new intelligence law adopted by the National Assembly on 24 June 2015, several provisions of which, according to the Commission, raise important legal questions, in the UK, the adoption of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the subsequent court decision that certain articles were unlawful and to be disapplied, and, in the Netherlands, the proposals for new legislation to update the Intelligence and Security Act of 2002; reiterates its call on all Member States to ensure that their current and future legislative frameworks and oversight mechanisms governing the activities of intelligence agencies are in line with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and all relevant Union legislation; ;

5.  Welcomes the inquiry by the German Bundestag into mass surveillance; is strongly concerned about the revelations of mass surveillance of telecommunications and internet traffic inside the Union by the German foreign intelligence agency BND in cooperation with the NSA; considers this a breach of the principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU;

6.  Asks its President to call on the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe to launch the Article 52 procedure, according to which ‘on receipt of a request from the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe any High Contracting Party shall furnish an explanation of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of any of the provisions of the Convention’;

7.  Considers the Commission’s reaction so far to the resolution to be highly inadequate given the extent of the revelations; calls on the Commission to act on the calls made in the resolution by December 2015 at the latest; reserves the right to bring an action for failure to act or to place certain budgetary resources for the Commission in a reserve until all the recommendations have been properly addressed;

8.  Stresses the significance of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 8 April 2014 declaring invalid Directive 2006/24/EC on Data Retention; recalls that the Court stipulated that the interference of this instrument with the fundamental right to privacy has to be limited to what is strictly necessary; highlights the fact that this ruling presents a novel aspect insofar as the Court of Justice refers specifically to a particular body of case law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the issue of ‘general programmes of surveillance’ and has now effectively incorporated the same principles, stemming from that particular case law of the European Court of Human Rights, into EU law in this same field; stresses that it is therefore to be expected that the Court of Justice will, in future, also apply the same reasoning when assessing the validity, under the Charter, of other EU and Member State legislative acts in this same field of ‘general programmes of surveillance’;

Data Protection Package

9.  Welcomes the opening of informal interinstitutional negotiations on the draft General Data Protection Regulation and the Council’s adoption of a general approach on the draft Data Protection Directive; reiterates its intention to conclude negotiations on the Data Protection Package in 2015;

10.  Reminds the Council of its commitment to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in its amendments to the Commission proposals; reiterates in particular that the level of protection offered should not be lower than that already established by Directive 95/46/EC;

11.  Stresses that both the Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Directive are necessary to protect the fundamental rights of individuals, and that the two must therefore be treated as a package to be adopted simultaneously, in order to ensure that all data processing activities in the EU provide a high level of protection in all circumstances; underlines that the objective of strengthening the rights and protections of individuals with regard to the processing of their personal data must be met when adopting the package;

EU-US umbrella agreement

12.  Notes that since the adoption of the resolution the negotiations with the US on the EU-US framework agreement on the protection of personal data when transferred and processed for law enforcement purposes (hereinafter the ‘umbrella agreement’) have been completed and the draft agreement has been initialled;

13.  Welcomes the efforts by the US administration to rebuild trust through the umbrella agreement, and particularly welcomes the fact that the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 was successfully passed by the House of Representatives on 20 October 2015, underlining the substantial and positive steps taken by the US to meet EU concerns; considers it of paramount importance to ensure the same rights in all the same circumstances of effective judicial redress for EU citizens/individuals whose personal data are processed in the EU and transferred to the US, without any discrimination between EU and US citizens; calls on the US Senate to pass legislation guaranteeing this; underlines that one prerequisite for signature and conclusion of the umbrella agreement is the adoption of the Judicial Redress Act in the US Congress;

Safe Harbour

14.  Recalls that the resolution calls for the immediate suspension of the Safe Harbour Decision as it does not provide adequate protection of personal data for EU citizens;

15.  Recalls that any international agreement concluded by the EU takes precedence over EU secondary law, and therefore stresses the need to ensure that the umbrella agreement does not restrict the data subject rights and safeguards applying to data transfer in accordance with EU law; urges the Commission, therefore, to assess in detail precisely how the umbrella agreement would interact with, and have an effect on, the EU legal framework for data protection, including, respectively, the current Council framework decision, the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and the future data protection directive and regulation; calls on the Commission to present a legal assessment report on this matter to Parliament before initiating the ratification procedure;

16.  Recalls that the Commission addressed 13 recommendations to the US in its communications of 27 November 2013 on the functioning of the Safe Harbour, in order to ensure an adequate level of protection;

17.  Welcomes that in its ruling of 6 October 2015 the CJEU declared invalid the Commission Adequacy Decision 2000/520/EC on the US Safe Harbour; stresses that this ruling has confirmed the long-standing position of Parliament regarding the lack of an adequate level of protection under this instrument; calls on the Commission to immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that all personal data transferred to the US are subject to an effective level of protection that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU;

18.  Objects to the fact that Parliament has not received any formal communication from the Commission regarding the state of implementation of the 13 recommendations, despite the Commission’s announcement that it would do so by summer 2014; underlines that, following the CJEU’s decision to invalidate Decision 2000/520/EC, it is now urgent that the Commission provide a thorough update on the negotiations thus far and the impact of the judgment on the further negotiations that were announced; invites the Commission to reflect immediately on alternatives to Safe Harbour and on the impact of the judgment on any other instruments for the transfer of personal data to the US, and to report on the matter by the end of 2015;

19.  Urges the Commission to assess the legal impact and implications of the Court of Justice ruling of 6 October 2015 in the Schrems case (C-362/14) vis-à-vis any agreements with third countries allowing for the transfer of personal data, such as the EU-US Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) Agreement, passenger name record (PNR) agreements, the EU-US umbrella agreement and other instruments under EU law which involve the collection and processing of personal data;

Democratic oversight

20.  While fully respecting that national parliaments have full competence in the oversight of national intelligence services, calls on all those national parliaments which have not yet done so to thoroughly evaluate and install meaningful oversight of intelligence activities and to ensure that such oversight committees/bodies have sufficient resources, technical expertise and legal means and access to all relevant documents in order to be able to effectively and independently oversee intelligence services and information exchanges with other foreign intelligence services; re-expresses its commitment to cooperate closely with national parliaments to ensure that effective oversight mechanisms are in place including by sharing best practices and common standards;

21.  Intends to follow up the Conference on the Democratic oversight of Intelligence Services in the European Union, held on 28 and 29 May 2015, and to continue its efforts aimed at ensuring the sharing of best practices on intelligence oversight, in close coordination with national parliaments; welcomes the joint concluding remarks of the co-chairs of this conference declaring their intention to convene a follow-up conference in two years’ time;

22.  Considers that the existing tools for cooperation among oversight bodies, for instance the European Network of National Intelligence Reviewers (ENNIR), should be supported and their use should be increased, possibly by making use of the potential of IPEX for the exchange of information between national parliaments, in compliance with its scope and technical capacity;

23.  Reiterates its call for the suspension of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) agreement;

24.  Stresses that a common definition of ‘national security’ is needed for the EU and its Member States to ensure legal certainty; notes that the lack of a clear definition allows for arbitrariness and abuses of fundamental rights and the rule of law by executives and intelligence communities in the EU;

25.  Encourages the Commission and the Member States to introduce sunset and extension provisions in legislation that allows the collection of personal data or the surveillance of European citizens; stresses that such provisions are essential safeguards for ensuring that an instrument which is invasive for privacy is regularly scrutinised as regards its necessity and proportionality in a democratic society;

Rebuilding trust

26.  Stresses that a healthy EU-US relationship remains absolutely vital for both partners; notes that revelations about surveillance have undermined public support for the relationship, and stresses that measures need to be taken to ensure that trust is rebuilt, in particular in the light of the current urgent need for cooperation on a large number of geopolitical issues of common concern; emphasises in this context that a negotiated solution between the US and the EU as a whole, respecting fundamental rights, needs to be found;

27.  Welcomes the recent legislative and judicial decisions taken in the US to limit mass surveillance by the NSA, including the adoption of the USA Freedom Act in Congress without any amendments as the result of bicameral and bipartisan compromise, and the ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the NSA’s telephone record collection programme; regrets, however, the fact that these decisions focus mainly on US persons while the situation of EU citizens remains the same;

28.  Considers that any decision to use surveillance technology should be based on a thorough assessment of necessity and proportionality; welcomes the results of the SURVEILLE research project, which offers a methodology for assessing surveillance technologies taking legal, ethical and technological considerations into account;

29.  Emphasises that the EU should contribute to the development of international standards/principles at UN level, in line with the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in order to create a global framework for data protection, including specific limitations with regard to collection for national security purposes;

30.  Is convinced that only if credible norms are established at the global level can a ‘surveillance arms race’ be avoided;

Private companies

31.  Welcomes the initiatives of the private ICT sector in terms of developing cryptographic security solutions and internet services that improve privacy; encourages the continued development of user-friendly application settings helping customers manage what information they share with whom and how; notes that various companies have also announced plans to enable end-to-end encryption in response to mass surveillance revelations;

32.  Reiterates that under Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers of transmission, storage and hosting services to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity; recalls in particular that the CJEU, in its Judgments C-360/10 and C-70/10, rejected measures for the ‘active monitoring’ of almost all users of the services concerned (internet access providers in one case, a social network in the other) and specified that any injunction requiring a hosting services provider to undertake general monitoring shall be precluded;

33.  Welcomes the publication of transparency reports by IT and telecommunications companies about government demands for user data; calls on the Member States to publish statistics on their requests to private companies for private user information;

The TFTP agreement

34.  Is disappointed that the Commission disregarded Parliament’s clear call for the suspension of the TFTP agreement, given that no clear information was given to clarify whether SWIFT data would have been accessed outside TFTP by any other US government body; intends to take this into account when considering giving consent to future international agreements;

Other personal data exchange with third countries

35.  Stresses its position that all agreements, mechanisms and adequacy decisions for exchanges with third countries involving personal data require rigorous monitoring and immediate follow-up action by the Commission as the guardian of the Treaties;

36.  Welcomes the EU-US Riga statement of 3 June 2015 on enhancing transatlantic cooperation in the area of freedom, security and justice, in which the signatories committed to enhancing the implementation of the US-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement (MLAT), to concluding its review as foreseen by the Agreement, and to conducting workshops to discuss the issues concerned with the competent national authorities; underlines that MLATs are the instrument on the basis of which law enforcement authorities of Member States should cooperate with authorities of third countries; calls, in this regard, on the Member States and the US government to adhere to the above-mentioned commitments with a view to a swift conclusion of the US-EU MLAT review;

37.  Calls on the Commission to report to Parliament by the end of 2015 on the gaps identified in different instruments used for international data transfers as regards access by law enforcement and intelligence services of third countries, and on the means to address those gaps so as to ensure the continuity of the required adequate protection of EU personal data transferred to third countries;

Protection of the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens/enhanced protection for whistleblowers and journalists

38.  Considers that EU citizens’ fundamental rights remain in danger and that too little has been done to ensure their full protection in case of electronic mass surveillance; regrets the limited progress in ensuring the protection of whistleblowers and journalists;

39.  Deplores the fact that many mass and large-scale intelligence programmes seem to be also driven by the economic interests of the companies that develop and run those programmes, as was the case with the ending of the NSA’s targeted ‘Thinthread’ programme and its replacement by the large-scale surveillance programme ‘Trailblazer’, which was outsourced to SAIC in 2001;

40.  Reiterates its serious concern regarding the work within the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention Committee on the interpretation of Article 32 of the Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2001 (Budapest Convention) with regard to transborder access to stored computer data with consent or where publicly available, and opposes any conclusion of an additional protocol or guidance intended to broaden the scope of this provision beyond the current regime established by this Convention, which is already a major exception to the principle of territoriality as it could result in unfettered remote access by law enforcement authorities to servers and computers located in other jurisdictions without recourse to MLA agreements or other instruments of judicial cooperation put in place to guarantee the fundamental rights of the individual, including data protection and due process; underlines that the EU has exercised its competence in the area of cybercrime and that the prerogatives of both the Commission and Parliament should therefore be respected;

41.  Regrets that the Commission has not responded to Parliament’s request to conduct an examination as to a comprehensive European whistleblower protection programme, and calls on the Commission to present a communication on this subject, by the end of 2016 at the latest;

42.  Welcomes the resolution adopted on 23 June 2015 by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on ‘Improving the protection of whistleblowers’, and in particular its point 9 on the importance of whistleblowing to ensure that legal limits placed on surveillance are respected, and its point 10 calling on the EU to enact whistle blower protection laws, also covering employees of national security or intelligence services and of private firms working in this field, and to grant asylum, as far as possible under national law, to whistleblowers threatened by retaliation in their home countries, provided their disclosures qualify for protection under the principles advocated by the Assembly;

43.  Stresses that mass surveillance severely undermines the professional confidentiality privilege of regulated professions including doctors, journalists and lawyers; underlines in particular the rights of EU citizens to be protected against any surveillance of confidential communications with their lawyers which would violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, notably Articles 6, 47 and 48 thereof, and Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer; calls on the Commission to present a communication on the protection of confidential communications in professions with legal professional privilege, by the end of 2016 at the latest;

44.  Calls on the Commission to prepare guidelines for Member States on how to bring any instruments of personal data collection for the purpose of the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, including terrorism, in line with the judgments of the CJEU of 8 April 2014 on data retention (Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12) and of 6 October 2015 on Safe Harbour (Case C‑362/14); points in particular to paragraphs 58 and 59 of the data retention judgment and to paragraphs 93 and 94 of the Safe Harbour judgment, which clearly demand a targeted approach for data collection rather than a ‘full take’;

45.  Highlights the fact that the most recent case law, and in particular the judgment of the CJEU of 8 April 2014 on data retention, clearly sets out as a legal requirement the demonstration of necessity and proportionality for any measures involving the collection and use of personal data potentially interfering with the right of respect for private and family life and the right to data protection; finds it regrettable that political considerations often undermine compliance with these legal principles in the decision-making process; calls on the Commission to ensure, as part of its Better Regulation agenda, that all EU legislation is of high quality, complies with all the legal standards and case law, and is in line with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; recommends that the impact assessment of all law-enforcement and security measures involving the use and collection of personal data always includes a necessity and proportionality test;

European strategy for greater IT independence

46.  Is disappointed by the lack of action by the Commission to follow up the detailed recommendations made in the resolution for increasing IT security and online privacy in the EU;

47.  Welcomes the steps taken so far to strengthen Parliament’s IT security, as outlined in the action plan on EP ICT Security prepared by DG ITEC; asks for these efforts to be continued and the recommendations made in the resolution fully and swiftly carried out; calls for fresh thinking and, if necessary, legislative change in the field of procurement to enhance the IT security of the EU institutions; calls for the systematic replacement of proprietary software by auditable and verifiable open-source software in all the EU institutions, for the introduction of a mandatory ‘open-source’ selection criterion in all future ICT procurement procedures, and for efficient availability of encryption tools;

48.  Strongly reiterates its call for the development, within the framework of new initiatives such as the Digital Single Market, of a European strategy for greater IT independence and online privacy that will boost the IT industry in the EU;

49.  Intends to submit further recommendations in this field following its conference on ‘Protecting on-line privacy by enhancing IT security and EU IT autonomy’, scheduled for the end of 2015, which will build on the findings of the recent STOA study on the mass surveillance of IT users;

Democratic and neutral internet governance

50.  Welcomes the Commission’s aim to make the EU a reference player for internet governance, as well as its vision of a multi-stakeholder model for internet governance as reiterated at the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance (NETMundial) held in Brazil in April 2014; looks forward to the outcome of the ongoing international work in this field, including in the framework of the Internet Governance Forum;

51.  Warns against the obvious downward spiral for the fundamental right to privacy and personal data protection occurring when every bit of information on human behaviour is considered to be potentially useful in combating future criminal acts, necessarily resulting in a mass surveillance culture where every citizen is treated as a potential suspect and leading to the corrosion of societal coherence and trust;

52.  Intends to take account of the findings of the in-depth research by the Fundamental Rights Agency concerning the protection of fundamental rights in the context of surveillance, and in particular regarding the current legal situation of individuals with respect to the remedies available to them in relation to the practices concerned;


53.  Instructs its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to continue to monitor developments in this field and the follow-up to the recommendations made in the resolution;

o   o

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

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0230.
(2) PE546.737v01-00.

Council Recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market
PDF 173kWORD 71k
European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on a Council recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market (2015/2820(RSP))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 17 September 2015 for a Council recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market (COM(2015)0462),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 28 November 2014 on the Annual Growth Survey 2015 (COM(2014)0902),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2015 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: Employment and Social Aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2015(1),

–  having regard to the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) Council conclusions of 9 March 2015 entitled ‘The 2015 Annual Growth Survey and Joint Employment Report: Political guidance on employment and social policies’(2),

–  having regard to its position of 8 July 2015 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(3),

–  having regard to European Court of Auditors Special Report No 3/2015, entitled ‘EU Youth Guarantee: first steps taken but implementation risks ahead’,

–  having regard to the European Social Policy Network (ESPN) report entitled ‘Integrated support for the long-term unemployed: A study of national policies – 2015’,

–  having regard to the question to the Council on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market (O-000121/2015 – B8-1102/2015),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

–  having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas, as a result of the economic crisis and its consequences, long-term unemployment has doubled since 2007 and accounts for half of total unemployment, or more than 12 million people, representing 5 % of the EU’s active population; whereas over 60 % of the long-term unemployed had been out of work for at least two consecutive years in 2014;

B.  whereas the long-term unemployment rate differs markedly across the Member States, ranging from 1,5 % in Austria to 19,5 % in Greece; whereas the Member States with the highest rates of long-term unemployment are Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Croatia, Spain and Greece; whereas the economic recovery must gain momentum, as it is currently not providing enough impetus to significantly reduce high rates of structural unemployment;

C.  whereas the non-registration of a large proportion of the long-term unemployed and methodological flaws relating to data collection mean that official statistics underestimate the situation;

D.  whereas long-term unemployment often leads to poverty, inequalities and social exclusion, and disproportionately affects vulnerable people who are in a disadvantaged position on the labour market;

E.  whereas long-term unemployment progressively distances people from the labour market owing to an erosion of skills and professional networks and a loss of work rhythm, and can lead to a spiral of disengagement from society, domestic tensions and feelings of alienation; whereas every year one in five of the long-term unemployed become discouraged and fall into inactivity as a result of unsuccessful job search efforts;

F.  whereas the consequences of long-term unemployment are especially grave in jobless households, often leading to low educational attainment, detachment from the ‘world of work’, increased mental and health problems, social exclusion and, in the worst cases, the passing-on of poverty from one generation to the next;

G.  whereas spells of long-term unemployment often have negative long-term consequences for employment prospects, career progress, earnings profiles and pensions (‘scarring effects’);

H.  whereas long-term unemployment has huge societal costs owing to a waste of skills and increased social expenditure, in addition to the non-monetary costs arising from a large number of people losing self-confidence and not attaining their personal potential, and from a loss of social cohesion;

I.  whereas continued high levels of long-term unemployment are jeopardising efforts to attain the Europe 2020 headline targets of having 75 % of 20- to 64-year-olds in employment and at least 20 million fewer people in, or at risk of, poverty and social exclusion;

J.  whereas skills maintenance in the event of job loss, together with education, training and reskilling that anticipate future skills needs, is an important element in avoiding and redressing long-term unemployment;

K.  whereas this recommendation bears similarity to the Youth Guarantee; whereas lessons should be learned from initial experiences with the implementation of the Youth Guarantee;

1.  Welcomes the Commission’s initiative of proposing a Council recommendation on the integration of the long-term unemployed into the labour market; stresses that an earlier release of the proposal, and agreement in the Council, could have prevented part of the long-term unemployment observed today; expresses concern that a Council recommendation may not be sufficient to redress swiftly the situation of the long-term unemployed, and encourages the Member States to deliver;

2.  Supports the three main components of the proposal: (i) ambitiously stepping up the registration of the long-term unemployed through an employment service aiming at full coverage; (ii) assessing the individual potential, needs and job preferences of the long‑term unemployed before they reach 18 months of unemployment; and (iii) offering a tailor-made, balanced and comprehensible ‘job integration agreement’ between the long-term unemployed and the services involved, at the latest by the time the person concerned reaches 18 months of unemployment; stresses, however, that an individual assessment should take place before the person reaches 12 months of unemployment, so as to ensure that the job integration agreement can be put in place before they reach 18 months of unemployment; insists that, where applicable, the three-step approach should not fall short in integrating non-state actors, such as social NGOs that work with the long‑term unemployed, into the process as a whole;

3.  Stresses the need to reach out to all the long-term unemployed, including those who are unregistered, and not only to those who have been unemployed for 18 months or more; considers it paramount that Member State policies targeted at short-term unemployment (< 12 months) and youth unemployment (including the Youth Guarantee) fit in seamlessly with policies aimed at tackling long-term unemployment;

4.  Endorses the call for close cooperation between, and effective coordination of, all parties involved in the reintegration of the long-term unemployed (including civil society organisations, where applicable) and for the establishment of one-stop-shops where the unemployed person has one professional case manager (a ‘single point of contact’), with this reintegration effort not being disrupted in the event of a benefit regime change for the unemployed person;

5.  Underlines the need for an individual approach to assessing the abilities and needs of the long-term unemployed as regards their reintegration into the labour market – an approach which should respect their existing rights and take into account their wider personal situation and any related needs; stresses the need for sufficient and highly qualified staff capable of offering an individual approach to the long-term unemployed, who form a heterogeneous group;

6.  Notes the recommendation to introduce a written and comprehensible ‘job integration agreement’ that spells out the respective rights and responsibilities of both the unemployed person and the authorities as represented by the case manager, and thereby sets clear expectations for all parties involved, is fair to the unemployed person and respects his or her personal qualifications and rights as a worker; urges that this agreement be updated regularly;

7.  Considers it crucial that any programmes to reintegrate the long-term unemployed be geared to the needs of the labour market and be formulated in close cooperation with the social partners; calls on the Member States to motivate employers, including in a spirit of corporate social responsibility, to engage actively in offering job openings for the long-term unemployed, and, where needed, to appoint mentors to facilitate the smooth reintegration of the long-term unemployed on the work floor; calls for Member States’ employment services to assist SMEs in facilitating such mentoring; recalls that the long‑term unemployed need not only jobs but also comprehensive counselling and preparation for successful re-entry into the labour market;

8.  Calls on the Member States to match EU funding – in particular through the European Social Fund – of their national policies to tackle long-term unemployment with adequate national funding; stresses that the budgetary constraints faced by some Member States (especially those under Economic Adjustment Programmes) must not prevent the swift implementation of the recommendation; calls on the Commission to explore options for quick access to EU funding and to mobilise additional resources where possible, as was done in the case of the Youth Employment Initiative; stresses the need, in a number of Member States, to allocate adequate funding to strengthening the administrative capacity of employment services;

9.  Calls in particular for an improvement in the financial and administrative capacities of public employment services to ensure they can carry out a pivotal role in the implementation of this proposal;

10.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to assess how to support specific in‑work training programmes, as well as business development and investment plans that have created sustainable, quality jobs for the long-term unemployed;

11.  Emphasises that, for the effective implementation of the recommendation, close cooperation between the Commission and the Member States, and at national level between the (sectoral) social partners, civil society organisations representing the unemployed, local and regional authorities, public and private employment services, social and health care providers, and local and regional education and training institutes, is paramount, as is the active involvement of employers in order to better understand business requirements and needs;

12.  Recalls its position on the Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States, which insists on specific measures to protect the long-term unemployed from social exclusion and to reintegrate them into the labour market, with due respect for the Treaties;

13.  Calls on the Member States to take into account regional differences, including differences between urban and rural areas, when formulating their national approach to tackling long-term unemployment;

14.  Welcomes the Commission’s suggestion of establishing, through the European Semester and the Employment Committee, multilateral surveillance of the implementation of the recommendation; insists that this surveillance must be thorough and, if necessary, be followed up by instructions in the Member States’ country-specific recommendations; calls on the Commission to facilitate mutual learning processes that bring together those Member States with high rates of long-term unemployment and those that have been successful in quickly reintegrating the (long‑term) unemployed into their labour markets;

15.  Calls on the ministers for employment and social affairs to consider Parliament’s input before reaching an agreement on the recommendation;

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

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0068.
(2) Council document 6147/15.
(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0261.

Safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in the field of civil aviation
PDF 194kWORD 85k
European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on safe use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), commonly known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in the field of civil aviation (2014/2243(INI))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 8 April 2014 entitled ‘A new era for aviation – Opening the aviation market to civil use of RPAS in a safe and sustainable manner’ (COM(2014)0207),

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 4(2)(g) and 16 and Title VI thereof,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 7 and 8 thereof,

–  having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Commission communication to Parliament and the Council entitled ‘A new era for aviation – Opening the aviation market to the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe and sustainable manner’,

–  having regard to the final report of the European RPAS Steering Group entitled ‘Roadmap for the integration of civil Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Systems into the European Aviation System’,

–  having regard to the Riga Declaration on remotely piloted aircraft (drones) entitled ‘Framing the future of aviation’,

–  having regard to the report of the House of Lords entitled ‘Civilian Use of Drones in the EU’,

–  having regard to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) proposal entitled ‘Concept of Operations for Drones – A risk based approach to regulation of unmanned aircraft’,

–  having regard to the Chicago Convention of 7 December 1944,

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0261/2015),

A.  whereas small, radio-controlled model aircraft have been flown by enthusiasts for many decades; whereas during the last 15 years, there has been rapid growth in the use of RPAS, more commonly known as UAVs or drones; whereas in particular small RPAS, designed for both hobbyist and recreational purposes have become increasingly popular;

B.  whereas technology developed primarily for military purposes is now being applied commercially, pushing legislative boundaries; whereas today RPAS used in a professional context also provide significant benefits for different civil uses, the added value of which increases with the distance between the aircraft and the remote pilot (BVLOS (beyond-visual-line-of-sight) operations); whereas RPAS applications, which are highly varied and could extend to still more fields in the future, can be used, for example, for safety inspections and monitoring of infrastructure (rail tracks, dams, and power facilities), assessing natural disasters, (environmentally responsible) precision farming operations and media production, airborne thermography, or parcel delivery in isolated regions; whereas the rapid development of new applications can be foreseen in the near future, which illustrates the innovative and dynamic nature of the RPAS industry;

C.  whereas RPAS technology can replace direct human intervention in dangerous environments;

D.  whereas there are two types of RPAS applications, namely professional RPAS applications and recreational RPAS applications; whereas these two categories, which are intrinsically different from each other, should be governed by different requirements within the same EU regulatory framework;

E.  whereas current EU legislation stipulates that the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is, in principle, the certifying authority for RPAS with a maximum take-off mass of more than 150 kg; whereas RPAS of 150 kg or less fall under the jurisdiction of the Member State;

F.  whereas RPAS regulations exist or are being developed in Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France(1), Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, Spain and the UK(2); whereas approved flying schools in Denmark, the UK and the Netherlands, and more than 500 licenced RPAS pilots in the Netherlands and the UK are already operational;

G.  whereas all RPAS rules in place in Europe are tailored to assessing the safety risk of the operation; whereas such RPAS rules are ‘operator centric’ and do not take the ‘aircraft centric’ approach used in manned aviation; whereas the risk depends not only on the type of machine and its characteristics (weight, speed, etc.), but also on additional factors, such as the area overflown, the altitude, the expertise of the operator and the particular type of operation and the ability of the operator to deal with unforeseen circumstances;

H.  whereas the potential for economic growth in this industry, from the manufacturer to the end user is immense, for both large businesses and the supply chain composed of thousands of SMEs alike as well as innovative start-ups; whereas it is imperative to maintain world class standards of manufacturing and standards of operations while promoting European leadership;

I.  whereas in recognition of the rapid development of this market, RPAS are rightly being incorporated into existing aviation programmes, such as the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) Joint Undertaking and Horizon 2020; whereas industry has already invested significant financial resources and would be encouraged to redouble its investment effort if SMEs, which make up its largest part, were able to obtain financing more easily; whereas additional funding for further research and development will be crucial to supporting this new industry and the safe and secure integration of RPAS into airspace;

J.  whereas even at this early stage, the Member States, industry and the Commission have all recognised the potential of this market and are keen to stress that any policy framework must enable the European industry to grow in order to compete globally;

K.  whereas this nascent market offers significant opportunities for investment, innovation and job creation across the supply chain, and to the benefit of society, while recognising at the same time that the public interest must be safeguarded, including in particular issues related to privacy, data protection, accountability and civil liability;

L.  whereas, notwithstanding the economic potential of RPAS, its development will be one of the most important future challenges as regards aviation industry safety and the safety and security of people and companies;

M.  whereas the EU should, as quickly as possible, produce a legislative framework purely for civil use of RPAS;

N.  whereas the European legislative framework must, on the one hand, allow industry to go on innovating and to develop under optimum conditions and, secondly, give the public an assurance that life and property, as well as personal data and privacy, will be effectively protected;

The international dimension

1.  Notes that the US is seen by many as the leading market for the use of RPAS, albeit for military operations; stresses however that Europe is the leader in the civilian sector with 2 500 operators (400 in the UK, 300 in Germany, 1 500 in France, 250 in Sweden, etc.) compared to 2 342 operators in the rest of the world, and should do its utmost to boost its strong competitive position;

2.  Notes that Japan has a large number of RPAS operators and two decades of experience, mostly in RPAS precision-farming operations, such as crop spraying; recalls that it was the first country to allow RPAS technology to be used in farming activities during the mid-nineties and the number of operators multiplied within a few years;

3.  Notes that Israel has a very active manufacturing industry, but with a direct focus on military RPAS; underlines the fact that an integrated civil-military air navigation service now makes it easier to integrate RPAS into Israeli airspace;

4.  Notes that Australia, China (where many of the very small RPAS are manufactured) and South Africa are among the 50 other countries that are currently developing RPAS;

5.  Stresses that the global dimension of RPAS must be acknowledged and calls upon the Commission to take full account of this;

State of play in EU Member States

6.  Stresses that all the Member States have some RPAS activities, either in manufacturing and/or operationally;

7.  Underlines the fact that unless an exemption is granted, operating activities are only legal if there is national legislation in place; recalls that this is based on the ICAO rule that all operations performed by unmanned air vehicles must be granted a specific authorisation(3);

8.  Notes that because there are no harmonised rules at EU level, the development of a European drone market might be impeded, given that national authorisations are generally not mutually recognised among the Member States;

Key issues

9.  Considers that the RPAS sector urgently requires European and global rules in order to ensure cross-border RPAS development; considers that a clear European legal framework is needed to ensure investment and development of a competitive European RPAS sector; underlines the fact that if no action is taken promptly, there is a risk that the economic potential and positive effects of RPAS will not be fully realised;

10.  Recalls the economic importance of this sector, and underlines the need for suitable policies to protect privacy and ensure data protection, safety and security, which are proportionate to their aim while not imposing an unnecessary burden on SMEs;

11.  Believes that a European framework, if it were clear, effective, reliable, and put in place without delay, might assist the discussions on global rule making for the use of drones;

12.  Considers that future legislation of that kind will need to establish a clear distinction between professional and recreational use of remotely piloted aircraft;

13.  Underlines the fact that safety and security are paramount for any RPAS operations and rules and that they must be commensurate with the risks; considers that the future European regulatory framework should be tailored to the specific risks associated with BVLOS flights without, however, acting as a deterrent to such flights;

14.  Underlines the fact that the subject of data protection and privacy is key in order to promote broad public support for the use of civil RPAS, and is therefore also key in order to facilitate the growth and the safe integration of RPAS into civil aviation, while strictly respecting Directive 95/46/EC on data protection, the right to the protection of private life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR), the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that, in the development of any EU policy on RPAS, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to foster the development of standards on the concepts of privacy by design and privacy by default;

15.  Agrees with and fully supports the five essential principles for future RPAS development set out in the Riga Declaration:

   RPAS need to be treated as new types of aircraft with proportionate rules based on the risk of each operation;
   EU rules for the safe provision of RPAS services need to be developed to enable the industry to invest;
   Technology and standards need to be developed to enable the full integration of RPAS into European airspace;
   Public acceptance is key to the growth of RPAS services;
   The operator of an RPAS is responsible for its use;

16.  Stresses that in the short term, from an ATM perspective, operational procedures are already in place to allow RPAS to fly outside specific and restricted areas; recalls that many civil and military RPAS are flown using dedicated corridors by increasing the standard separation criteria normally used for manned aircraft;

17.  Stresses the importance of ‘out-of-sight’ flights for the development of the sector; considers that European legislation should favour this modus operandi;

18.  Recognises that the impact of RPAS on manned traffic is limited due to the small ratio of RPAS to manned aircraft; notes, however, that ATM pressures may increase due to the welcome growth of sports and recreational RPAS, which may in some circumstances pose a threat to air traffic safety, and calls for this factor to be taken into account by the relevant authorities and by future EU rules, in order to ensure a continued efficient standard of ATM across the Member States;

19.  Underlines the fact that in the long term, technical and regulatory solutions should preferably enable RPAS to use the airspace alongside any other airspace user without imposing on the latter new equipment requirements; notes that that there are a large number of small RPAS operating below 500 feet, together with manned aircraft; stresses that although Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs) do not provide Air Traffic Control (ATC) services at these altitudes, they do have a responsibility to provide sufficient information for both types of aircraft to coexist in the same airspace; notes that EUROCONTROL is supporting states in creating a common understanding of the issues involved and in driving harmonisation as much as possible;

20.  Considers the question of identifying drones, of whatever size, to be crucial; underlines that solutions should be found which take into account the recreational or commercial use to which drones are put;

Solutions for the future

21.  Believes that a clear, harmonised and proportionate European and global regulatory framework needs to be developed on a risk-assessed basis, which avoids disproportionate regulations for businesses that would deter investment and innovation in the RPAS industry, whilst adequately protecting citizens and creating sustainable and innovative jobs; considers that thorough risk assessment should be based on the ‘concept of operations’ established by the EASA and should take into account characteristics of the RPAS (weight, scope of operation, speed) and the nature of their use (recreational or professional); believes that this framework should be part of a long-term perspective, taking into account the possible future developments and other aspects of these technologies;

22.  Supports the Commission’s intention to remove the 150kg threshold and to replace it with a coherent and comprehensive EU regulatory framework that would allow national competent authorities, qualified bodies or associations to assume validation and oversight activities; considers that the proportionality of the rules should be complemented by the necessary flexibility in processes and procedures;

23.  Considers that the development of the EASA’s competences in the area of RPAS should be taken into consideration in the Agency’s budget to ensure that it can carry out the missions assigned to it;

24.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that in the development of any EU policy on RPAS, privacy and data protection guarantees are embedded by making, as a minimum requirement, impact assessments and privacy by design and by default compulsory;

25.  Is concerned over potential illegal and unsafe uses of RPAS (i.e. RPAS being transformed from a civilian tool into a weapon used for military or other purposes, or RPAS being used to jam navigation or communication systems); calls on the Commission to support the development of the necessary technology to ensure safety, security and privacy in the operation of RPAS, including through Horizon 2020 funds directed primarily towards research and development into systems, technologies, etc. that can be used to enhance privacy by design and default and support the development of technologies such as ‘detect and avoid’, geo-fencing, anti-jamming and anti-hijacking, as well as privacy by design and by default enabling the safe use of civilian RPAS;

26.  Encourages innovative technologies in the area of RPAS that have an enormous potential for job creation, in particular green jobs, because this includes professions from a vast spectrum; encourages the development and exploration of the great potential of involving SMEs with respect to the services concerned with the production of specialised parts and materials; highlights the need to organise and promote centres for qualifications and training;

27.  Considers that rules at EU and national level should clearly indicate the provisions applicable to RPAS in relation to the internal market and international commerce (production, sale, purchase, trade, and use of RPAS) and the fundamental rights of privacy and data protection; believes also that these rules should contribute to the correct enforcement of privacy, data protection and any other law related to the different risks and responsibilities associated with flying RPAS, such as criminal, intellectual property, aviation and environmental law; underlines the need to ensure that any person operating an RPAS should be made aware of the basic rules applicable to the use of RPAS, and that those rules should be specified in a notice for purchasers;

28.  Considers that the industry, regulators, and commercial operators must come together to guarantee legal certainty favouring investment and to avoid the ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem, whereby industry is reluctant to invest in developing the necessary technologies without certainty about how they will be regulated, while regulators are reluctant to develop standards until industry comes forward with technologies for authorisation; stresses that SMEs should be genuinely linked to this standardisation process;

29.  Considers that a ‘risk-based approach’ in line with the Riga Declaration and the concept of operations as developed by the EASA, is a solid basis for ensuring the safe operation of RPAS, and that European regulatory requirements will need to be based on either a case-by-case or a type/class-based approach, whichever is appropriate, and will ensure a high level of safety and interoperability; considers that in order to ensure the success of RPAS manufacturers and operators, it is vital that the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment (EUROCAE) standardisation requirements be validated by the relevant regulatory body;

30.  Considers that future European and global rules on RPAS should address issues relating to:

   certification specifications;
   commercial and recreational use;
   the identity of the drone and the owner/operator;
   the approval of training organisations for pilots;
   training and licensing of pilots;
   liability and insurance;
   data protection and privacy;
   no-fly (exclusion) zones;

31.  Invites the Member States to ensure that when training is provided to professional users and owners of RPAS, it includes specific training on data protection and privacy, and that professional users of RPAS are subject to mutual recognition by Member States in order to eliminate any market restrictions;

32.  Underlines that RPAS flying beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) must be equipped with ‘detect-and-avoid’ technology in order to detect aircraft using the same airspace, ensuring that RPAS do not put at risk the safety of manned aircraft, and in addition, take into account densely-populated areas, no-fly zones, such as airports, power plants, nuclear and chemical plants, and other critical infrastructure; urges therefore the Commission to provide for the necessary research and development budgets through the SESAR Joint Undertaking;

33.  Calls on the Commission and the bodies and companies concerned to boost their research and development programmes; considers that, taking into account the expected economic spin-offs from this sector, the EU should favour the development of European technologies, for example through Horizon 2020; asks for account also to be taken of the development of drone detection and capture technologies in research programmes;

34.  Recalls that the European GNSS Programme EGNOS augmenting the GPS signal was certified for civil aviation in 2011 and that Galileo will in the next few years gradually enter into the exploitation phase; believes in this respect that an advanced system of air traffic management as well as applications for RPAS based on European GNSS programmes will positively contribute to the safe operation of RPAS;

35.  Notes that RPAS in line with a risk-based approach should be equipped with an ID chip and registered to ensure traceability, accountability and a proper implementation of civil liability rules;

36.   Supports the concept of operations for drones developed by the EASA which defines three different categories of RPAS and corresponding rules;

37.  Notes that enforcement of RPAS legislation is key to the safe and successful integration of RPAS in European airspace;

38.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure sufficient means of enforcement of RPAS legislation;

39.  Stresses that the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS) is an international voluntary membership body comprising national civil aviation authorities from 22 EU and non-EU countries and regulatory agencies/bodies; recalls that JARUS is chaired by a representative of the EASA, the Agency which will deal with future RPAS regulation; recalls that JARUS’s purpose is to develop technical, safety and operational requirements for the certification and safe integration of large and small RPAS into the airspace and at aerodromes;

40.  Considers that JARUS could ensure that any future EU rules will be coordinated with international arrangements in other countries, through a process of mutual recognition;

41.  Considers that the data protection authorities of the Members States should work together in order to share data and best practices, and ensure compliance with existing data protection guidance and regulations, such as Directive 95/46/EC;

42.  Underlines the fact that the use of RPAS by law enforcement and intelligence services must respect the fundamental right to privacy, data protection, freedom of movement and freedom of expression, and that the potential risks connected to such use of RPAS, regarding both surveillance of individuals and groups and the monitoring of public spaces such as borders, need to be addressed;

43.  Believes that the data protection authorities of the Member States should share existing specific data protection guidance for commercial RPAS, and calls on the Member States to carefully implement data protection legislation in such a way that it fully addresses the public’s concerns regarding privacy and does not lead to a disproportionate administrative burden on RPAS operators;

44.  Strongly recommends that the current discussions between EU and national policymakers and regulators, industry, SMEs and commercial operations should be opened up, and that a public debate should be launched with the participation of citizens and other relevant stakeholders, such as NGOs (including civil rights organisations) and law enforcement authorities, in order to take note of and address the concerns regarding the protection of fundamental rights and the responsibilities and challenges facing different actors in safeguarding these rights and protecting the security of citizens when RPAS are used;

45.  Takes the view that the Parliament must establish its position prior to the Commission’s adoption of its aviation package, thereby responding to the industry call for clear guidance;

46.  Underlines the need for a clear legal framework based on relevant criteria regarding the use of cameras and sensors, especially by commercial and private RPAS, that will ensure the effective protection of the right to privacy and data protection as well as safeguarding the security of citizens, taking into account the ever decreasing size of RPAS components, leading to more portable and undetectable devices;

47.  Calls on the TRAN and LIBE committees to arrange a joint hearing with representatives of industry, national privacy protection organisations, the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Commission, and NGOs working in the area of fundamental rights;

48.  Calls on the Commission to consider a regular reporting mechanism that would take into account technical developments as well as policy developments and best practice at national level, and would also address RPAS incidents, and to present an overview and evaluation of the regulatory approaches at Member State level, so as to allow comparison and identify best practices;

o   o

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


New challenges and concepts for the promotion of tourism in Europe
PDF 313kWORD 121k
European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on new challenges and concepts for the promotion of tourism in Europe (2014/2241(INI))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe’ (COM(2010)0352),

–  having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe(1),

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘A European Strategy for more Growth and Jobs in Coastal and Maritime Tourism’ (COM(2014)0086),

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper entitled ‘Safety of Tourism Accommodation Services’ (COM(2014)0464),

–  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda’ (COM(2015)0215),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020(2),

–  having regard to the Council resolution of 6 May 2003 on accessibility of cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities(3),

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Article 195 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Culture and Education (A8-0258/2015),

A.  whereas measures taken at EU level under Article 195 TFEU must complement the action of the Member States in the tourism sector, excluding any harmonisation of the laws;

B.  whereas tourism is a key potential growth area of the European economy, which generates over 10 % of the EU’s GDP if sectors linked to tourism are taken into account; whereas tourism is also a driver of substantial employment, as it directly employs 13 million workers and consequently accounts for at least 12 % of jobs in the EU;

C.  whereas Europe is the world’s number one tourist destination, with a market share of 52 %; whereas statistics show that the majority of trips abroad by EU residents continue to be to destinations within the EU, and whereas the number of international tourists arriving in the EU is forecast to increase by 140 million each year until 2025;

D.  whereas tourism represents a major socio-economic activity in the EU, with a wide‑ranging impact on economic growth, employment and social development, and whereas it could therefore be instrumental in addressing the current economic and employment crisis;

E.  whereas coastal and maritime tourism is the largest maritime activity in Europe, and whereas it represents more than a third of the maritime economy, directly affecting many other sectors of the EU economy and employing 3,2 million people, most between the ages of 16 and 35; whereas it should also be noted that this sector has been a lever for growth and job creation, particularly in the Atlantic and Mediterranean regions;

F.  whereas tourism policy priorities contribute to at least three priorities of the Juncker Commission, namely sustainable growth and jobs, the connected digital single market, and a deeper and fairer internal market;

G.  whereas the actions announced in the 2010 Commission communication entitled ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination’ foster the ambitious objective of maintaining Europe’s dominant position in the world as a tourist destination;

H.  whereas there is no dedicated line for tourism in the EU budget, and whereas actions in this field come under various funds, pilot projects and preparatory actions;

I.  whereas the tourism industry in Europe faces a number of new challenges, among them the digitisation of distribution channels, the development of the new sharing economy sector, increasing competition from emerging, less expensive third-market destinations, changing consumer behaviour, the transition to an experience economy, the demand for quality client service, the need to attract and retain skilled staff, demographic changes, and seasonality;

J.  whereas tourism policymakers can address challenges such as demographic changes and seasonality in tourism by developing products and services which cater for the specific needs of the increasing number of seniors able to travel during the low season;

K.  whereas SMEs in the tourism sector face considerable difficulties as a result of a heavy regulatory burden;

L.  whereas promoting Europe through its own tourism destination promotion and brand strategy serves as an important tool for strengthening its image, profile and competitiveness as a set of sustainable and high-quality tourist destinations, enables European destinations to distinguish themselves from other international destinations and helps to attract international tourists, particularly from emerging third markets;

M.  whereas conflicts near EU borders, for instance in Ukraine and in the Middle East, together with terrorist threats, have a negative impact on the tourism sector and thus require counter-measures at both national and European level;

N.  whereas sustainable, accessible and responsible tourism which is in harmony with nature and landscape and with urban destinations, and which relies on resource efficiency, sustainable mobility and climate protection, helps to preserve the local environment, in particular in mountain and coastal regions and islands, and to bring lasting results in terms of regional growth, accommodates the increasing quality demands of travellers and helps companies to compete;

O.  whereas European cultural tourism plays an important role in promoting Europe’s rich cultural diversity, strengthens European identity and promotes cross-cultural exchanges and multicultural understanding;

P.  whereas regions play a fundamental role in the development and implementation of tourism-related policies at the regional level;

Q.  whereas the sharing economy represents a shift towards new business models as a result of rapidly changing new technology, and whereas many of the players in the sharing economy are part of the travel service economy;

R.  whereas, although information is scattered and it is consequently difficult to draw solid conclusions, it is most likely that the economic impact of the sharing economy has a positive effect on economic growth and welfare;

S.  whereas offering services of a high standard and protecting consumer rights should be the highest priority for all those providing tourism-related services, including in the sector involving the sharing and use of the latest internet technologies;

T.  whereas travel and tourism is one of the sectors most affected by digitisation, and whereas this opens up a number of opportunities for travel companies not only in Europe but also globally;

The Commission’s action framework

1.  Calls on the Commission to report back to Parliament on the implementation of the actions set out in its aforementioned 2010 communication and the use of budget allocations under the Structural Funds and the relevant EU programmes, in particular the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (COSME) programme, and the respective pilot projects and preparatory actions, in the form of a factual review including an assessment of the effectiveness of actions to promote tourism and to consolidate the competitiveness of the EU tourism sector;

2.  Expects the Commission to ensure that the future allocation of resources from the various promotional funds for the creation of a favourable environment for companies in the EU tourism sector remains possible;

3.  Strongly encourages the Commission to examine the possibility of creating a section within the next multiannual financial framework that is dedicated exclusively to tourism, on the grounds that tourism should be better recognised as an individual economic activity in terms of budget and actions, instead of being financed from the budgets of other policy areas;

4.  Recalls that the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are still the largest source of external financing for activities intended to stimulate the tourism sector in certain Member States; urges the Commission, therefore, to ensure greater transparency in the way in which structural funds are used by local administrations;

5.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States, regions and the authorities responsible for tourism, together with companies, in particular SMEs, to make the fullest possible use of the new funding opportunities under the European Fund for Strategic Investments, especially through national and regional investment banks, in order to give a qualitative leap to EU action in support of tourism;

6.  Urges the Commission to encourage the development of tourism-related pilot scenarios under the Horizon 2020 programme;

7.  Calls on the Commission to translate the funding support guide into the EU’s 24 official languages in order to facilitate access to information on funding possibilities, in particular for SMEs, given that access to finance is one of the barriers faced in this sector;

8.  Calls on the Commission to appoint independent experts to assess the impact of other EU policies on tourism and analyse real and potential threats to tourism as a result of conflicts in the EU’s neighbouring countries and regions, and to report back to Parliament with proposals for measures to enhance the positive impact on tourism and reduce the negative impact;

9.  Expects the Commission to present an overview of up-to-date data on the basis of the new Regulation on Tourism Statistics;

10.  Notes that further effort is needed to develop an integrated approach to tourism, ensuring that the interests and needs of this sector are taken into account when formulating and implementing other EU policies (e.g. transport, rural policy);

11.  Calls on the Commission to present a new strategy for EU tourism to replace or update the 2010 communication;

12.  Expects the Commission to present detailed implementing measures for the new set of common actions in the context of the next European Tourism Forum;

13.  Strongly recommends that the Commission transfer sufficient human resources to its tourism policy, given the importance of tourism as an essential factor for economic growth and jobs in Europe; criticises the fact that the subject of tourism is not listed visibly enough on the new DG GROW website; also recommends making this website multilingual;

14.  Emphasises the importance of coordination among Commission services and departments;

15.  Urges the Commission to consider reducing the disproportionate regulatory burden, which has a negative impact on the competitiveness of SMEs in the tourism sector; calls on the Commission and the Member States to reduce, and not add to, the existing regulatory burden;

16.  Reminds the Commission that tourism is a key sector of the European economy, and that it is consequently necessary to improve considerably the coordination between Member States, regional and local authorities and financial institutions and to create synergy between the public and private tourism sectors; calls on the Commission to engage in finding a mechanism for effective coordination and cooperation in the sector;

17.  Considers that, within the framework of cooperation and good neighbourliness, the EU should develop cooperation actions for the development of tourism in third countries with a view to enabling balanced development of their economies, which will also help to ease tensions in the area of neighbourly relations and to enhance the attractiveness of the region and the flow of incoming tourism;

18.  Considers that designating a European Year of Tourism would help to promote the diversity of European tourism and raise the profile of the various stakeholders active in the tourism sector; calls on the Commission to consider such an initiative;

19.  Calls on the Commission to submit an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of setting up a European Agency for Tourism;

Branding/joint promotion of Europe as a tourist destination

20.  Strongly encourages the Commission, in cooperation with the European Travel Commission (ETC), which brings together the national tourism organisations, to continue and deepen the promotion of Europe as the world’s top tourist destination under the umbrella of a common European approach; calls in particular for the implementation of the long-term strategy launched by the Commission and the ETC in February 2014, ‘Destination Europe 2020’, which includes a set of marketing, branding and promotion actions for Europe as a tourist destination;

21.  Calls in particular for the creation of a ‘Destination(s) Europe’ brand with the aim of complementing and enhancing the promotional activities of tourism organisations operating at the national, regional, cross-border and local levels, and of the European tourism industry, for the benefit of the visibility and competitiveness of European tourist destinations, especially in long-haul markets; stresses that the ‘Destination(s) Europe’ brand needs an inclusive approach which generates advantages for both established and less-known European destinations while preserving the inherent diversity of different European regions inasmuch as they make a living from their own territorial brand, and that it must fully respect the competences of the Member States in accordance with Article 195 TFEU;

22.  Recognises that common objectives need to be clearly defined and the potential and added value of a ‘Destination(s) Europe’ brand analysed, in accordance with the needs and specific requirements expressed by the Member States; takes the view that, in order to achieve these results, further in-depth consultations need to be conducted with the industry, tourism organisations and regional and local authorities; recommends the setting-up of a brand manual, which should specify agreed promotion modalities;

23.  Recommends giving consideration to how the private sector can become involved in the ‘Destination(s) Europe’ brand’s marketing strategy, and how it can contribute financially to the development and goals of the strategy; stresses the importance of public-private partnerships and consequently suggests developing a Special Public‑Private Partnership of Tourism (SPOT) programme; calls on the Member States to involve their respective regional and local authorities in this process, and to cooperate constructively with the industry in order to achieve those objectives;

24.  Calls for the enhancement of the ‘Destination(s) Europe’ brand as the most family-, child- and generation-friendly holiday region in the world;

25.  Views it as essential that one of the key elements of the ‘Destination Europe’ brand be the security of tourists; calls, therefore, on the authorities of the Member States, in close cooperation with the Commission, to implement strategies (including tourist information campaigns) with the objective of giving tourists the safest possible experience in European tourist destinations;

26.  Stresses the need to increase political awareness of the fact that promoting Europe in third countries serves as a marketing tool with the objective of increasing the number of inbound tourists, and thereby helps to bring economic benefit not only to less-known destinations and countries experiencing economic difficulties, but also to the EU as a whole; considers that a strict visa policy is a barrier to inbound tourism from third countries; welcomes the measures put forward by the Commission in 2014 with a view to issuing new tourist visas and facilitating the movement of tourists through the Schengen area; encourages the Council, to this end, to reach a rapid agreement with Parliament so that the EU can benefit from a greater influx of tourists from certain third countries with a high potential interest in visiting the EU;

27.  Recalls that the EU should start investing in order to be ready to tap the potential of third countries with a large population and emerging economies, particularly the BRIC countries, where the number of outbound tourists is rising; points out the need for initiatives aimed at promoting tourism and for greater flexibility and consistency in respect of tourist visa arrangements and border crossings; stresses that the promotion of a larger number of Visa Tourism platforms, coupled with a cautious approach to the simplification of the Visa Code, is an important component in increasing the number of tourists from outside Europe and raising the visibility of European tourist destinations; highlights the potential of touring visas for groups of tourists who had already been in the country, and the importance of implementing more visa waiver agreements in order to make optimum use of international tourist arrivals; considers it advisable, with due respect for the Member States’ right and duty to control entry across their own borders, for the European institutions and the Member States to develop, in the context of the common visa policy, a long-term strategy for better-coordinated and simplified visa procedures;

Pan-European and transnational tourism products

28.  Takes the view that public and private stakeholders should strengthen their efforts to develop new transnational European tourism products, while taking full account of the role of macro-regional strategies in their development; notes that macro-regions such as the Adriatic-Ionian macro-region offer distinctive natural, cultural and historical bases for the development of such products; calls on public and private stakeholders in the EU’s Baltic, Danube, Adriatic-Ionian and Alpine macro-regional strategies to devise, each in their own area, joint strategies for the development of tourism;

29.  Encourages international cooperation in the creation of transnational thematic itineraries (at the level of a larger number of European countries) in order to amplify experiential elements that motivate visits to certain destinations (defined at the state level), increase the mobility of holidaymakers, achieve higher average spending and broaden the promotional platform (in particular as regards visitors from ‘long-haul’ inbound markets);

30.  Highlights the increase in international competition with the emergence of destinations outside Europe; considers it essential, therefore, to foster greater cooperation between European destinations through tourism clusters and networks at the local, regional, national and transnational levels and within maritime basins;

31.  Recognises the importance of transnational tourism products in promoting territorial cohesion; is convinced, therefore, that initiatives implemented within institutionalised cooperation frameworks should be supported through adequate incentives;

32.  Calls on the Member States to promote new tourism routes by regenerating disused areas, streets, railways, deserted paths and outdated routes;

33.  Calls on the Commission and the members of the ETC to support its existing mandate to assist in the development and promotion of targeted transnational and pan-European tourism products and services, together with coastal and maritime tourism, by means of an advanced, improved and fully accessible portal; calls on the Commission to ensure that the portal can also be accessed on all common mobile and portable terminals via a specially programmed application (app);

34.  Calls on the Commission, furthermore, to boost its cooperation with the Council of Europe, the ETC and the UN World Tourism Organisation, together with other international partners, in order to strengthen efforts to develop new transnational and pan‑European tourism products;

35.  Stresses, while taking into account the fact that today’s consumers tend to seek a tourism experience rather than a mere destination, that a successful marketing strategy to promote European tourism products needs to correspond to the needs of different travel segments and markets in third countries;

36.  Highlights the need for travel agents and tour operators to promote the 112 European emergency number on relevant websites and e-tickets, and in our main tourist destinations;

37.  Welcomes the Calypso social tourism initiative, which allows seniors, young people, people on lower incomes and people with disabilities to go on holidays outside the high season; stresses that this initiative has the potential to overcome the problem of seasonality, particularly in less well-known destinations;

38.  Believes, however, that in order to combat seasonality in Europe there needs to be a stronger focus on developing targeted tourism products which offer travellers a specific tourism experience and correspond to their specific needs; calls on the Commission, therefore, to encourage and support the Member States and the tourism industry in creating more diversified and targeted products around specific themes such as the rural, cultural and industrial heritage, history, religion, health, spa and wellness experiences, sport, wine and food, music and art as forms of alternative tourism which help to bring added value to the area in question by diversifying its economy and making employment less seasonal; encourages the Member States, to this end, to make appropriate use of EU funds, and calls on the Commission to extend the objectives for action under the COSME programme accordingly; considers that sport, music and arts festivals have strong potential to mobilise tourists from Europe and abroad;

39.  Emphasises that Europe’s diversity and multiculturalism offer great potential for the development of themed tourism, and allow the coordinated promotion of alternative and sustainable tourism and cultural exchanges; encourages initiatives to connect tourist attractions to one another in order to establish thematic tourism products and trails on a European, national, regional and local scale, exploiting the complementarity and specificities of the various European tourist attractions so as to provide the best possible experience for tourists;

40.  Stresses the need to promote and highlight Europe’s rich cultural heritage, using the UNESCO World Heritage List as a unique selling proposition but also including sites that may be less widely known or not easily reachable, especially given that cultural tourism accounts for about 40 % of European tourism and thereby contributes significantly to economic growth, employment, social innovation and local, regional, urban and rural development, while reducing the impact of seasonality; also stresses, in this context, the key role played by sponsorship in maintaining Europe’s heritage and helping Member States bear the cost burden;

41.  Stresses that the promotion of cultural events at various levels could contribute to the attractiveness of tourist destinations, and therefore suggests looking at the possibility of creating a Europe-wide calendar of events, to be posted at the portal, in order to improve tourist information services;

42.  Calls on national tourism organisations to lend adequate web visibility to initiatives and awards highlighting the European heritage, and to foster related promotional initiatives and activities (such as the European Heritage label and the European Cultural Routes);

43.  Reiterates the importance of protecting and preserving the cultural heritage against the possible harmful effects of structural changes caused by tourism activities, and against the risks posed by mass tourism, especially during the high season; gives priority to the quality of the work performed rather than its cost; stresses, in this context, the role that patronage can play in helping to conserve the European heritage and compensating for the decline in public budgets allocated for this purpose;

44.  Asks the Commission and the Member States to implement the action to protect endangered monuments and sites in Europe in order to safeguard and promote the cultural heritage and thereby encourage cultural tourism;

45.  Stresses the important role played by European cultural tourism in furthering personal development and knowledge, especially among young people, promoting Europe’s rich national and local cultural diversity and heritage, contributing to intercultural learning, providing an opportunity for networking, strengthening European identity and expressing European values;

46.  Stresses the potential of cultural tourism for poverty alleviation; calls, in this connection, for the fostering of Member States’ creative industries and of rural tourism in order to promote Europe’s extraordinary cultural wealth and to fight poverty and unemployment;

47.  Stresses that the joint acquisition of travel passes and tickets should be simplified as a form of support for cultural campaigns;

48.  Stresses that Europe’s breadth of languages – official, co-official, minority and lesser‑known – form the bedrock of its cultural heritage and are themselves key to sustainable and responsible tourism;

49.  Notes the opportunities offered by significant historical events and sites, such as the Sites of Conscience, to address contemporary challenges through sensitive interpretation and education programmes; encourages the use of cultural heritage and tourism to foster intercultural dialogue and bring the people of Europe closer together;

50.  Stresses the potential of sport tourism, which could in future become one of the most dynamic sectors in the developing European travel industry, and calls for the introduction of specific policies to promote and support its development; recalls the important place of sporting activities in making Europe’s regions attractive to tourists; highlights the opportunities arising from travel by athletes and spectators in the run-up to sports events and during those events, which can attract tourists to even the most remote areas; emphasises that the potential of sport tourism is not yet sufficiently exploited;


51.  Is convinced that European tourism must make a transition from a model of quantitative growth to a qualitative model leading to steady and sustainable development, and that there is, in fact, a need to build a tourism industry that allows the creation of more qualified jobs which are properly remunerated; believes that the economic diversification of tourism in rural and coastal areas offers opportunities for new and sustainable employment;

52.  Acknowledges the difference in standards of service quality in the tourism sector, and takes the view that quality standards are important as a means of levelling the playing field for operators and increasing transparency for the consumer, thereby helping to strengthen the confidence of all parties; calls on all stakeholders to take further the discussion of how the EU can promote agreed quality standards for tourism services;

53.  Calls on the Commission to launch a European tourism quality brand to reward rigorous efforts by tourism professionals in supporting the quality of tourism services based on the highest respect for the cultural and natural heritage, improving the quality of tourism jobs, enhancing accessibility for all and promoting the cultural traditions of local communities;

54.  Calls on the Commission to boost collaboration between Member States in order to improve product quality by protecting the ‘made in’ brand;

55.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to collaborate with tourism associations, and together to define a common European system for the classification of tourism infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, etc.); considers that the Hotelstars Union initiative aimed at gradually harmonising accommodation classification systems across Europe should be further promoted, thus allowing a better comparison of the accommodation offer in Europe and contributing to common service quality criteria;

56.  Believes that maintaining safety standards in tourism services in the EU is an essential ingredient of good quality; welcomes, therefore, the Commission Green Paper entitled ‘Safety of Tourism Accommodation Services’; notes the submissions from many consumer groups, fire safety organisations and tourism sector organisations supporting action at EU level on tourism safety; calls on the Commission, therefore, to come forward with proposals for minimum standards for tourism safety in the EU, in particular in the area of fire safety and carbon monoxide safety in holiday accommodation; stresses the need for systematic collection of data on accommodation safety;

57.  Underlines the fact that high-quality tourism services are guaranteed if combined with appropriate training and decent work conditions, and that disregard for, and the weakening of, the required skills and social achievements in the sector are counterproductive;

58.  Takes the view that investing in training and education is an essential element in providing quality services in a sector that employs mostly young people, typically aged between 16 and 35; strongly encourages the Commission to work with private entities and other public bodies to create low-season training and internship programmes in order to make the sector more attractive and less seasonal; considers that such training should emphasise higher qualifications and soft skills development, leading to improved job prospects across the sector; calls on the Commission, therefore, to support the tourism sector’s efforts to upgrade employers’ and employees’ skills and competences in order to anticipate future trends and skills needs; takes the view that statistics on employment in the tourism sector should be improved;

59.  Calls on the Commission, in this connection, to support the tourism industry by eliminating skills gaps and boosting the market relevance of vocational education and training; suggests that the Commission issue and distribute a guide on best practice and available training opportunities in the EU, thereby enabling a higher degree of professionalism and greater voluntary mobility among professionals within the EU;

60.  Underlines the importance of improving the mutual recognition by Member States of professional qualifications in the tourism industry in order to enable workers to identify the best possible career prospects, thereby fostering their mobility;

61.  Welcomes mobility tools, and cooperation projects such as Knowledge Alliances and Sector-Skills Alliances under Erasmus+ and Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs, as efficient means for tourism workers involved in education and training at all levels to exchange best practices, improve their language skills and obtain practical knowledge of cultural tourism; is concerned, however, at the lack of interest among young people in pursuing careers in certain tourism sectors; stresses the advantages of a ‘dual-education’ system in the tourism sector and the importance of combining learning with hands-on work experience, thereby improving both theoretical knowledge and practical skills; calls on the Member States and on local and regional authorities to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the European Social Fund and by other EU, national and regional funds to promote vocational training;

62.  Calls on the Member States to invest in high‑quality training for tourist guides and to encourage a multilingual approach in order to better promote sites of interest to foreign tourists; further calls on the Commission and the Member States to define European quality standards for tourist guides, ensuring compliance with minimum training requirements;

63.  Calls on the Commission to carry out a study on the impact on Europe’s competitiveness as a destination of taxes and levies raised on tourism products and services at local, regional, national and European level; calls on the Member States to recognise the importance of reducing VAT rates on travel and tourism services in order to help develop local economies and sustain growth and jobs, as well as helping Europe to remain competitive on the global market;

Unlocking the potential of coastal and marine tourism

64.  Recognises the importance for coastal and island areas of the European Strategy for more Growth and Jobs in Coastal and Maritime Tourism (in line with the Blue Growth strategy and the Europe 2020 strategy), which presents a set of common responses to the many challenges they face;

65.  Strongly encourages the Commission to present an action plan to accompany the 14 actions described in the aforementioned coastal and maritime tourism strategy, with concrete goals and timetables, and to report to Parliament on the progress made on those actions;

66.  Calls on the Commission to conduct an annual seminar, with the participation of the coastal and marine Member States and the respective regions, with the aim of promoting a pan-European dialogue and facilitating the sharing of best practices and the implementation of a long-term strategy;

67.  Recalls the importance of connectivity and accessibility, and notes that they differ between high and low season in the outermost regions and islands, which depend largely on sea and air transport; also emphasises the importance of creating regional plans that promote mobility within destinations; asks the Commission that Action 12 of the aforementioned coastal and maritime tourism strategy also take into account the efficiency of State aid in coastal and maritime regions;

68.  Strongly encourages the Commission, together with Member States and stakeholders in the nautical and maritime tourism sector, to assess the need to create intelligent and innovative strategies as a solution for combating seasonality that is adapted to both the high- and low-season periods and takes account of various target groups; calls on stakeholders to make efforts to create experiences, products and complementary services that are integrated with local products, particularly in connection with maritime heritage and culture, water sports, recreational sailing, observation of marine life and nature, sun and beach-related activities, artisanal fishing, food and health;

69.  Highlights the importance of cruise tourism for the growth of the tourism sector in Europe; calls on the Commission, therefore, together with the Member States, to assess the resources required and existing port and nautical infrastructure, and to standardise the sorting of waste and recycling, in order to create innovative planning actions for these areas by developing the concept of the smart port city;

70.  Stresses that joint planning and joint action are just as necessary for the acceptance of tourism by the population as they are for its sustainable development;

Sustainable, responsible and social tourism

71.  Calls on the Commission to continue to promote sustainable, responsible and eco‑friendly tourism in cooperation with strategic partners such as the ETC and other stakeholders by developing new specific products and promoting existing ones, and suggests setting up a Europe-wide, fully accessible web platform that brings together existing information on certified products, new forms of tourism, destinations and routes, and on specific services such as transportation means and tourism guides, in one database with access through the portal;

72.  Believes that increased (co-)funding must be earmarked for sustainable tourism projects under the COSME programme;

73.  Urges the Commission to finalise the European Charter for Sustainable and Responsible Tourism and to continue to give financial support to important initiatives and networks such as EDEN (European Destinations of Excellence) and European cultural trails;

74.  Encourages the national tourism organisations, on the basis of standards proposed by the Commission, to set up a specific unique portal at national level on sustainable and responsible tourism in order to allow customers to make an informed choice among targeted national and transnational products and destinations;

75.  Stresses the importance of ensuring the development of sustainable, responsible and accessible tourism, in which the concept of the ‘smart destination’ should be central to destination development, and which should combine the aspects of sustainability, experiential tourism and appropriate use of natural resources, together with the new technologies, including the aspects of physical and information communication accessibility; is convinced that information networks on soft tourism projects offer good opportunities to support SMEs, local sustainable development, sustainable jobs and stable economies;

76.  Calls on the Commission to carry out a study on sustainability certificates for soft tourism services, including an analysis of voluntary instruments indicating which instruments have been successful;

77.  Calls for the promotion and further development of child- and family-friendly options in the tourism sector, for example through the creation of a European family-friendly tourism seal;

78.  Emphasises the importance of promoting programmes to allow outdated hotel facilities to be regenerated in accordance with eco‑sustainable tourism criteria;

79.  Emphasises the crucial role played by European tourism in the regeneration of rural and urban areas with a view to achieving sustainable local and regional development;

80.  Calls for the development of sustainable tourism services in those regions which, despite having great cultural and tourism potential, have suffered damage to their image as a result of a greater focus on, and the development of, other sectors, including the industrial sector;

81.  Highlights the importance of an awareness that tourism should not have a negative impact on residents’ daily lives; considers that, on the contrary, the resident population should be positively integrated with, and able to participate in, the tourism phenomenon;

82.  Emphasises that the natural and cultural heritage and biodiversity protection constitute a precious capital for the tourism sector, and therefore supports the Member States and regional authorities and tourism businesses in promoting eco-tourism and complying with EU environmental legislation when deciding on and executing infrastructure projects; calls on the Member States to integrate natural heritage initiatives into their national and regional tourism strategies;

83.  Stresses the importance of sustainable and responsible tourism for the protection and promotion of the regional natural and cultural heritage; is convinced, therefore, that regional tourism products and short stays should be supported and promoted through appropriate measures;

84.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop networks of green routes incorporating rural and wooded areas and minor natural sites, by integrating existing transport infrastructure networks with new eco‑sustainable solutions;

85.  Emphasises that sustainable fishing tourism can make an important contribution to the economy of rural areas in Europe; stresses that this form of tourism can only continue to exist if endangered fish species are managed more sustainably in Europe’s inland waters;

86.  Notes that agro-tourism is one of the most basic forms of alternative tourism in the EU and calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to support actions designed to provide incentives to further develop the infrastructure and accessibility of this sector;

87.  Calls on the Commission to further promote local areas and specialities by encouraging the showcasing, and ensuring the protection, of local products such as agricultural and non-agricultural protected geographical indications (PGIs);

88.  Considers that sensitive regions such as islands, coasts and mountains, and in particular remote and outermost regions, often depend strongly on tourism business and are the first to be affected by climate change; is convinced, therefore, that climate protection should be a priority and be more strongly integrated into European, national and regional tourism and transport policies, including through a focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transport and waste management; calls on the Commission to make an impact assessment of how climate change affects tourism in these sensitive regions – economically, environmentally and socially – and of the influence it will have in the future;

89.  Underlines the need to promote the tourism potential of remote rural, island, coastal and mountain areas, encourages the development of sustainable maritime and marine tourism in the EU, and calls on the Member States to develop sustainable infrastructure and improve cross-border connectivity as a means of enhancing their appeal and accessibility;

90.  Highlights the fact that islands have their own problems, especially in terms of connections between smaller islands and the mainland, and calls on the Commission to propose measures to boost investment in that area;

91.  Considers the introduction of voluntary ‘environmental checks’ with the aim of improving environmental quality in the tourism industry to be a useful contribution on the part of the industry, and recommends that companies displaying particular commitment be recognised;

92.  Calls on the authorities and operators responsible at national, regional and local level to make a stronger effort to promote non-vehicular networks such as European bridleways, walking routes, pilgrimage routes and cycle tracks, in combination with all cross-border rail services, including high-speed and night trains; recalls that transport interoperability with other modes should also always be explored; recommends eliminating increased fares on border stretches, which are one of the barriers to the more widespread use of railways by tourists in border areas;

93.  Recognises that sustainable urban tourism is a fast-growing business and that mobility and transport policy in touristic city centres should be efficient and sustainable and lead to win-win situations for both the visitors and the visited;

94.  Supports the development of integrated multimodal forms of transport for tourists through the creation of tickets enabling different transportation means to be used according to differing requirements; emphasises that progress in integrated ticketing services would be a strong incentive to cross-border tourism;

95.  Emphasises that electric vehicles offer an increasingly attractive solution for both rural and urban tourism in terms of the new, flexible mobility, and that this mobility option should be offered increasingly in holiday resorts;

96.  Stresses the importance of facilitating the use of public transport by bicycle users;

97.  Strongly encourages the Commission to assess the possibility of making the European Tourism Indicators System (ETIS) an EU instrument to help tourism destinations to control, manage, evaluate and improve their performance in terms of sustainability;

98.  Calls on the Member States to pass on positive experiences of sustainable tourism management in the context of international cooperation abroad;

99.  Takes the view that full accessibility and affordability in tourism are an integral part of the sector’s sustainability; affirms that the ‘tourism for all’ principle allows and empowers people, particularly those with specific needs (such as people with disabilities or reduced mobility, young people, the elderly, low-income families, and families with children), to enjoy their rights as citizens, and that it consequently needs to be the reference for any national, regional, local or European tourism-related action; calls on the Member States to place particular emphasis on the use of new technologies when developing tourism concepts for senior citizens and people with specific disabilities;

100.  Recommends that the Member States develop a Europe-wide uniform and transparent identification system for accessible options and establish corresponding internet platforms; calls on the Commission to submit suggestions along these lines;

101.  Recommends that the Member States introduce the establishment of accessibility as an eligibility criterion for the tourism industry in the context of economic development programmes;

102.  Stresses that consumer trust in companies providing services in the tourism sector also relies on companies making available to consumers simple, effective and quick alternative means of resolving consumer disputes, and on companies protecting consumers’ personal and financial data;

103.  Takes the view that, in order to make European tourism accessible, airlines must put an end to the distorted and frequently widespread practice of allocating more space to business class than to economy class;

104.  Stresses the contribution of civil society in promoting new forms of tourism through social networks, voluntary organisations, cultural and sports associations, citizens’ action groups, and organisations representing young people, women and expatriate communities;

105.  Calls for greater recognition of the vital role played by the voluntary sector in developing and supporting the tourism sector through cultural volunteering;

106.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to pay attention to and support the potential of the social economy to develop sustainable and responsible tourism;

107.  Considers that tourism has important social value for young people, wage earners and retired people, and calls on the Member States to use EU funds for the development of health-related and recreational tourism;

108.  Stresses that the continuing immigration crisis in Europe particularly affects coastal areas, where tourism is an important element of residents’ income; calls on the Commission to draft a report on the impact that the uncontrolled influx of immigrants into the EU is having on the tourism sector;

Sharing economy

109.  Welcomes the opportunities brought by the sharing economy for start-ups and innovative companies in the tourism sector; acknowledges the complementarity of these services with other tourism offers as regards their location and the people they target;

110.  Recalls that the sharing economy, or collaborative consumption, is a new socio‑economic model that has taken off thanks to the technological revolution, with the internet connecting people through online platforms on which transactions involving goods and services can be conducted securely and transparently;

111.  Emphasises that the current legislation is not suited to the sharing economy, and that for this reason local and national governments have started to analyse such online platforms and are trying to regulate their effects, often applying disproportionate measures which are somewhat disparate within the Union; urges the Commission, together with the Member States, to analyse the best possible initiatives to be taken at European, national, regional and local level; recommends that consideration be given to establishing an appropriate regulatory framework within the overarching EU digital single market strategy;

112.  Stresses that the response to the rise of the ‘sharing economy’ must first be analysed before regulatory measures are taken; considers, however, that any action on the part of public authorities needs to be proportional and flexible in order to enable a regulatory framework that secures a level playing field for companies, and in particular a supportive positive business environment for SMEs and for innovation in the industry; considers, furthermore, that for the sake of consumer protection the security, safety and health regulations applicable to the traditional tourism sector should also apply to tourism services provided on a commercial basis within the sharing economy;

113.  Stresses that providers’ activities need to be categorised correctly in order to distinguish clearly between ad hoc or permanent sharing and professional business services, to which appropriate regulations should apply;

114.  Emphasises also that platforms need to be fully accessible and that consumers using such sites must be correctly informed and not misled, and the privacy of their data protected; underlines the importance of a viable and transparent system of reviews, and of ensuring that consumers are not penalised by service providers for leaving negative reviews;

115.  Emphasises that the technology companies acting as intermediaries need to inform providers of their obligations, particularly as regards the protection of consumer rights, and to provide reliable and accessible information about all fees and hidden costs associated with conducting business, and about how to remain fully compliant with local laws, particularly as regards tax law and the observance of norms pertaining to consumer safety and the working conditions of those providing tourism services;

116.  Calls on the Commission to assess the economic and social impact of the sharing economy and its implications for the tourism industry, consumers, technology companies and public authorities, and to report back to Parliament on the outcome of the initiatives it has undertaken so far, including the work of the task force set up by DG GROW;


117.  Calls on the Commission to define jointly with industry and tourism associations a smart roadmap of initiatives focusing on the wider scope of innovation (process, ICT, research) and on the required skills, in order to encourage travel and tourism companies to adopt digital tools and use them more efficiently; takes the view that the Commission could make a concentrated effort to disseminate best practices in this area;

118.  Welcomes the Commission’s Digital Tourism Platform and its objectives of (i) boosting the innovation capacity and digitisation of tourism-related SMEs for the purpose of activating the tourism sector, and (ii) generating proposals as to how to adapt and shape sustainable, competitive and consumer-focused policies aimed at further developing the tourism sector; encourages the use of innovative technologies, the sharing of best practices and the deepening of cooperation at regional level with a view to making Europe’s tourism sector more attractive and competitive; considers that the promotion of e-learning and the increased uptake of digital technologies would further advance this goal;

119.  Is aware that SMEs (most of which are micro-enterprises) and start-ups in the tourism sector face considerable difficulties in promoting their services abroad and in adapting to the fast-changing market conditions; notes that new IT tools such as the Tourism Business Portal developed by the Commission, together with webinars, can help them take advantage of digital opportunities; stresses that making the Tourism Business Portal available in all the languages of the Member States would further promote the territorial benefits of these actions; encourages the taking of similar initiatives at the local, regional and national levels;

120.  Calls on the Commission to continue to foster collaboration between public and private travel and tourism stakeholders in order to facilitate research on, and the adoption of, digital solutions by European companies; highlights, in particular, the need for better coordination between public tourism administrations at the national, regional and local levels, tour operators, the hospitality sector and digital businesses;

121.  Calls on the Commission to assist the sector in constructing tools which will make it possible to monitor visitors’ destinations, build up their profile and trace their mobility, so as to identify their interests and develop appropriate products, and to create tools offering à la carte destinations or the monitoring of networks in order to ascertain the opinions of our visitors;

122.  Expects the Commission to present a comprehensive report encompassing an assessment of the current state of play as regards digitisation in the EU tourism market, with a view to identifying and addressing challenges and opportunities for the various public and private players at national, regional and local level; considers that such a report should include appropriate recommendations in order to ensure fair competition and a level playing field for all actors and to protect consumers by providing for transparency, neutrality and accessibility;

123.  Notes the increase in the online booking of tourism services directly by the user and the risks which this may carry for consumers, who are often unaware of their rights and of the applicable legislation; requests that the Commission pursue in detail any abuses which may arise in this area, in particular involving combined purchases from various service providers (flight tickets and car hire, for example), and to adapt and develop these new ways of booking services at the time of the next review of the Package Travel Directive;

124.  Welcomes the recent conclusion of the trilogue negotiations on a revised Package Travel Directive; calls for its timely and effective transposition and application with a view to transforming the sector and protecting consumers in the digital environment;

125.  Calls on the Commission to refocus funds and programmes in order to better support the digitisation of European tourism companies;

126.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that service providers are given fair and equal access to relevant data by travel and transport operators in order to facilitate the deployment of digital multimodal information and ticketing services; notes the importance of intelligent transport systems (ITS) in providing accurate, real-time traffic and travel data for the development of integrated mobility services that would benefit European tourism development;

127.  Calls on the Member States to identify and support EU-wide initiatives that foster the use of digital infrastructure and interoperability among different platforms; calls on the Member States, in this context, to provide free wi-fi in tourism areas and to abolish roaming charges by 15 June 2017, as decided, and also geo-blocking;

128.  Calls on the Member States and local authorities to ensure that all stations and arrival, departure and transfer platforms are equipped with information offices incorporating trained staff able to provide information on key destinations, transportation means and tourism facilities, together with multilingual digital information systems offering free and unlimited access to wi-fi networks that can also be used by people with disabilities;

129.  Stresses that travellers still face differing prices, terms and conditions when booking accommodation or means of transport online; welcomes, therefore, the Commission communication entitled ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’; calls on the Commission to adopt a comprehensive proposal to end the unjustified geo-blocking of access to goods, services and the best available rate on the basis of geographical location or country of residence;

130.  Urges the Member States to encourage access to high-speed broadband as a priority for remote and outermost tourism areas such as islands and coastal, mountain and rural areas in order to enhance the growth of tourism businesses and to reduce the digital gap in the EU;

131.  Calls on the Member States and the players involved to develop effective means to counter the skills shortage in all parts of the tourism industry, in particular in the area of digitisation;

132.  Is worried that many of the economic benefits of online distribution are not being reaped in Europe; takes the view that European governments should do more to empower entrepreneurship and, in particular, technology-oriented solutions in Europe;

o   o

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

(1) OJ C 56 E, 26.2.2013, p. 41.
(2) OJ C 131 E, 8.5.2013, p. 9.
(3) OJ C 134, 7.6.2003, p. 7.

Development of a satellite-based technology to enable global flight tracking systems
PDF 163kWORD 64k
European Parliament resolution of 29 October 2015 on allocation by the World Radiocommunication Conference, to be held in Geneva from 2 to 27 November 2015 (WRC-15), of the necessary radio spectrum band to support the future development of a satellite-based technology to enable global flight tracking systems (2015/2857(RSP))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the new item on inflight tracking on the agenda of the next International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15), to be held in Geneva from 2 to 27 November 2015,

–  having regard to the working paper entitled ‘Aircraft Tracking and Localisation Options’, presented by the EU to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Multidisciplinary Meeting regarding Global Tracking of 12 and 13 May 2014,

–  having regard to the recommendations made by the aforementioned ICAO Multidisciplinary Meeting regarding Global Tracking,

–  having regard to European Aviation Safety Agency Opinion 01/2014 of 5 May 2014, entitled ‘Amendment of requirements for flight recorders and underwater locating devices’,

–  having regard to safety recommendations issued by various national safety investigation authorities with a view to increasing safety by facilitating the recovery of information for the purposes of civil aviation safety investigations and improving flight recorder performance and handling as well as the location of aircraft after an accident over water(1),

–  having regard to the draft Commission regulation amending Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 as regards requirements for flight recorders, underwater locating devices and aircraft tracking systems(2),

–  having regard to the question to the Commission on the allocation by the World Radiocommunication Conference, to be held in Geneva from 2 to 27 November 2015 (WRC-15), of the necessary radio spectrum band to support the future development of a satellite-based technology to enable global flight tracking systems (O-000118/2015 – B8‑1101/2015),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Transport and Tourism,

–  having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the tragedies involving Air France flight AF447 (1 June 2009) and Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 (8 March 2014) highlighted the need to put in place new systems to determine the position of public transport aircraft at all times, even in remote locations;

B.  whereas such global air traffic management (ATM) surveillance systems will make it easier to determine the location of an aircraft in the event of abnormal behaviour, an emergency or an accident;

C.  whereas, in light of the AF447 and MH370 tragedies, such systems should be unaffected by the loss of normal electrical power on board and should not offer any possibility of being disabled during the flight;

D.  whereas such systems will improve the effectiveness of search and rescue operations and of investigations, as current flight tracking systems only partially cover the globe;

E.  whereas these systems could also be an important tool for increasing ATM efficiency and capacity while significantly enhancing aviation safety and lowering infrastructure costs;

F.  whereas the Commission, in cooperation with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and stakeholders, has started to study various technical options, on the basis of their performance, and has proposed rules on aircraft tracking with phased implementation;

G.  whereas among the possible options currently in operation and/or being studied (for instance, Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Contract (ADS-C), the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) High Frequency Data Link), the Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, supported by satellite communications, appears to be very promising;

H.  whereas ADS-B technology can assist ATM surveillance outside the most densely populated areas, where radar coverage is limited, impossible or extremely costly (including oceans and uninhabited land areas);

I.  whereas satellite-supported ADS-B technology relies on communications between aircraft and a constellation of satellites to deliver surveillance capability to air navigation service providers, and whereas for this purpose it may require the allocation of a specific radio spectrum band protected from interference;

J.  whereas the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15), scheduled for November 2015 and organised by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), is the forum for determining which radio services are allocated to specific radio spectrum bands;

K.  whereas action should be taken to ensure that the development of ADS-B technology is not hampered by a lack of timely allocation of an appropriate radio spectrum band;

1.  Supports the Commission’s action aimed at rapidly developing a performance-based global flight tracking system that will enable air navigation service providers to determine the position of public transport aircraft at all times, even in remote locations;

2.  Stresses that such a system should remain effective even in the event of loss of normal electrical power on board, and should not offer any possibility of being disabled during the flight;

3.  Believes that the development of such a system should be achieved through strong cooperation between all interested stakeholders (e.g. industry, airlines, air navigation service providers, safety and rescue services, safety investigation authorities and international organisations);

4.  Notes that satellite-supported ADS-B technology, based on communications between aircraft and satellites, is one of the promising options for the development of a global ATM surveillance system;

5.  Stresses that when implementing ADS-B technology it is essential to consider the needs of all airspace users and to ensure interoperability between alternative technologies in order to avoid safety and security breaches;

6.  Notes that the development of satellite-supported ADS-B technology may require the allocation of an appropriate radio spectrum band in order to prevent any interference;

7.  Calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps – with a view to the next World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-15), to be held in Geneva in November 2015 – regarding the allocation of the necessary radio spectrum band to support the future development of a satellite-based global flight tracking system;

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

(1) European Aviation Safety Agency Opinion 01/2014 of 5 May 2014, p. 1, ‘Reference’.
(2) Commission document RPS COM-AC DRC(2015) D040413/02 and its Annex.

Legal notice - Privacy policy