European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as regards nominal quantities for placing on the Union market of single distilled shochu produced by pot still and bottled in Japan (COM(2018)0199 – C8-0156/2018 – 2018/0097(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0334 A8-0255/2018

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0199),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 114(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0156/2018),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 July 2018(1),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 10 July 2018 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 the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0255/2018),

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

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

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 12 September 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 as regards nominal quantities for the placing on the Union market of single distilled shochu produced by pot still and bottled in Japan

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/1670.)

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of Amendment 1 to the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (05800/2018 – C8-0122/2018 – 2018/0009(NLE))

P8_TA(2018)0335 A8-0214/2018

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (05800/2018),

–  having regard to Amendment 1 to the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (14031/2017).

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), and Article 218(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0122/2018),

–  having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0214/2018),

1.  Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union and its Member States, of a Protocol amending the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia (12256/2014 – C8-0080/2017 – 2014/0023(NLE))

P8_TA(2018)0336 A8-0256/2018

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (12256/2014),

–  having regard to the draft Protocol amending the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia (12255/2014),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0080/2017),

–  having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0256/2018),

1.  Gives its consent to conclusion of the protocol;

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

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market (COM(2016)0593 – C8-0383/2016 – 2016/0280(COD))(1)

P8_TA(2018)0337 A8-0245/2018

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 (2)  The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights provide for a high level of protection for rightholders and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of the internal market; it stimulates innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action. (2)  The directives which have been adopted in the area of copyright and related rights contribute to the functioning of the internal market, provide for a high level of protection for rightholders, facilitate the clearance of rights and create a framework wherein the exploitation of works and other protected subject-matter can take place. This harmonised legal framework contributes to the good functioning of a truly integrated internal market; it stimulates innovation, creativity, investment and production of new content, also in the digital environment, with a view to avoiding fragmentation of the internal market. The protection provided by this legal framework also contributes to the Union's objective of respecting and promoting cultural diversity while at the same time bringing the European common cultural heritage to the fore. Article 167(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union requires the Union to take cultural aspects into account in its action. Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 (3)  Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled ‘Towards a modern, more European copyright framework’26 , in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of-commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on rights in publications, on the use of works and other subject-matter by online service providers storing and giving access to user uploaded content and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts. (3)  Rapid technological developments continue to transform the way works and other subject-matter are created, produced, distributed and exploited, and relevant legislation needs to be future proof so as not to restrict technological development. New business models and new actors continue to emerge. The objectives and the principles laid down by the Union copyright framework remain sound. However, legal uncertainty remains, for both rightholders and users, as regards certain uses, including cross-border uses, of works and other subject-matter in the digital environment. As set out in the Communication of the Commission entitled 'Towards a modern, more European copyright framework'26, in some areas it is necessary to adapt and supplement the current Union copyright framework. This Directive provides for rules to adapt certain exceptions and limitations to digital and cross-border environments, as well as measures to facilitate certain licensing practices as regards the dissemination of out-of-commerce works and the online availability of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms with a view to ensuring wider access to content. In order to achieve a well-functioning and fair marketplace for copyright, there should also be rules on the exercise and enforcement of the use of works and other subject-matter on online service providers’ platforms and on the transparency of authors' and performers' contracts and of the accounting linked with the exploitation of protected works in accordance with those contracts. __________________ __________________ 26 COM(2015) 626 final. 26 COM(2015)0626. Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 4 (4)  This Directive is based upon, and complements, the rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council27 , Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 , Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30 , Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council31 and Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . (4)  This Directive is based upon, and complements, the rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council27 , Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 27a, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council28 , Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council29 , Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council30 , Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council31 and Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council32 . _________________ _________________ 27 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20–28). 27 Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20). 27a Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1). 28 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10–19). 28 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, 22.6.2001, p. 10). 29 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28–35). 29 Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 376, 27.12.2006, p. 28). 30 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16–22). 30 Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16). 31 Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works (OJ L 299, 27.10.2012, p. 5–12). 31 Directive 2012/28/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on certain permitted uses of orphan works (OJ L 299, 27.10.2012, p. 5). 32 Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72–98). 32 Directive 2014/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online use in the internal market (OJ L 84, 20.3.2014, p. 72). Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 (5)  In the fields of research, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted. (5)  In the fields of research, innovation, education and preservation of cultural heritage, digital technologies permit new types of uses that are not clearly covered by the current Union rules on exceptions and limitations. In addition, the optional nature of exceptions and limitations provided for in Directives 2001/29/EC, 96/9/EC and 2009/24/EC in these fields may negatively impact the functioning of the internal market. This is particularly relevant as regards cross-border uses, which are becoming increasingly important in the digital environment. Therefore, the existing exceptions and limitations in Union law that are relevant for innovation, scientific research, teaching and preservation of cultural heritage should be reassessed in the light of those new uses. Mandatory exceptions or limitations for uses of text and data mining technologies in the field of innovation and scientific research, illustration for teaching in the digital environment and for preservation of cultural heritage should be introduced. For uses not covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive, the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law should continue to apply. Therefore, existing well-functioning exceptions in those fields should be allowed to continue to be available in Member States, as long as they do not restrict the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in this Directive. Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC should be adapted. Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 (6)  The exceptions and the limitation set out in this Directive seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. They can be applied only in certain special cases which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders. (6)  The exceptions and the limitations set out in this Directive seek to achieve a fair balance between the rights and interests of authors and other rightholders on the one hand, and of users on the other. They can be applied only in certain special cases which do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the works or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholders. Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 8 (8)  New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text and data mining. Those technologies allow researchers to process large amounts of information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologies are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject-matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required. (8)  New technologies enable the automated computational analysis of information in digital form, such as text, sounds, images or data, generally known as text and data mining. Text and data mining allows the reading and analysis of large amounts of digitally stored information to gain new knowledge and discover new trends. Whilst text and data mining technologies are prevalent across the digital economy, there is widespread acknowledgment that text and data mining can in particular benefit the research community and in so doing encourage innovation. However, in the Union, research organisations such as universities and research institutes are confronted with legal uncertainty as to the extent to which they can perform text and data mining of content. In certain instances, text and data mining may involve acts protected by copyright and/or by the sui generis database right, notably the reproduction of works or other subject-matter and/or the extraction of contents from a database. Where there is no exception or limitation which applies, an authorisation to undertake such acts would be required from rightholders. Text and data mining may also be carried out in relation to mere facts or data which are not protected by copyright and in such instances no authorisation would be required. Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 8 a (new) (8a)  For text and data mining to occur, it is in most cases necessary first to access information and then to reproduce it. It is generally only after that information is normalised that it can be processed through text and data mining. Once there is lawful access to information, it is when that information is being normalised that a copyright-protected use takes place, since this leads to a reproduction by changing the format of the information or by extracting it from a database into a format that can be subjected to text and data mining. The copyright-relevant processes in the use of text and data mining technology is, consequently, not the text and data mining process itself which consists of a reading and analysis of digitally stored, normalised information, but the process of accessing and the process by which information is normalised to enable its automated computational analysis, insofar as this process involves extraction from a database or reproductions. The exceptions for text and data mining purposes provided for in this Directive should be understood as referring to such copyright-relevant processes necessary to enable text and data mining. Where existing copyright law has been inapplicable to uses of text and data mining, such uses should remain unaffected by this Directive. Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 (10)  This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Research organisations should also benefit from the exception when they engage into public-private partnerships. (10)  This legal uncertainty should be addressed by providing for a mandatory exception for research organisations to the right of reproduction and also to the right to prevent extraction from a database. The new exception should be without prejudice to the existing mandatory exception on temporary acts of reproduction laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, which should continue to apply to text and data mining techniques which do not involve the making of copies going beyond the scope of that exception. Educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions that conduct scientific research should also be covered by the text and data mining exception, provided that the results of the research do not benefit an undertaking exercising a decisive influence upon such organisations in particular. In the event that the research is carried out in the framework of a public-private partnership, the undertaking participating in the public-private partnership should also have lawful access to the works and other subject matter. The reproductions and extractions made for text and data mining purposes should be stored in a secure manner and in a way that ensures that the copies are only used for the purpose of scientific research. Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) (13a)  To encourage innovation also in the private sector, Member States should be able to provide for an exception going further than the mandatory exception, provided that the use of works and other subject matter referred to therein has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders including by machine readable means. Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 (15)  While distance learning and cross-border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non-commercial nature of the activity. (15)  While distance learning and cross-border education programmes are mostly developed at higher education level, digital tools and resources are increasingly used at all education levels, in particular to improve and enrich the learning experience. The exception or limitation provided for in this Directive should therefore benefit all educational establishments in primary, secondary, vocational and higher education to the extent they pursue their educational activity for a non-commercial purpose. The organisational structure and the means of funding of an educational establishment are not the decisive factors to determine the non-commercial nature of the activity. Where cultural heritage institutions pursue an educational objective and are involved in teaching activities, it should be possible for Member States to consider those institutions as an educational establishment under this exception in so far as their teaching activities are concerned. Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 (16)  The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter such as the use of parts or extracts of works to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means in the classroom and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic network, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching. (16)  The exception or limitation should cover digital uses of works and other subject-matter to support, enrich or complement the teaching, including the related learning activities. The exception or limitation of use should be granted as long as the work or other subject-matter used indicates the source, including the authors’ name, unless that turns out to be impossible for reasons of practicability. The use of the works or other subject-matter under the exception or limitation should be only in the context of teaching and learning activities carried out under the responsibility of educational establishments, including during examinations, and be limited to what is necessary for the purpose of such activities. The exception or limitation should cover both uses through digital means where the teaching activity is physically provided, including where it takes place outside the premises of the educational establishment, for example in libraries or cultural heritage institutions, as long as the use is made under the responsibility of the educational establishment, and online uses through the educational establishment's secure electronic environment, the access to which should be protected, notably by authentication procedures. The exception or limitation should be understood as covering the specific accessibility needs of persons with a disability in the context of illustration for teaching. Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 a (new) (16a)  A secure electronic environment should be understood as a digital teaching and learning environment, access to which is limited through an appropriate authentication procedure to the educational establishment’s teaching staff and to the pupils or students enrolled in a study programme. Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 (17)  Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences, covering at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes. (17)  Different arrangements, based on the implementation of the exception provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC or on licensing agreements covering further uses, are in place in a number of Member States in order to facilitate educational uses of works and other subject-matter. Such arrangements have usually been developed taking account of the needs of educational establishments and different levels of education. Whereas it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception or limitation in relation to digital uses and cross-border teaching activities, the modalities of implementation may differ from a Member State to another, to the extent they do not hamper the effective application of the exception or limitation or cross-border uses. This should allow Member States to build on the existing arrangements concluded at national level. In particular, Member States could decide to subject the application of the exception or limitation, fully or partially, to the availability of adequate licences. Such licences can take the form of collective licensing agreements, extended collective licensing agreements and licences that are negotiated collectively such as “blanket licences”, in order to avoid educational establishments having to negotiate individually with rightholders. Such licenses should be affordable and cover at least the same uses as those allowed under the exception. This mechanism would, for example, allow giving precedence to licences for materials which are primarily intended for the educational market, or for teaching in educational establishments or sheet music. In order to avoid that such mechanism results in legal uncertainty or administrative burden for educational establishments, Member States adopting this approach should take concrete measures to ensure that such licensing schemes allowing digital uses of works or other subject-matter for the purpose of illustration for teaching are easily available and that educational establishments are aware of the existence of such licensing schemes. Member States should be able to provide for systems to ensure that there is fair compensation for rightholders for uses under those exceptions or limitations. Member States should be encouraged to use systems that do not create an administrative burden, such as systems that provide for one-off payments. Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 a (new) (17 a)   In order to guarantee legal certainty when a Member State decides to subject the application of the exception to the availability of adequate licences, it is necessary to specify under which conditions an educational establishment may use protected works or other subject-matter under that exception and, conversely, when it should act under a licensing scheme. Amendment 15 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 (18)  An act of preservation may require a reproduction of a work or other subject-matter in the collection of a cultural heritage institution and consequently the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. In view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow those acts of preservation. (18)  An act of preservation of a work or other subject-matter in the collection of a cultural heritage institution may require a reproduction and consequently require the authorisation of the relevant rightholders. Cultural heritage institutions are engaged in the preservation of their collections for future generations. Digital technologies offer new ways to preserve the heritage contained in those collections but they also create new challenges. In view of these new challenges, it is necessary to adapt the current legal framework by providing a mandatory exception to the right of reproduction in order to allow those acts of preservation by such institutions. Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Recital 19 (19)  Different approaches in the Member States for acts of preservation by cultural heritage institutions hamper cross-border cooperation and the sharing of means of preservation by cultural heritage institutions in the internal market, leading to an inefficient use of resources. (19)  Different approaches in the Member States for acts of reproduction for preservation hamper cross-border cooperation, the sharing of means of preservation and the establishment of cross-border preservation networks in the internal market organisations that are engaged in preservation, leading to an inefficient use of resources. This can have a negative impact on the preservation of cultural heritage. Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 (20)  Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, for example to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in the required number and at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only. (20)  Member States should therefore be required to provide for an exception to permit cultural heritage institutions to reproduce works and other subject-matter permanently in their collections for preservation purposes, to address technological obsolescence or the degradation of original supports or to insure works. Such an exception should allow for the making of copies by the appropriate preservation tool, means or technology, in any format or medium, in the required number, at any point in the life of a work or other subject-matter and to the extent required in order to produce a copy for preservation purposes only. The archives of research organisations or public-service broadcasting organisations should be considered cultural heritage institutions and therefore beneficiaries of this exception. Member States should, for the purpose of this exception, be able to maintain provisions to treat publicly accessible galleries as museums. Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 (21)  For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution when copies are owned or permanently held by the cultural heritage institution, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership or licence agreements. (21)  For the purposes of this Directive, works and other subject-matter should be considered to be permanently in the collection of a cultural heritage institution when copies of such works or other subject matter are owned or permanently held by those organisations, for example as a result of a transfer of ownership, licence agreements, a legal deposit or a long-term loan. Works or other subject matter that cultural heritage institutions access temporarily via a third-party server are not considered as being permanently in their collections. Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 a (new) (21a)  Technological developments have given rise to information society services enabling their users to upload content and make it available in diverse forms and for various purposes, including to illustrate an idea, criticism, parody or pastiche. Such content may include short extracts of pre-existing protected works or other subject-matter that such users might have altered, combined or otherwise transformed. Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 b (new) (21b)  Despite some overlap with existing exceptions or limitations, such as the ones for quotation and parody, not all content that is uploaded or made available by a user that reasonably includes extracts of protected works or other subject-matter is covered by Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC. A situation of this type creates legal uncertainty for both users and rightholders. It is therefore necessary to provide a new specific exception to permit the legitimate uses of extracts of pre-existing protected works or other subject-matter in content that is uploaded or made available by users. Where content generated or made available by a user involves the short and proportionate use of a quotation or of an extract of a protected work or other subject-matter for a legitimate purpose, such use should be protected by the exception provided for in this Directive. This exception should only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter concerned and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder. For the purpose of assessing such prejudice, it is essential that the degree of originality of the content concerned, the length/extent of the quotation or extract used, the professional nature of the content concerned or the degree of economic harm be examined, where relevant, while not precluding the legitimate enjoyment of the exception. This exception should be without prejudice to the moral rights of the authors of the work or other subject-matter. Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Recital 21 c (new) (21c)  Information society service providers that fall within the scope of Article 13 of this Directive should not be able to invoke for their benefit the exception for the use of extracts from pre-existing works provided for in this Directive, for the use of quotations or extracts from protected works or other subject-matter in content that is uploaded or made available by users on those information society services, to reduce the scope of their obligations under Article 13 of this Directive. Amendment 22 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 (22)  Cultural heritage institutions should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject-matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the licensing of rights in out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross-border effect in the internal market. (22)  Cultural heritage institutions should benefit from a clear framework for the digitisation and dissemination, including across borders, of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter. However, the particular characteristics of the collections of out-of-commerce works mean that obtaining the prior consent of the individual rightholders may be very difficult. This can be due, for example, to the age of the works or other subject-matter, their limited commercial value or the fact that they were never intended for commercial use or have never been in commerce. It is therefore necessary to provide for measures to facilitate the use of out-of-commerce works that are in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and thereby to allow the conclusion of agreements with cross-border effect in the internal market. Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 a (new) (22a)  Several Member States have already adopted extended collective licencing regimes, legal mandates or legal presumptions facilitating the licencing of out-of-commerce works. However considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions and the variance between collective management practices across Member States and sectors of cultural production, such measures may not provide a solution in all cases, for example, because there is no practice of collective management for a certain type of work or other subject matter. In such particular instances, it is therefore necessary to allow cultural heritage institutions to make out-of-commerce works held in their permanent collection available online under an exception to copyright and related rights. While it is essential to harmonise the scope of the new mandatory exception in order to allow cross-border uses of out-of-commerce works, Member States should nevertheless be allowed to use or continue to use extended collective licencing arrangements concluded with cultural heritage institutions at national level for categories of works that are permanently in the collections of cultural heritage institutions The lack of agreement on the conditions of the licence should not be interpreted as a lack of availability of licensing-based solutions. Any uses under this exception should be subject to the same opt-out and publicity requirements as uses authorised by a licensing mechanism. In order to ensure that the exception only applies when certain conditions are fulfilled and to provide legal certainty, Member States should determine, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage organisations, and at appropriate intervals of time, for which sectors and which types of works appropriate licence-based solutions are not available, in which case the exception should apply. Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Recital 23 (23)  Member States should, within the framework provided for in this Directive, have flexibility in choosing the specific type of mechanism allowing for licences for out-of-commerce works to extend to the rights of rightholders that are not represented by the collective management organisation, in accordance to their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. Such mechanisms can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation. (23)  Member States should, within the framework provided for in this Directive, have flexibility in choosing the specific type of mechanism allowing for licences for out-of-commerce works to extend to the rights of rightholders that are not represented by the relevant collective management organisation, in accordance with their legal traditions, practices or circumstances. Such mechanisms can include extended collective licensing and presumptions of representation. Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Recital 24 (24)  For the purpose of those licensing mechanisms, a rigorous and well-functioning collective management system is important. That system includes in particular rules of good governance, transparency and reporting, as well as the regular, diligent and accurate distribution and payment of amounts due to individual rightholders, as provided for by Directive 2014/26/EU. Additional appropriate safeguards should be available for all rightholders, who should be given the opportunity to exclude the application of such mechanisms to their works or other subject-matter. Conditions attached to those mechanisms should not affect their practical relevance for cultural heritage institutions. (24)  For the purpose of those licensing mechanisms, a rigorous and well-functioning collective management system is important and should be encouraged by the Member States. That system includes in particular rules of good governance, transparency and reporting, as well as the regular, diligent and accurate distribution and payment of amounts due to individual rightholders, as provided for by Directive 2014/26/EU. Additional appropriate safeguards should be available for all rightholders, who should be given the opportunity to exclude the application of such licensing mechanisms or of such exceptions to their works or other subject-matter. Conditions attached to those mechanisms should not affect their practical relevance for cultural heritage institutions. Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Recital 25 (25)  Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject-matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of those mechanisms, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, users and collective management organisations when doing so. (25)  Considering the variety of works and other subject-matter in the collections of cultural heritage institutions, it is important that the licensing mechanisms introduced by this Directive are available and can be used in practice for different types of works and other subject-matter, including photographs, sound recordings and audiovisual works. In order to reflect the specificities of different categories of works and other subject-matter as regards modes of publication and distribution and to facilitate the usability of the solutions on the use of out-of-commerce works introduced by this Directive, specific requirements and procedures may have to be established by Member States for the practical application of those licensing mechanisms. It is appropriate that Member States consult rightholders, cultural heritage institutions and collective management organisations when doing so. Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Recital 26 (26)  For reasons of international comity, the licensing mechanisms for the digitisation and dissemination of out-of-commerce works provided for in this Directive should not apply to works or other subject-matter that are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in a third country or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works the producer of which has his headquarters or habitual residence in a third country. Those mechanisms should also not apply to works or other subject-matter of third country nationals except when they are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in the territory of a Member State or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works of which the producer's headquarters or habitual residence is in a Member State. (26)  For reasons of international comity, the licensing mechanisms and the exception for the digitisation and dissemination of out-of-commerce works provided for in this Directive should not apply to works or other subject-matter that are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in a third country or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works the producer of which has his headquarters or habitual residence in a third country. Those mechanisms should also not apply to works or other subject-matter of third country nationals except when they are first published or, in the absence of publication, first broadcast in the territory of a Member State or, in the case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, to works of which the producer's headquarters or habitual residence is in a Member State. Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Recital 27 (27)  As mass digitisation projects can entail significant investments by cultural heritage institutions, any licences granted under the mechanisms provided for in this Directive should not prevent them from generating reasonable revenues in order to cover the costs of the licence and the costs of digitising and disseminating the works and other subject-matter covered by the licence. (27)  As mass digitisation projects can entail significant investments by cultural heritage institutions, any licences granted under the mechanisms provided for in this Directive should not prevent them from covering the costs of the licence and the costs of digitising and disseminating the works and other subject-matter covered by the licence. Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Recital 28 (28)  Information regarding the future and ongoing use of out-of-commerce works and other subject-matter by cultural heritage institutions on the basis of the licensing mechanisms provided for in this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences to their works or other subject-matter should be adequately publicised. This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place. Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council , the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary measures, aiming at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. (28)  Information regarding the future and ongoing use of out-of-commerce works and other subject-matter by cultural heritage institutions on the basis of the licensing mechanisms or of the exception provided for in this Directive and the arrangements in place for all rightholders to exclude the application of licences or of the exception to their works or other subject-matter should be adequately publicised. This is particularly important when uses take place across borders in the internal market. It is therefore appropriate to make provision for the creation of a single publicly accessible online portal for the Union to make such information available to the public for a reasonable period of time before the cross-border use takes place. Under Regulation (EU) No 386/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the European Union Intellectual Property Office is entrusted with certain tasks and activities, financed by making use of its own budgetary measures, aiming at facilitating and supporting the activities of national authorities, the private sector and Union institutions in the fight against, including the prevention of, infringement of intellectual property rights. It is therefore appropriate to rely on that Office to establish and manage the European portal making such information available. Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Recital 28 a (new) (28a)  In order to ensure that the licensing mechanisms established for out-of-commerce works are relevant and function properly, that rightholders are adequately protected under those mechanisms, that licences are properly publicised and that legal clarity is ensured with regard to the representativeness of collective management organisations and the categorisation of works, Member States should foster sector-specific stakeholder dialogue. Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Recital 30 (30)  To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, this Directive requires Member States to set up a negotiation mechanism allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the bearing of the costs. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum. (30)  To facilitate the licensing of rights in audiovisual works to video-on-demand platforms, Member States should set up a negotiation mechanism, managed by an existing or newly established national body, allowing parties willing to conclude an agreement to rely on the assistance of an impartial body. The participation in this negotiation mechanism and the subsequent conclusion of agreements should be voluntary. Where a negotiation involves parties from different Member States, those parties should agree beforehand on the competent Member State, should they decide to rely on the negotiation mechanism. The body should meet with the parties and help with the negotiations by providing professional, impartial and external advice. Against that background, Member States should decide on the conditions of the functioning of the negotiation mechanism, including the timing and duration of the assistance to negotiations and the division of any costs arising, and the composition of such bodies. Member States should ensure that administrative and financial burdens remain proportionate to guarantee the efficiency of the negotiation forum. Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Recital 30 a (new) (30a)  The preservation of the Union’s heritage is of the utmost importance and should be strengthened for the benefit of future generations. This should be achieved notably through the protection of published heritage. To this end, a Union legal deposit should be created in order to ensure that publications concerning the Union, such as Union law, Union history and integration, Union policy and Union democracy, institutional and parliamentary affairs, and politics, and, thereby, the Union’s intellectual record and future published heritage, are collected systematically. Not only should such heritage be preserved through the creation of a Union archive for publications dealing with Union-related matters, but it should also be made available to Union citizens and future generations. The European Parliament Library, as the Library of the only Union institution directly representing Union citizens, should be designated as the Union depository library. In order not to create an excessive burden on publishers, printers and importers, only electronic publications, such as e-books, e-journals and e-magazines should be deposited in the European Parliament Library, which should make available for readers publications covered by the Union legal deposit at the European Parliament Library for the purpose of research or study and under the control of the European Parliament Library. Such publications should not be made available online externally. Amendments 33 and 137 Proposal for a directive Recital 31 (31)  A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. In the transition from print to digital, publishers of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient. (31)  A free and pluralist press is essential to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information. It provides a fundamental contribution to public debate and the proper functioning of a democratic society. The increasing imbalance between powerful platforms and press publishers, which can also be news agencies, has already led to a remarkable regression of the media landscape on a regional level. In the transition from print to digital, publishers and news agencies of press publications are facing problems in licensing the online use of their publications and recouping their investments. In the absence of recognition of publishers of press publications as rightholders, licensing and enforcement in the digital environment is often complex and inefficient. Amendments 34 and 138 Proposal for a directive Recital 32 (32)  The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry. It is therefore necessary to provide at Union level a harmonised legal protection for press publications in respect of digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses. (32)  The organisational and financial contribution of publishers in producing press publications needs to be recognised and further encouraged to ensure the sustainability of the publishing industry and thereby to guarantee the availability of reliable information. It is therefore necessary for Member States to provide at Union level legal protection for press publications in the Union for digital uses. Such protection should be effectively guaranteed through the introduction, in Union law, of rights related to copyright for the reproduction and making available to the public of press publications in respect of digital uses in order to obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for such uses. Private uses should be excluded from this reference. In addition, the listing in a search engine should not be considered as fair and proportionate remuneration. Amendment 139 Proposal for a directive Recital 33 (33)  For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking which do not constitute communication to the public. (33)  For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publication in a way that embraces only journalistic publications, published by a service provider, periodically or regularly updated in any media, for the purpose of informing or entertaining. Such publications would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest and news websites. Periodical publications which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive. This protection does not extend to acts of hyperlinking. The protection shall also not extend to factual information which is reported in journalistic articles from a press publication and will therefore not prevent anyone from reporting such factual information. Amendments 36 and 140 Proposal for a directive Recital 34 (34)  The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. They should also be subject to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive. (34)  The rights granted to the publishers of press publications under this Directive should have the same scope as the rights of reproduction and making available to the public provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC, insofar as digital uses are concerned. Member States should be able to subject those rights to the same provisions on exceptions and limitations as those applicable to the rights provided for in Directive 2001/29/EC including the exception on quotation for purposes such as criticism or review laid down in Article 5(3)(d) of that Directive. Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Recital 35 (35)  The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side. (35)  The protection granted to publishers of press publications under this Directive should not affect the rights of the authors and other rightholders in the works and other subject-matter incorporated therein, including as regards the extent to which authors and other rightholders can exploit their works or other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. Therefore, publishers of press publications should not be able to invoke the protection granted to them against authors and other rightholders. This is without prejudice to contractual arrangements concluded between the publishers of press publications, on the one side, and authors and other rightholders, on the other side. Notwithstanding the fact that authors of the works incorporated in a press publication receive an appropriate reward for the use of their works on the basis of the terms for licensing of their work to the press publisher, authors whose work is incorporated in a press publication should be entitled to an appropriate share of the new additional revenues press publishers receive for certain types of secondary use of their press publications by information society service providers in respect of the rights provided for in Article 11(1) of this Directive. The amount of the compensation attributed to the authors should take into account the specific industry licensing standards regarding works incorporated in a press publication which are accepted as appropriate in the respective Member State; and the compensation attributed to authors should not affect the licensing terms agreed between the author and the press publisher for the use of the author’s article by the press publisher. Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive Recital 36 (36)  Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications, often operate on the basis of the transfer of authors' rights by means of contractual agreements or statutory provisions. In this context, publishers make an investment with a view to the exploitation of the works contained in their publications and may in some instances be deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as the ones for private copying and reprography. In a number of Member States compensation for uses under those exceptions is shared between authors and publishers. In order to take account of this situation and improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, Member States should be allowed to determine that, when an author has transferred or licensed his rights to a publisher or otherwise contributes with his works to a publication and there are systems in place to compensate for the harm caused by an exception or limitation, publishers are entitled to claim a share of such compensation, whereas the burden on the publisher to substantiate his claim should not exceed what is required under the system in place. (36)  Publishers, including those of press publications, books or scientific publications and music publications, operate on the basis of contractual agreements with authors. In this context, publishers make an investment and acquire rights, in some fields including rights to claim a share of compensation within joint collective management organisations of authors and publishers, with a view to the exploitation of the works and may therefore also find themselves being deprived of revenues where such works are used under exceptions or limitations such as the ones for private copying and reprography. In a large number of Member States compensation for uses under those exceptions is shared between authors and publishers. In order to take account of this situation and to improve legal certainty for all concerned parties, Member States should be allowed to provide an equivalent compensation-sharing system if such a system was in operation in that Member State before 12 November 2015. The share between authors and publishers of such compensation could be set in the internal distribution rules of the collective management organisation acting jointly on behalf of authors and publishers, or set by Members States in law or regulation, in accordance with the equivalent system that was in operation in that Member State before 12 November 2015. This provision is without prejudice to the arrangements in the Member States concerning public lending rights, the management of rights not based on exceptions or limitations to copyright, such as extended collective licensing schemes, or concerning remuneration rights on the basis of national law. Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Recital 36 a (new) (36 a)   Cultural and creative industries (CCIs) play a key role in reindustrialising Europe, are a driver for growth and are in a strategic position to trigger innovative spill-overs in other industrial sectors. Furthermore CCIs are a driving force for innovation and development of ICT in Europe. Cultural and creative industries in Europe provide more than 12 million full-time jobs, which amounts to 7,5 % of the Union's work force, creating approximately EUR 509 billion in value added to GDP (5,3 % of the EU's total GVA). The protection of copyright and related rights are at the core of the CCI's revenue. Amendments 40 and 215 rev Proposal for a directive Recital 37 (37)  Over the last years, the functioning of the online content marketplace has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to content online. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it. (37)  Over the last years, the functioning of the online content market has gained in complexity. Online services providing access to copyright protected content uploaded by their users without the involvement of right holders have flourished and have become main sources of access to copyright protected content online. Online services are means of providing wider access to cultural and creative works and offer great opportunities for cultural and creative industries to develop new business models. However, although they allow for diversity and ease of access to content, they also generate challenges when copyright protected content is uploaded without prior authorisation from rightholders. This affects rightholders' possibilities to determine whether, and under which conditions, their work and other subject-matter are used as well as their possibilities to get an appropriate remuneration for it, since some user uploaded content services do not enter into licensing agreements on the basis that they claim to be covered by the “safe-harbour” exemption set out in Directive 2000/31/EC. Amendment 143 Proposal for a directive Recital 37 a (new) (37a)   Certain information society services, as part of their normal use, are designed to give access to the public to copyright protected content or other subject-matter uploaded by their users. The definition of an online content sharing service provider under this Directive shall cover information society service providers one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public or to stream significant amounts of copyright protected content uploaded / made available by its users, and that optimise content, and promote for profit making purposes, including amongst others displaying, tagging, curating, sequencing, the uploaded works or other subject-matter, irrespective of the means used therefor, and therefore act in an active way. As a consequence, they cannot benefit from the liability exemption provided for in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. The definition of online content sharing service providers under this Directive does not cover microenterprises and small sized enterprises within the meaning of Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC and service providers that act in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all right holders concerned, such as educational or scientific repositories. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical goods, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive. Amendments 144, 145 and 146 Proposal for a directive Recital 38 (38)  Where information society service providers store and provide access to the public to copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users, thereby going beyond the mere provision of physical facilities and performing an act of communication to the public, they are obliged to conclude licensing agreements with rightholders, unless they are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council34. (38)  Online content sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public and therefore are responsible for their content and should therefore conclude fair and appropriate licensing agreements with rightholders. Where licensing agreements are concluded, they should also cover, to the same extent and scope, the liability of users when they are acting in a non-commercial capacity. In accordance with Article 11(2a) the responsibility of online content sharing providers pursuant to Article 13 does not extend to acts of hyperlinking in respect of press publications. The dialogue between stakeholders is essential in the digital world. They should define best practices to ensure the functioning of licensing agreements and cooperation between online content sharing service providers and rightholders. Those best practices should take into account the extent of the copyright infringing content on the service. In respect of Article 14, it is necessary to verify whether the service provider plays an active role, including by optimising the presentation of the uploaded works or subject-matter or promoting them, irrespective of the nature of the means used therefor. In order to ensure the functioning of any licensing agreement, information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users should take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure protection of works or other subject-matter, such as implementing effective technologies. This obligation should also apply when the information society service providers are eligible for the liability exemption provided in Article 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC. _________________ 34 Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16). Amendment 147 Proposal for a directive Recital 39 (39)  Collaboration between information society service providers storing and providing access to the public to large amounts of copyright protected works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users and rightholders is essential for the functioning of technologies, such as content recognition technologies. In such cases, rightholders should provide the necessary data to allow the services to identify their content and the services should be transparent towards rightholders with regard to the deployed technologies, to allow the assessment of their appropriateness. The services should in particular provide rightholders with information on the type of technologies used, the way they are operated and their success rate for the recognition of rightholders' content. Those technologies should also allow rightholders to get information from the information society service providers on the use of their content covered by an agreement. (39)  Member States should provide that where right holders do not wish to conclude licensing agreements, online content sharing service providers and right holders should cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter, are not available on their services. Cooperation between online content service providers and right holders should not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright. Amendment 148 Proposal for a directive Recital 39 a (new) (39a)   Members States should ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms should be processed without undue delay. Right holders should reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the cooperation should not lead to any identification of individual users nor the processing of their personal data. Member States should also ensure that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules. Amendment 149 Proposal for a directive Recital 39 b (new) (39b)   As soon as possible after the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission and the Member States should organise dialogues between stakeholders to harmonise and to define best practices. They should issue guidance to ensure the functioning of licensing agreements and on cooperation between online content sharing service providers and right holders for the use of their works or other subject matter within the meaning of this Directive. When defining best practices, special account should be taken of fundamental rights, the use of exceptions and limitations. Special focus should also be given to ensuring that the burden on SMEs remains appropriate and that automated blocking of content is avoided. Amendments 44 and 219 Proposal for a directive Recital 39 c (new) (39c)   Member States should ensure that an intermediate mechanism exists enabling service providers and rightholders to find an amicable solution to any dispute arising from the terms of their cooperation agreements. To that end, Member States should appoint an impartial body with all the relevant competence and experience necessary to assist the parties in the resolution of their dispute. Amendment 46 Proposal for a directive Recital 39 d (new) (39d)   As a principle, rightholders should always receive fair and appropriate remuneration. Authors and performers who have concluded contracts with intermediaries, such as labels and producers, should receive fair and appropriate remuneration from them, either through individual agreements and/ or collective bargaining agreements, collective management agreements or rules having a similar effect, for example joint remuneration rules. This remuneration should be mentioned explicitly in the contracts according to each mode of exploitation, including online exploitation. Members States should look into the specificities of each sector and should be allowed to provide that remuneration is deemed fair and appropriate if it is determined in accordance with the collective bargaining or joint remuneration agreement. Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Recital 40 (40)  Certain rightholders such as authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of their rights which are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to be in a weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of adequate information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers. (40)  Certain rightholders such as authors and performers need information to assess the economic value of their rights which are harmonised under Union law. This is especially the case where such rightholders grant a licence or a transfer of rights in return for remuneration. As authors and performers tend to be in a weaker contractual position when they grant licences or transfer their rights, they need information to assess the continued economic value of their rights, compared to the remuneration received for their licence or transfer, but they often face a lack of transparency. Therefore, the sharing of comprehensive and relevant information by their contractual counterparts or their successors in title is important for the transparency and balance in the system that governs the remuneration of authors and performers. The information that authors and performers are entitled to expect should be proportionate and cover all modes of exploitation, direct and indirect revenue generated, including revenues from merchandising, and the remuneration due. The information on the exploitation should also include information about the identity of any sub-licensee or sub-transferee. The transparency obligation should nevertheless apply only where copyright relevant rights are concerned. Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive Recital 42 (42)  Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case as well as of the specificities and practices of the different content sectors. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer should be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority. (42)  Certain contracts for the exploitation of rights harmonised at Union level are of long duration, offering few possibilities for authors and performers to renegotiate them with their contractual counterparts or their successors in title. Therefore, without prejudice to the law applicable to contracts in Member States, there should be a remuneration adjustment mechanism for cases where the remuneration originally agreed under a licence or a transfer of rights is disproportionately low compared to the relevant direct and indirect revenues and the benefits derived from the exploitation of the work or the fixation of the performance, including in light of the transparency ensured by this Directive. The assessment of the situation should take account of the specific circumstances of each case, the specificities and practices of the different content sectors as well as of the nature and the contribution to the work of the author or performer. Such a contract adjustment request could also be made by the organisation representing the author or performer on his or her behalf, unless the request would be detrimental to the interests of the author or performer. Where the parties do not agree on the adjustment of the remuneration, the author or performer or a representative organisation appointed by them should on request by the author or performer be entitled to bring a claim before a court or other competent authority. Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive Recital 43 (43)  Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism. (43)  Authors and performers are often reluctant to enforce their rights against their contractual partners before a court or tribunal. Member States should therefore provide for an alternative dispute resolution procedure that addresses claims related to obligations of transparency and the contract adjustment mechanism. Representative organisations of authors and performers, including collective management organisations and trade unions, should be able to initiate such procedures at the request of authors and performers. Details about who initiated the procedure should remain undisclosed. Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive Recital 43 a (new) (43a)  When authors and performers license or transfer their rights, they expect their work or performance to be exploited. However, it happens that works or performances that have been licensed or transferred are not exploited at all. When these rights have been transferred on an exclusive basis, authors and performers cannot turn to another partner to exploit their work. In such a case, and after a reasonable period of time has lapsed, authors and performers should have a right of revocation allowing them to transfer or license their right to another person. Revocation should also be possible when the transferee or licensee has not complied with his or her reporting/transparency obligation provided for in Article 14 of this Directive. The revocation should only be considered after all the steps of alternative dispute resolution have been completed, particularly with regard to reporting. As exploitation of works can vary depending on the sectors, specific provisions could be taken at national level in order to take into account the specificities of the sectors, such as the audiovisual sector, or of the works and the anticipated exploitation periods, notably providing for time limits for the right of revocation. In order to prevent abuses and take into account that a certain amount of time is needed before a work is actually exploited, authors and performers should be able to exercise the right of revocation only after a certain period of time following the conclusion of the license or of the transfer agreement. National law should regulate the exercise of the right of revocation in the case of works involving a plurality of authors or performers, taking into account the relative importance of the individual contributions. Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive Recital 43 b (new) (43b)  To support the effective application across Member States of the relevant provisions of this Directive, the Commission should, in cooperation with Member States, encourage the exchange of best practices and promote dialogue at Union level. Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive Recital 46 (46)  Any processing of personal data under this Directive should respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and must be in compliance with Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council35 and Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council36 . (46)  Any processing of personal data under this Directive should respect fundamental rights, including the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and must be in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and Directive 2002/58/EC. The provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, including the "right to be forgotten" should be respected. Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Recital 46 a (new) (46 a)   It is important to stress the importance of anonymity, when handling personal data for commercial purposes. Additionally, the "by default" not sharing option with regards to personal data while using online platform interfaces should be promoted. Amendments 54 and 238 Proposal for a directive Article 1 Article 1 Article 1 Subject matter and scope Subject matter and scope 1.  This Directive lays down rules which aim at further harmonising the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations, on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at ensuring a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject-matter. 1.  This Directive lays down rules which aim at further harmonising the Union law applicable to copyright and related rights in the framework of the internal market, taking into account in particular digital and cross-border uses of protected content. It also lays down rules on exceptions and limitations, on the facilitation of licences as well as rules aiming at ensuring a well-functioning marketplace for the exploitation of works and other subject-matter. 2.  Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU. 2.  Except in the cases referred to in Article 6, this Directive shall leave intact and shall in no way affect existing rules laid down in the Directives currently in force in this area, in particular Directives 96/9/EC, 2000/31/EC, 2001/29/EC, 2006/115/EC, 2009/24/EC, 2012/28/EU and 2014/26/EU. Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – introductory part (1)  ‘research organisation’ means a university, a research institute or any other organisation the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provide educational services: (1)  ‘research organisation’ means a university, including its libraries, a research institute or any other organisation the primary goal of which is to conduct scientific research or to conduct scientific research and provide educational services: Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – subparagraph 2 in such a way that the access to the results generated by the scientific research cannot be enjoyed on a preferential basis by an undertaking exercising a decisive influence upon such organisation; in such a way that the access to the results generated by the scientific research cannot be enjoyed on a preferential basis by an undertaking exercising a significant influence upon such organisation; Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2 (2)  ‘text and data mining’ means any automated analytical technique aiming to analyse text and data in digital form in order to generate information such as patterns, trends and correlations; (2)  'text and data mining' means any automated analytical technique which analyses works and other subject matter in digital form in order to generate information, including, but not limited to, patterns, trends and correlations. Amendment 59 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4)  ‘press publication’ means a fixation of a collection of literary works of a journalistic nature, which may also comprise other works or subject-matter and constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine, having the purpose of providing information related to news or other topics and published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider. (4)  ‘press publication’ means a fixation by publishers or news agencies of a collection of literary works of a journalistic nature, which may also comprise other works or subject-matter and constitutes an individual item within a periodical or regularly-updated publication under a single title, such as a newspaper or a general or special interest magazine, having the purpose of providing information related to news or other topics and published in any media under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of a service provider. Periodicals which are published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, shall not be covered by this definition; Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 a (new) (4a)  ‘out of commerce work’ means: (a)  an entire work or other subject matter in any version or manifestation that is no longer available to the public in a Member State through customary channels of commerce; (b)  a work or other subject matter that has never been in commerce in a Member State, unless, from the circumstances of that case, it is apparent that its author objected to making it available to the public; Amendment 150 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4b (new) (4b)   ‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service one of the main purposes of which is to store and give access to the public to a significant amount of copyright protected works or other protected subject-matter uploaded by its users, which the service optimises and promotes for profit making purposes. Microenterprises and small-sized enterprises within the meaning of Title I of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC and services acting in a non-commercial purpose capacity such as online encyclopaedia, and providers of online services where the content is uploaded with the authorisation of all right holders concerned, such as educational or scientific repositories, shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive. Providers of cloud services for individual use which do not provide direct access to the public, open source software developing platforms, and online market places whose main activity is online retail of physical goods, should not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive; Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 c (new) (4c)  ‘information society service’ means a service within the meaning of point (b) of Article 1(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a; ___________ 1a Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 September 2015 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services (OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1). Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 d (new) (4d)  ‘automated image referencing service’ means any online service which reproduces or makes available to the public for indexing and referencing purposes graphic or art works or photographic works collected by automated means via a third-party online service. Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive Article 3 Article 3 Article 3 Text and data mining Text and data mining 1.  Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions made by research organisations in order to carry out text and data mining of works or other subject-matter to which they have lawful access for the purposes of scientific research. 1.  Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions of works or other subject-matter to which research organisations have lawful access and made in order to carry out text and data mining for the purposes of scientific research by such organisations. Member States shall provide for educational establishments and cultural heritage institutions conducting scientific research within the meaning of point (1)(a) or (1)(b) of Article 2, in such a way that the access to the results generated by the scientific research cannot be enjoyed on a preferential basis by an undertaking exercising a decisive influence upon such organisations, to also be able to benefit from the exception provided for in this Article. 1a.  Reproductions and extractions made for text and data mining purposes shall be stored in a secure manner, for example by trusted bodies appointed for this purpose. 2.  Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. 2.  Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. 3.  Rightholders shall be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. 3.  Rightholders shall be allowed to apply measures to ensure the security and integrity of the networks and databases where the works or other subject-matter are hosted. Such measures shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective. 4.  Member States shall encourage rightholders and research organisations to define commonly-agreed best practices concerning the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 3. 4.  Member States may continue to provide text and data mining exceptions in accordance with point (a) of Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Amendment 65 Proposal for a directive Article 3 a (new) Article 3a Optional exception or limitation for text and data mining 1.  Without prejudice to Article 3 of this Directive, Member States may provide for an exception or a limitation to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive for reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works and other subject-matter that form a part of the process of text and data mining, provided that the use of works and other subject matter referred to therein has not been expressly reserved by their rightholders, including by machine readable means. 2.  Reproductions and extractions made pursuant to paragraph 1 shall not be used for purposes other than text and data mining. 3.  Member States may continue to provide text and data mining exceptions in accordance with point (a) of Article 5 (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Amendment 66 Proposal for a directive Article 4 Article 4 Article 4 Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities Use of works and other subject-matter in digital and cross-border teaching activities 1.  Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject-matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use: 1.  Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive in order to allow for the digital use of works and other subject-matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching, to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved, provided that the use: (a)  takes place on the premises of an educational establishment or through a secure electronic network accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff; (a)  takes place on the premises of an educational establishment, or in any other venue in which the teaching activity takes place under the responsibility of the educational establishment, or through a secure electronic environment accessible only by the educational establishment's pupils or students and teaching staff; (b)  is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible. (b)  is accompanied by the indication of the source, including the author's name, unless this turns out to be impossible for reasons of practicability. 2.  Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject-matter, to the extent that adequate licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 are easily available in the market. 2.  Member States may provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 does not apply generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject-matter, such as material which is primarily intended for the educational market or sheet music, to the extent that adequate licencing agreements authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 and tailored to the needs and specificities of educational establishments are easily available in the market. Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments. Member States availing themselves of the provision of the first subparagraph shall take the necessary measures to ensure appropriate availability and visibility of the licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1 for educational establishments. 3.  The use of works and other subject-matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic networks undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is established. 3.  The use of works and other subject-matter for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching through secure electronic environments undertaken in compliance with the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to this Article shall be deemed to occur solely in the Member State where the educational establishment is established. 4.  Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1. 4.  Member States may provide for fair compensation for the harm incurred by the rightholders due to the use of their works or other subject-matter pursuant to paragraph 1. 4a.  Without prejudice to paragraph 2, any contractual provision contrary to the exception or limitation adopted pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. Member States shall ensure that rightholders have the right to grant royalty-free licences authorising the acts described in paragraph 1, generally or as regards specific types of works or other subject-matter that they may choose. Amendment 67 Proposal for a directive Article 5 Article 5 Article 5 Preservation of cultural heritage Preservation of cultural heritage Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions, to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the sole purpose of the preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. 1.  Member States shall provide for an exception to the rights provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2009/24/EC and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions to make copies of any works or other subject-matter that are permanently in their collections, in any format or medium, for the purposes of preservation of such works or other subject-matter and to the extent necessary for such preservation. 1a.  Member States shall ensure that any material resulting from an act of reproduction of material in the public domain shall not be subject to copyright or related rights, provided that such reproduction is a faithful reproduction for purposes of preservation of the original material. 1b.  Any contractual provision contrary to the exception provided for in paragraph 1 shall be unenforceable. Amendment 68 Proposal for a directive Article 6 Article 6 Article 6 Common provisions Common provisions Article 5(5) and the first, third and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC shall apply to the exceptions and the limitation provided for under this Title. 1.  Accessing content covered by an exception provided for in this Directive shall not confer on users any entitlement to use it pursuant to another exception. 2.   Article 5(5) and the first, third, fourth and fifth subparagraphs of Article 6(4) of Directive 2001/29/EC shall apply to the exceptions and the limitation provided for under this Title. Amendment 69 Proposal for a directive Article 7 Article 7 Article 7 Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions Use of out-of-commerce works by cultural heritage institutions 1.  Member States shall provide that when a collective management organisation, on behalf of its members, concludes a non-exclusive licence for non-commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the digitisation, distribution, communication to the public or making available of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution, such a non-exclusive licence may be extended or presumed to apply to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided that: 1.  Member States shall provide that when a collective management organisation, on behalf of its members, concludes a non-exclusive licence for non-commercial purposes with a cultural heritage institution for the digitisation, distribution, communication to the public or making available of out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter permanently in the collection of the institution, such a non-exclusive licence may be extended or presumed to apply to rightholders of the same category as those covered by the licence who are not represented by the collective management organisation, provided that: (a)  the collective management organisation is, on the basis of mandates from rightholders, broadly representative of rightholders in the category of works or other subject-matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence; (a)  the collective management organisation is, on the basis of mandates from rightholders, broadly representative of rightholders in the category of works or other subject-matter and of the rights which are the subject of the licence; (b)  equal treatment is guaranteed to all rightholders in relation to the terms of the licence; (b)  equal treatment is guaranteed to all rightholders in relation to the terms of the licence; (c)  all rightholders may at any time object to their works or other subject-matter being deemed to be out of commerce and exclude the application of the licence to their works or other subject-matter. (c)  all rightholders may at any time object to their works or other subject-matter being deemed to be out of commerce and exclude the application of the licence to their works or other subject-matter. 1a.  Member States shall provide for an exception or limitation to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC, Articles 5(a) and 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC, Article 4(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC, and Article 11(1) of this Directive, permitting cultural heritage institutions to make copies available online of out-of-commerce works that are located permanently in their collections for not-for-profit purposes, provided that: (a)  the name of the author or any other identifiable rightholder is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible; (b)  all rightholders may at any time object to their works or other subject-matter being deemed to be out of commerce and exclude the application of the exception to their works or other subject-matter. 1b.  Member States shall provide that the exception adopted pursuant to paragraph 1a does not apply in sectors or for types of works where appropriate licensing-based solutions, including but not limited to solutions provided for in paragraph 1, are available. Member States shall, in consultation with authors, other rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, determine the availability of extended collective licensing-based solutions for specific sectors or types of works. 2.  A work or other subject-matter shall be deemed to be out of commerce when the whole work or other subject-matter, in all its translations, versions and manifestations, is not available to the public through customary channels of commerce and cannot be reasonably expected to become so. 2.  Member States may provide a cut-off date in relation to determining whether a work previously commercialised is deemed to be out of commerce. Member States shall, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, ensure that the requirements used to determine whether works and other subject-matter can be licensed in accordance with paragraph 1 do not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable and do not preclude the possibility to determine the out-of-commerce status of a collection as a whole, when it is reasonable to presume that all works or other subject-matter in the collection are out of commerce. Member States shall, in consultation with rightholders, collective management organisations and cultural heritage institutions, ensure that the requirements used to determine whether works and other subject-matter can be licensed in accordance with paragraph 1 or used in accordance with paragraph 1a do not extend beyond what is necessary and reasonable and do not preclude the possibility to determine the out-of-commerce status of a collection as a whole, when it is reasonable to presume that all works or other subject-matter in the collection are out of commerce. 3.  Member States shall provide that appropriate publicity measures are taken regarding: 3.  Member States shall provide that appropriate publicity measures are taken regarding: (a)  the deeming of works or other subject-matter as out of commerce; (a)  the deeming of works or other subject-matter as out of commerce; (b)  the licence, and in particular its application to unrepresented rightholders; (b)  any licence, and in particular its application to unrepresented rightholders; (c)  the possibility of rightholders to object, referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1; (c)  the possibility of rightholders to object, referred to in point (c) of paragraph 1 and point (b) of paragraph 1a; including during a reasonable period of time before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available. including during a period of at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available. 4.  Member States shall ensure that the licences referred to in paragraph 1 are sought from a collective management organisation that is representative for the Member State where: 4.  Member States shall ensure that the licences referred to in paragraph 1 are sought from a collective management organisation that is representative for the Member State where: (a)  the works or phonograms were first published or, in the absence of publication, where they were first broadcast, except for cinematographic and audiovisual works; (a)  the works or phonograms were first published or, in the absence of publication, where they were first broadcast, except for cinematographic and audiovisual works; (b)  the producers of the works have their headquarters or habitual residence, for cinematographic and audiovisual works; or (b)  the producers of the works have their headquarters or habitual residence, for cinematographic and audiovisual works; or (c)  the cultural heritage institution is established, when a Member State or a third country could not be determined, after reasonable efforts, according to points (a) and (b). (c)  the cultural heritage institution is established, when a Member State or a third country could not be determined, after reasonable efforts, according to points (a) and (b). 5.  Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply to the works or other subject-matter of third country nationals except where points (a) and (b) of paragraph 4 apply. 5.  Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall not apply to the works or other subject-matter of third country nationals except where points (a) and (b) of paragraph 4 apply. Amendment 70 Proposal for a directive Article 8 Article 8 Article 8 Cross-border uses Cross-border uses 1.  Works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 may be used by the cultural heritage institution in accordance with the terms of the licence in all Member States. 1.  Out-of-commerce works or other subject-matter covered by Article 7 may be used by the cultural heritage institution in accordance with that Article in all Member States. 2.  Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by a licence granted in accordance with Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in Article 7(1)(c) are made publicly accessible in a single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, and for the whole duration of the licence. 2.  Member States shall ensure that information that allows the identification of the works or other subject-matter covered by Article 7 and information about the possibility of rightholders to object referred to in point (c) of Article 7(1) and point (b) of Article 7(1a) are made permanently, easily and effectively accessible in a public single online portal for at least six months before the works or other subject-matter are digitised, distributed, communicated to the public or made available in Member States other than the one where the licence is granted, or in the cases covered by Article 7(1a), where the cultural heritage institution is established and for the whole duration of the licence. 3.  The portal referred to in paragraph 2 shall be established and managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 386/2012. 3.  The portal referred to in paragraph 2 shall be established and managed by the European Union Intellectual Property Office in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 386/2012. Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 Member States shall ensure a regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, to, on a sector-specific basis, foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms referred to in Article 7(1), ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter, notably as regards publicity measures, and, where applicable, assist in the establishment of the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(2). Member States shall ensure a regular dialogue between representative users' and rightholders' organisations, and any other relevant stakeholder organisations, to, on a sector-specific basis, foster the relevance and usability of the licensing mechanisms referred to in Article 7(1) and the exception referred to in Article 7(1a), ensure the effectiveness of the safeguards for rightholders referred to in this Chapter, notably as regards publicity measures, and, where applicable, assist in the establishment of the requirements referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 7(2). Amendment 72 Proposal for a directive Article 10 Article 10 Article 10 Negotiation mechanism Negotiation mechanism Member States shall ensure that where parties wishing to conclude an agreement for the purpose of making available audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms face difficulties relating to the licensing of rights, they may rely on the assistance of an impartial body with relevant experience. That body shall provide assistance with negotiation and help reach agreements. Member States shall ensure that where parties wishing to conclude an agreement for the purpose of making available audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms face difficulties relating to the licensing of audiovisual rights, they may rely on the assistance of an impartial body with relevant experience. The impartial body created or designated by the Member State for the purpose of this Article shall provide assistance to the parties with negotiation and help them to reach agreement. No later than [date mentioned in Article 21(1)] Member States shall notify to the Commission the body referred to in paragraph 1. No later than [date mentioned in Article 21(1)] Member States shall inform the Commission of the body they create or designate pursuant to the first paragraph. To encourage the availability of audiovisual works on video-on-demand platforms, Member States shall foster dialogue between representative organisations of authors, producers, video-on-demand platforms and other relevant stakeholders. Amendment 73 Proposal for a directive Title III – Chapter 2 a (new) – Article 10 a (new) CHAPTER 2a Access to Union publications Article 10 a Union Legal Deposit 1.  Any electronic publication dealing with Union-related matters such as Union law, Union history and integration, Union policy and Union democracy, institutional and parliamentary affairs, and politics, that is made available to the public in the Union shall be subject to a Union Legal Deposit. 2.  The European Parliament Library shall be entitled to delivery, free of charge, of one copy of every publication referred to in paragraph 1. 3.  The obligation set out in paragraph 1 shall apply to publishers, printers and importers of publications for the works they publish, print or import in the Union. 4.  From the day of the delivery to the European Parliament Library, the publications referred to in paragraph 1 shall become part of the European Parliament Library permanent collection. They shall be made available to users at the European Parliament Library’s premises exclusively for the purpose of research or study by accredited researchers and under the control of the European Parliament Library. 5.  The Commission shall adopt acts to specify the modalities relating to the delivery to the European Parliament Library of publications referred to in paragraph 1. Amendments 151, 152, 153, 154 and 155 Proposal for a directive Article 11 Article 11 Article 11 Protection of press publications concerning digital uses Protection of press publications concerning digital uses 1.  Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the digital use of their press publications. 1.  Member States shall provide publishers of press publications with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC so that they may obtain fair and proportionate remuneration for the digital use of their press publications by information society service providers. 1a.   The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not prevent legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users. 2.  The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 2.  The rights referred to in paragraph 1shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. Such rights may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated. 2a.   The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to mere hyperlinks which are accompanied by individual words. 3.  Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 3.  Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Directive 2012/28/EU shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. 4.  The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 20 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. 4.  The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 5 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall not apply with retroactive effect. 4a.   Member States shall ensure that authors receive an appropriate share of the additional revenues press publishers receive for the use of a press publication by information society service providers Amendment 75 Proposal for a directive Article 12 Article 12 Article 12 Claims to fair compensation Claims to fair compensation Member States may provide that where an author has transferred or licensed a right to a publisher, such a transfer or a licence constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the publisher to claim a share of the compensation for the uses of the work made under an exception or limitation to the transferred or licensed right. Member States with compensation-sharing systems between authors and publishers for exceptions and limitations may provide that where an author has transferred or licensed a right to a publisher, such a transfer or a licence constitutes a sufficient legal basis for the publisher to claim a share of the compensation for the uses of the work made under an exception or limitation to the transferred or licensed right, provided that an equivalent compensation-sharing system was in operation in that Member State before 12 November 2015. The first paragraph shall be without prejudice to the arrangements in Member States concerning public lending rights, the management of rights not based on exceptions or limitations to copyright, such as extended collective licensing schemes, or concerning remuneration rights on the basis of national law. Amendment 76 Proposal for a directive Title IV - Chapter 1 a (new) – Article 12 a (new) CHAPTER 1 a Protection of sport event organizers Article 12 a Protection of sport event organizers Member States shall provide sport event organizers with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3 (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 7 of Directive 2006/115/EC. Amendments 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 and 161 Proposal for a directive Article 13 Article 13 Article 13 Use of protected content by information society service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users Use of protected content by online content sharing service providers storing and giving access to large amounts of works and other subject-matter uploaded by their users 1.  Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter. 1.  Without prejudice to Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC, online content sharing service providers perform an act of communication to the public. They shall therefore conclude fair and appropriate licensing agreements with right holders. 2.  Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1. 2.  Licensing agreements which are concluded by online content sharing service providers with right holders for the acts of communication referred to in paragraph 1, shall cover the liability for works uploaded by the users of such online content sharing services in line with the terms and conditions set out in the licensing agreement, provided that such users do not act for commercial purposes. 2a.   Member States shall provide that where right holders do not wish to conclude licensing agreements, online content sharing service providers and right holders shall cooperate in good faith in order to ensure that unauthorised protected works or other subject matter are not available on their services. Cooperation between online content service providers and right holders shall not lead to preventing the availability of non-infringing works or other protected subject matter, including those covered by an exception or limitation to copyright. 2b.   Members States shall ensure that online content sharing service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place effective and expeditious complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case the cooperation referred to in paragraph 2a leads to unjustified removals of their content. Any complaint filed under such mechanisms shall be processed without undue delay and be subject to human review. Right holders shall reasonably justify their decisions to avoid arbitrary dismissal of complaints. Moreover, in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and the General Data Protection Regulation, the cooperation shall not lead to any identification of individual users nor the processing of their personal data. Member States shall also ensure that users have access to an independent body for the resolution of disputes as well as to a court or another relevant judicial authority to assert the use of an exception or limitation to copyright rules. 3.  Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments. 3.  As of [date of entry into force of this directive], the Commission and the Member States shall organise dialogues between stakeholders to harmonise and to define best practices and issue guidance to ensure the functioning of licensing agreements and on cooperation between online content sharing service providers and right holders for the use of their works or other subject matter within the meaning of this Directive. When defining best practices, special account shall be taken of fundamental rights, the use of exceptions and limitations as well as ensuring that the burden on SMEs remains appropriate and that automated blocking of content is avoided. Amendments 78 and 252 Proposal for a directive Article 13 a (new) Article 13a Member States shall provide that disputes between successors in title and information society services regarding the application of Article 13(1) may be subject to an alternative dispute resolution system. Member States shall establish or designate an impartial body with the necessary expertise, with the aim of helping the parties to settle their disputes under this system. The Member States shall inform the Commission of the establishment of this body no later than (date mentioned in Article 21(1)). Amendment 79 Proposal for a directive Article 13 b (new) Article 13b Use of protected content by information society services providing automated image referencing Member States shall ensure that information society service providers that automatically reproduce or refer to significant amounts of copyright-protected visual works and make them available to the public for the purpose of indexing and referencing conclude fair and balanced licensing agreements with any requesting rightholders in order to ensure their fair remuneration. Such remuneration may be managed by the collective management organisation of the rightholders concerned. Amendment 80 Proposal for a directive Chapter 3 –Article -14 (new) Article -14 Principle of fair and proportionate remuneration 1.  Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive fair and proportionate remuneration for the exploitation of their works and other subject matter, including for their online exploitation. This may be achieved in each sector through a combination of agreements, including collective bargaining agreements, and statutory remuneration mechanisms. 2.  Paragraph 1 shall not apply where an author or performer grants a non-exclusive usage right for the benefit of all users free of charge. 3.  Member States shall take account of the specificities of each sector in encouraging the proportionate remuneration for rights granted by authors and performers. 4.  Contracts shall specify the remuneration applicable to each mode of exploitation. Amendment 81 Proposal for a directive Article 14 Article 14 Article 14 Transparency obligation Transparency obligation 1.  Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis and taking into account the specificities of each sector, timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due. 1.  Member States shall ensure that authors and performers receive on a regular basis, not less than once a year, and taking into account the specificities of each sector and the relative importance of each individual contribution, timely, accurate, relevant and comprehensive information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, notably as regards modes of exploitation, direct and indirect revenues generated, and remuneration due. 1a.  Member States shall ensure that where the licensee or transferee of rights of authors and performers subsequently licenses those rights to another party, such party shall share all information referred to in paragraph 1 with the licensee or transferee. The main licensee or transferee shall pass all the information referred to in the first subparagraph on to the author or performer. That information shall be unchanged, except in the case of commercially sensitive information as defined by Union or national law, which, without prejudice to Articles 15 and 16a, may be subject to a non-disclosure agreement, for the purpose of preserving fair competition. Where the main licensee or transferee does not provide the information as referred to in this subparagraph in a timely manner, the author or performer shall be entitled to request that information directly from the sub-licensee. 2.  The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure an appropriate level of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures an appropriate level of transparency. 2.  The obligation in paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and effective and shall ensure a high level of transparency in every sector. However, in those cases where the administrative burden resulting from the obligation would be disproportionate in view of the revenues generated by the exploitation of the work or performance, Member States may adjust the obligation in paragraph 1, provided that the obligation remains effective and ensures a high level of transparency. 3.  Member States may decide that the obligation in paragraph 1 does not apply when the contribution of the author or performer is not significant having regard to the overall work or performance. 4.  Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to entities subject to the transparency obligations established by Directive 2014/26/EU. 4.  Paragraph 1 shall not be applicable to entities subject to the transparency obligations established by Directive 2014/26/EU or to collective bargaining agreements, where those obligations or agreements provide for transparency requirements comparable to those referred to in paragraph 2. Amendment 82 Proposal for a directive Article 15 – paragraph 1 Member States shall ensure that authors and performers are entitled to request additional, appropriate remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances. Member States shall ensure, in the absence of collective bargaining agreements providing for a comparable mechanism, that authors and performers or any representative organisation acting on their behalf are entitled to claim additional, appropriate and fair remuneration from the party with whom they entered into a contract for the exploitation of the rights when the remuneration originally agreed is disproportionately low compared to the subsequent relevant direct or indirect revenues and benefits derived from the exploitation of the works or performances. Amendment 83 Proposal for a directive Article 16 – paragraph 1 Member States shall provide that disputes concerning the transparency obligation under Article 14 and the contract adjustment mechanism under Article 15 may be submitted to a voluntary, alternative dispute resolution procedure. Member States shall provide that disputes concerning the transparency obligation under Article 14 and the contract adjustment mechanism under Article 15 may be submitted to a voluntary, alternative dispute resolution procedure. Member States shall ensure that representative organisations of authors and performers may initiate such procedures at the request of one or more authors and performers. Amendment 84 Proposal for a directive Article 16 a (new) Article 16 a Right of revocation 1.  Member States shall ensure that where an author or a performer has licensed or transferred her or his rights concerning a work or other protected subject-matter on an exclusive basis, the author or performer has a right of revocation where there is an absence of exploitation of the work or other protected subject matter or where there is a continuous lack of regular reporting in accordance with Article 14. Member States may provide for specific provisions taking into account the specificities of different sectors and works and anticipated exploitation period, notably provide for time limits for the right of revocation. 2.  The right of revocation provided for in paragraph 1 may be exercised only after a reasonable time from the conclusion of the licence or transfer agreement, and only upon written notification setting an appropriate deadline by which the exploitation of the licensed or transferred rights is to take place. After the expiration of that deadline, the author or performer may choose to terminate the exclusivity of the contract instead of revoking the rights. Where a work or other subject-matter contains the contribution of a plurality of authors or performers, the exercise of the individual right of revocation of such authors or performers shall be regulated by national law, laying down the rules on the right of revocation for collective works, taking into account the relative importance of the individual contributions. 3.  Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply if the non-exercise of the rights is predominantly due to circumstances which the author or the performer can be reasonably expected to remedy. 4.  Contractual or other arrangements derogating from the right of revocation shall be lawful only if concluded by means of an agreement which is based on a collective bargaining agreement. Amendment 85 Proposal for a directive Article 17 a (new) Article 17 a Member States may adopt or maintain in force broader provisions, compatible with the exceptions and limitations existing in Union law, for uses covered by the exceptions or the limitation provided for in this Directive. Amendment 86 Proposal for a directive Article 18 – paragraph 2 2.   The provisions of Article 11 shall also apply to press publications published before [the date mentioned in Article 21(1)]. deleted

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A8-0245/2018).

European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls on cash entering or leaving the Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 (COM(2016)0825 – C8-0001/2017 – 2016/0413(COD))	P8_TA(2018)0338 A8-0394/2017
CORRIGENDA COR01

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0825),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 33 and 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0001/2017),

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

–  having regard to the contributions submitted by the Czech Chamber of Deputies and the Spanish General Courts on the draft legislative act,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 27 April 2017(1),

–  after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the responsible committees under Rule 69f(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 27 June 2018 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 joint deliberations of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs under Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0394/2017),

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

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

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 12 September 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls on cash entering or leaving the Union and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/1672.)

(1) OJ C 246, 28.7.2017, p. 22.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on countering money laundering by criminal law (COM(2016)0826 – C8-0534/2016 – 2016/0414(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0339 A8-0405/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0826),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0534/2016),

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

–  having regard to the contributions submitted by the Czech Chamber of Deputies, the Czech Senate and the Spanish Parliament on the draft legislative act,

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the responsible committee under Rule 69f(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 7 June 2018 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 also the opinions of the Committee on Development, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0405/2017),

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

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

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 12 September 2018 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating money laundering by criminal law

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2018/1673.)

European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on a proposal calling on the Council to determine, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded (2017/2131(INL))

P8_TA(2018)0340 A8-0250/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 2 and Article 7(1) thereof,

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

–  having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Protocols thereto,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

–  having regard to the international human rights treaties of the United Nations and the Council of Europe, such as the European Social Charter and the Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary(1),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 16 December 2015(2) and 10 June 2015(3) on the situation in Hungary,

–  having regard to its resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary (pursuant to the European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012)(4),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary(5) and of 10 March 2011 on media law in Hungary(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights(7),

–  having regard to its legislative resolution of 20 April 2004 on the Commission communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union: Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based(8),

–  having regard to Communication of 15 October 2003 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union - Respect for and promotion of the values on which the Union is based(9),

–  having regard to the annual reports of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),

–  having regard to Rules 45, 52 and 83 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0250/2018),

A.  whereas the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and as reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and embedded in international human rights treaties, and whereas those values, which are common to the Member States and to which all Member States have freely subscribed, constitute the foundation of the rights enjoyed by those living in the Union;

B.  whereas any clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU does not concern solely the individual Member State where the risk materialises but has an impact on the other Member States, on mutual trust between them and on the very nature of the Union and its citizens’ fundamental rights under Union law;

C.  whereas, as indicated in the 2003 Commission Communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, the scope of Article 7 TEU is not confined to the obligations under the Treaties, as in Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and whereas the Union can assess the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values in areas falling under Member States’ competences;

D.  whereas Article 7(1) TEU constitutes a preventive phase endowing the Union with the capacity to intervene in the event of a clear risk of a serious breach of the common values; whereas such preventive action provides for a dialogue with the Member State concerned and is intended to avoid possible sanctions;

E.  whereas, while the Hungarian authorities have consistently been ready to discuss the legality of any specific measure, the situation has not been addressed and many concerns remain, having a negative impact on the image of the Union, as well as its effectiveness and credibility in the defence of fundamental rights, human rights and democracy globally, and revealing the need to address them by a concerted action of the Union;

1.  States that the concerns of Parliament relate to the following issues:

2.  Believes that the facts and trends mentioned in the Annex to this resolution taken together represent a systemic threat to the values of Article 2 TEU and constitute a clear risk of a serious breach thereof;

3.  Notes the outcome of the parliamentary elections in Hungary, which took place on 8 April 2018; highlights the fact that any Hungarian government is responsible for the elimination of the risk of a serious breach of the values of Article 2 TEU, even if this risk is a lasting consequence of the policy decisions suggested or approved by previous governments;

4.  Submits, therefore, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, the annexed reasoned proposal to the Council, inviting the Council to determine whether there is a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and to address appropriate recommendations to Hungary in this regard;

5.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the reasoned proposal for a Council decision annexed hereto to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

ANNEX TO THE RESOLUTION

Proposal for a Council decision determining, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union, the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,

Having regard to the reasoned proposal from the European Parliament,

Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament,

Whereas:

(1)  The Union is founded on the values referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which are common to the Member States and which include respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. In accordance with Article 49 TEU, accession to the Union requires respect for and the promotion of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU.

(2)  The accession of Hungary was a voluntary act based on a sovereign decision, with a broad consensus across the Hungarian political spectrum.

(3)  In its reasoned proposal, the European Parliament presented its concerns related to the situation in Hungary. In particular, the main concerns related to the functioning of the constitutional and electoral system, the independence of the judiciary and of other institutions, the rights of judges, corruption and conflicts of interest, privacy and data protection, freedom of expression, academic freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to equal treatment, the rights of persons belonging to minorities, including Roma and Jews, and protection against hateful statements against such minorities, the fundamental rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and economic and social rights.

(4)  The European Parliament also noted that the Hungarian authorities have consistently been ready to discuss the legality of any specific measure but failed to take all the actions recommended in its previous resolutions.

(5)  In its resolution of 17 May 2017 on the situation in Hungary, the European Parliament stated that the current situation in Hungary represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU and warrants the launch of the Article 7(1) TEU procedure.

(6)  In its 2003 Communication on Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission enumerated many sources of information to be considered when monitoring respect for and promotion of common values, such as the reports of international organisations, NGO reports and the decisions of regional and international courts. A wide range of actors at national, European and international level, have expressed their deep concerns about the situation of democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights in Hungary, including the institutions and bodies of the Union, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations (UN), as well as numerous civil society organisations, but these are to be considered legally non-binding opinions, since only the Court of Justice of the European Union may interpret the provisions of the Treaties.

Functioning of the constitutional and electoral system

(7)  The Venice Commission expressed its concerns regarding the constitution-making process in Hungary on several occasions, both as regards the Fundamental Law and amendments thereto. It welcomed the fact that the Fundamental Law establishes a constitutional order based on democracy, the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights as underlying principles and acknowledged the efforts to establish a constitutional order in line with common European democratic values and standards and to regulate fundamental rights and freedoms in compliance with binding international instruments. The criticism focused on the lack of transparency of the process, the inadequate involvement of civil society, the absence of sincere consultation, the endangerment of the separation of powers and the weakening of the national system of checks and balances.

(8)  The competences of the Hungarian Constitutional Court were limited as a result of the constitutional reform, including with regard to budgetary matters, the abolition of the actio popularis, the possibility for the Court to refer to its case law prior to 1 January 2012 and the limitation on the Court’s ability to review the constitutionality of any changes to the Fundamental Law apart from those of a procedural nature only. The Venice Commission expressed serious concerns about those limitations and about the procedure for the appointment of judges, and made recommendations to the Hungarian authorities to ensure the necessary checks and balances in its Opinion on Act CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court of Hungary adopted on 19 June 2012 and in its Opinion on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law of Hungary adopted on 17 June 2013. In its opinions, the Venice Commission also identified a number of positive elements of the reforms, such as the provisions on budgetary guarantees, ruling out the re-election of judges and the attribution of the right to initiate proceedings for ex post review to the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights.

(9)  In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the current constitutional complaint procedure affords more limited access to the Constitutional Court, does not provide for a time limit for the exercise of constitutional review and does not have a suspensive effect on challenged legislation. It also mentioned that the provisions of the new Constitutional Court Act weaken the security of tenure of judges and increase the influence of the government over the composition and operation of the Constitutional Court by changing the judicial appointments procedure, the number of judges in the Court and their retirement age. The Committee was also concerned about the limitation of the Constitutional Court’s competence and powers to review legislation impinging on budgetary matters.

(10)  In its report, adopted on 27 June 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights stated that the technical administration of the elections was professional and transparent, fundamental rights and freedoms were respected overall, but exercised in an adverse climate. The election administration fulfilled its mandate in a professional and transparent manner, enjoyed overall confidence among stakeholders and was generally perceived as impartial. The campaign was animated but hostile and intimidating campaign rhetoric limited space for substantive debate and diminished voters’ ability to make an informed choice. Public campaign funding and expenditure ceilings aimed at securing equal opportunities for all candidates. However, the ability of contestants to compete on an equal basis was significantly compromised by the government’s excessive spending on public information advertisements that amplified the ruling coalition’s campaign message. With no reporting requirements until after the elections, voters were effectively deprived of information on campaign financing, key to making an informed choice. It also expressed concerns about the delineation of single-member constituencies. Similar concerns were expressed in the Joint Opinion of 18 June 2012 on the Act on the Elections of Members of Parliament of Hungary adopted by the Venice Commission and the Council for Democratic Elections, in which it was mentioned that the delimitation of constituencies has to be done in a transparent and professional manner through an impartial and non-partisan process, i.e. avoiding short-term political objectives (gerrymandering).

(11)  In recent years the Hungarian Government has extensively used national consultations, expanding direct democracy at the national level. On 27 April 2017, the Commission pointed out that the national consultation “Let’s stop Brussels” contained several claims and allegations which were factually incorrect or highly misleading. The Hungarian Government also conducted consultations entitled ‘Migration and Terrorism’ in May 2015 and against a so-called ‘Soros Plan’ in October 2017. Those consultations drew parallels between terrorism and migration, inducing hatred towards migrants, and targeted particularly the person of George Soros and the Union.

Independence of the judiciary and of other institutions and the rights of judges

(12)  As a result of the extensive changes to the legal framework enacted in 2011, the president of the newly created National Judicial Office (NJO) was entrusted with extensive powers. The Venice Commission criticised those extensive powers in its Opinion on Act CLXII of 2011 on the Legal Status and Remuneration of Judges and Act CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts of Hungary, adopted on 19 March 2012 and in its Opinion on the Cardinal Acts on the Judiciary, adopted on 15 October 2012. Similar concerns have been raised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers on 29 February 2012 and on 3 July 2013, as well as by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) in its report adopted on 27 March 2015. All those actors emphasised the need to enhance the role of the collective body, the National Judicial Council (NJC), as an oversight instance, because the president of the NJO, who is elected by the Hungarian Parliament, cannot be considered an organ of judicial self-government. Following international recommendations, the status of the president of the NJO was changed and the president’s powers restricted in order to ensure a better balance between the president and the NJC.

(13)  Since 2012, Hungary has taken positive steps to transfer certain functions from the president of the NJO to the NJC in order to create a better balance between these two organs. However, further progress is still required. GRECO, in its report adopted on 27 March 2015, called for minimising the potential risks of discretionary decisions by the president of the NJO. The president of the NJO is, inter alia, able to transfer and assign judges, and has a role in judicial discipline. The president of the NJO also makes a recommendation to the President of Hungary to appoint and remove heads of courts, including presidents and vice-presidents of the Courts of Appeal. GRECO welcomed the recently adopted Code of Ethics for Judges, but considered that it could be made more explicit and accompanied by in-service training. GRECO also acknowledged the amendments that were made to the rules on judicial recruitment and selection procedures between 2012 and 2014 in Hungary, through which the NJC received a stronger supervisory function in the selection process. On 2 May 2018, the NJC held a session where it unanimously adopted decisions concerning the practice of the president of the NJO with regard to declaring calls for applications to judicial positions and senior positions unsuccessful. The decisions found the president’s practice unlawful.

(14)  On 29 May 2018, the Hungarian Government presented a draft Seventh Amendment to the Fundamental Law (T/332), which was adopted on 20 June 2018. It introduced a new system of administrative courts.

(15)  Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “Court of Justice”) of 6 November 2012 in Case C-286/12, Commission v. Hungary(10), which held that by adopting a national scheme requiring the compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reach the age of 62, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Union law, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act XX of 2013 which provided that the judicial retirement age is to be gradually reduced to 65 years of age over a ten year period and set out the criteria for reinstatement or compensation. According to the Act, there was a possibility for retired judges to return to their former posts at the same court under the same conditions as prior to the regulations on retirement, or if they were unwilling to return, they received a 12-month lump sum compensation for their lost remuneration and could file for further compensation before the court, but reinstatement to leading administrative positions was not guaranteed. Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledged the measures of Hungary to make its retirement law compatible with Union law. In its report of October 2015, the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute stated that a majority of the removed judges did not return to their original positions, partly because their previous positions had already been occupied. It also mentioned that the independence and impartiality of the Hungarian judiciary cannot be guaranteed and the rule of law remains weakened.

(16)  In its judgment of 16 July 2015, Gazsó v. Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy. The ECtHR came to the conclusion that the violations originated in a practice which consisted in Hungary’s recurrent failure to ensure that proceedings determining civil rights and obligations are completed within a reasonable time and to take measures enabling applicants to claim redress for excessively long civil proceedings at a domestic level. The execution of that judgment is still pending. A new Code of Civil Procedure, adopted in 2016, provides for the acceleration of civil proceedings by introducing a double-phase procedure. Hungary has informed the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that the new law creating an effective remedy for prolonged procedures will be adopted by October 2018.

(17)  In its judgment of 23 June 2016, Baka v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the right of access to a court and the freedom of expression of András Baka, who had been elected as President of the Supreme Court for a six-year term in June 2009, but ceased to have this position in accordance with the transitional provisions in the Fundamental Law, providing that the Curia would be the legal successor to the Supreme Court. The execution of that judgment is still pending. On 10 March 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe solicited to take measures to prevent further premature removals of judges on similar grounds, safeguarding any abuse in this regard. The Hungarian Government noted that those measures are not related to the implementation of the judgment.

(18)  On 29 September 2008, Mr András Jóri was appointed Data Protection Commissioner for a term of six years. However, with effect from 1 January 2012, the Hungarian Parliament decided to reform the data protection system and replace the Commissioner with a national authority for data protection and freedom of information. Mr Jóri had to vacate office before his full term had expired. On 8 April 2014, the Court of Justice held that the independence of supervisory authorities necessarily includes the obligation to allow them to serve their full term of office and that Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(11). Hungary amended the rules on the appointment of the Commissioner, presented an apology and paid the agreed sum of compensation.

(19)  The Venice Commission identified several shortcomings in its Opinion on Act CLXIII of 2011 on the Prosecution Service and Act CLXIV of 2011 on the Status of the Prosecutor General, Prosecutors and other Prosecution Employees and the Prosecution Career of Hungary, adopted on 19 June 2012. In its report, adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO urged the Hungarian authorities to take additional steps to prevent abuse and increase the independence of the prosecution service by, inter alia, removing the possibility for the Prosecutor General to be re-elected. In addition, GRECO called for disciplinary proceedings against ordinary prosecutors to be made more transparent and for decisions to move cases from one prosecutor to another to be guided by strict legal criteria and justifications. According to the Hungarian Government, the 2017 GRECO Compliance Report acknowledged the progress made by Hungary concerning prosecutors (publication is not yet authorised by the Hungarian authorities, despite calls by GRECO Plenary Meetings). The Second Compliance Report is pending.

Corruption and conflicts of interest

(20)  In its report adopted on 27 March 2015, GRECO called for the establishment of codes of conduct for members of the Hungarian Parliament (MPs) concerning guidance for cases of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, MPs should also be obliged to report conflicts of interest which arise in an ad hoc manner and this should be accompanied by a more robust obligation to submit asset declarations. This should also be accompanied by provisions that allow for sanctions for submitting inaccurate asset declarations. Moreover, asset declarations should be made public online to allow for genuine popular oversight. A standard electronic database should be put in place to allow for all declarations and modifications thereto to be accessible in a transparent manner.

(21)  In its report adopted on 27 June 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights concluded that the limited monitoring of campaign spending and the absence of thorough reporting on sources of campaign funds until after the elections undercuts campaign finance transparency and the ability of voters to make an informed choice, contrary to international obligations and good practice. The State Audit Office has the competence to monitor and control whether the legal requirements have been met. The report did not include the official audit report of the State Audit Office concerning the 2018 parliamentary elections, as it had not been completed at the time.

(22)  On 7 December 2016, the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Steering Committee received a letter from the Government of Hungary announcing its immediate withdrawal from the partnership, which voluntarily brings together 75 countries and hundreds of civil society organisations. The Government of Hungary had been under review by OGP since July 2015 for concerns raised by civil society organisations, in particular regarding their space to operate in the country. Not all Member States are members of the OGP.

(23)  Hungary benefits from Union funding amounting to 4,4 % of its GDP or more than half of public investment. The share of contracts awarded after public procurement procedures that received only a single bid remains high at 36 % in 2016. Hungary has the highest percentage in the Union of financial recommendations from OLAF regarding the Structural Funds and Agriculture for the 2013-2017 period. In 2016, OLAF concluded an investigation into a EUR 1,7 billion transport project in Hungary, in which several international specialist construction firms were the main players. The investigation revealed very serious irregularities as well as possible fraud and corruption in the execution of the project. In 2017, OLAF found “serious irregularities” and “conflicts of interest” during its investigation into 35 street-lightning contracts granted to the company at the time controlled by the Hungarian Prime-Minister’s son-in-law. OLAF sent its final report with financial recommendations to the Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy to recover EUR 43,7 million and judicial recommendations to the General Prosecutor of Hungary. A cross-border investigation, concluded by OLAF in 2017, involved allegations related to the potential misuse of Union funds in 31 Research and Development projects. The investigation, which took place in Hungary, Latvia and Serbia, uncovered a subcontracting scheme used to artificially increase project costs and hide the fact that the final suppliers were linked companies. OLAF therefore concluded the investigation with a financial recommendation to the Commission to recover EUR 28,3 million and a judicial recommendation to the Hungarian judicial authorities. Hungary decided not to participate in the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the Union.

(24)  According to the Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion, government effectiveness in Hungary has diminished since 1996 and it is one of the Member States with the least effective governments in the Union. All Hungarian regions are well below the Union average in terms of quality of government. According to the EU Anti-corruption Report published by the Commission in 2014, corruption is perceived as widespread (89 %) in Hungary. According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2017-2018, published by the World Economic Forum, the high level of corruption was one of the most problematic factors for doing business in Hungary.

Privacy and data protection

(25)  In its judgment of 12 January 2016, Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the right to respect for private life was violated on account of the insufficient legal guarantees against possible unlawful secret surveillance for national security purposes, including related to the use of telecommunications. The applicants did not allege that they had been subjected to any secret surveillance measures, therefore no further individual measure appeared necessary. The amendment of the relevant legislation is necessary as a general measure. Proposals for amendment of the Act on National Security Services are currently being discussed by the experts of the competent ministries of Hungary. The execution of this judgment is, therefore, still pending.

(26)  In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that Hungary’s legal framework on secret surveillance for national security purposes allows for mass interception of communications and contains insufficient safeguards against arbitrary interference with the right to privacy. It was also concerned by the lack of provisions to ensure effective remedies in cases of abuse, and notification to the person concerned as soon as possible, without endangering the purpose of the restriction, after the termination of the surveillance measure.

Freedom of expression

(27)  On 22 June 2015 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Media Legislation (Act CLXXXV on Media Services and on the Mass Media, Act CIV on the Freedom of the Press, and the Legislation on Taxation of Advertisement Revenues of Mass Media) of Hungary, which called for several changes to the Press Act and the Media Act, in particular concerning the definition of “illegal media content”, the disclosure of journalistic sources and sanctions on media outlets. Similar concerns had been expressed in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in February 2011, by the previous Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in his opinion on Hungary’s media legislation in light of Council of Europe standards on freedom of the media of 25 February 2011, as well as by Council of Europe experts on Hungarian media legislation in their expertise of 11 May 2012. In his statement of 29 January 2013, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General welcomed the fact that discussions in the field of media have led to several important changes. Nevertheless, the remaining concerns were reiterated by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. The Commissioner also mentioned the issues of concentration of media ownership and self-censorship and indicated that the legal framework criminalising defamation should be repealed.

(28)  In its Opinion of 22 June 2015 on Media Legislation, the Venice Commission acknowledged the efforts of the Hungarian government, over the years, to improve on the original text of the Media Acts, in line with comments from various observers, including the Council of Europe, and positively noted the willingness of the Hungarian authorities to continue the dialogue. Nevertheless, the Venice Commission insisted on the need to change the rules governing the election of the members of the Media Council to ensure fair representation of socially significant political and other groups and that the method of appointment and the position of the Chairperson of the Media Council or the President of the Media Authority should be revisited in order to reduce the concentration of powers and secure political neutrality; the Board of Trustees should also be reformed along those lines. The Venice Commission also recommended the decentralisation of the governance of public service media providers and that the National News Agency not be the exclusive provider of news for public service media providers. Similar concerns had been expressed in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in February 2011, by the previous Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in his opinion on Hungary’s media legislation in light of Council of Europe standards on freedom of the media of 25 February 2011, as well as by Council of Europe experts on Hungarian media legislation in their expertise of 11 May 2012. In his statement of 29 January 2013, the Council of Europe’s Secretary General welcomed the fact that discussions in the field of media have led to several important changes. Nevertheless, the remaining concerns were reiterated by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014.

(29)  On 18 October 2012, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CXII of 2011 on Informational Self-Determination and Freedom of Information of Hungary. Despite the overall positive assessment, the Venice Commission identified the need for further improvements. However, following subsequent amendments to that law, the right to access government information has been significantly restricted further. Those amendments were criticised in the analysis commissioned by the Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media in March 2016. It indicated that the amounts to be charged for direct costs appear to be entirely reasonable, but the charging for the time of public officials to answer requests is unacceptable. As was acknowledged by the Commission’s 2018 country report, the Data Protection Commissioner and the courts, including the Constitutional Court, have taken a progressive position in transparency-related cases.

(30)  In its report, adopted on 27 June 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections stated that access to information as well as the freedoms of the media and association have been restricted, including by recent legal changes and that media coverage of the campaign was extensive, yet highly polarized and lacking critical analysis due to the politicisation of media ownership and influx of the government’s publicity campaigns. The public broadcaster fulfilled its mandate to provide free airtime to contestants, but its newscasts and editorial output clearly favoured the ruling coalition, contrary to international standards. Most commercial broadcasters were partisan in their coverage, siding either with the ruling or opposition parties. Online media provided a platform for pluralistic, issue-oriented political debate. It further noted that politicisation of the ownership, coupled with a restrictive legal framework and absence of an independent media regulatory body, had a chilling effect on editorial freedom, hindering voters’ access to pluralistic information. It also mentioned that the amendments introduced undue restrictions on access to information by broadening the definition of information not subject to disclosure and by increasing the fee for handling information requests.

(31)  In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about Hungary’s media laws and practices that restrict freedom of opinion and expression. It was concerned that, following successive changes in the law, the current legislative framework does not fully ensure an uncensored and unhindered press. It noted with concern that the Media Council and the Media Authority lack sufficient independence to perform their functions and have overbroad regulatory and sanctioning powers.

(32)  On 13 April 2018, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media strongly condemned the publication of a list of more than 200 people by a Hungarian media outlet which claimed that over 2 000 people, including those listed by name, are allegedly working to “topple the government”. The list was published by the Hungarian magazine Figyelő on 11 April and includes many journalists and other citizens. On 7 May 2018, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media expressed major concern over the denial of accreditation to several independent journalists, which prevented them from reporting from the inaugural meeting of Hungary’s new parliament. It was further noted that such an event should not be used as a tool to curb the content of critical reporting and that such a practice sets a bad precedent for the new term of Hungary’s parliament.

Academic freedom

(33)  On 6 October 2017, the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act XXV of 4 April 2017 on the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education. It concluded that introducing more stringent rules without very strong reasons, coupled with strict deadlines and severe legal consequences, for foreign universities which are already established in Hungary and have been lawfully operating there for many years, appears highly problematic from the standpoint of the rule of law and fundamental rights principles and guarantees. Those universities and their students are protected by domestic and international rules on academic freedom, the freedom of expression and assembly and the right to, and freedom of, education. The Venice Commission recommended that the Hungarian authorities, in particular, ensure that new rules on the requirement to have a work permit do not disproportionally affect academic freedom and are applied in a non-discriminatory and flexible manner, without jeopardising the quality and international character of education already provided by existing universities. The concerns about the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education have also been shared by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the freedom of opinion and expression, on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association and on cultural rights in their statement of 11 April 2017. In the concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of such constraints on the freedom of thought, expression and association, as well as academic freedom.

(34)  On 17 October 2017, the Hungarian Parliament extended the deadline for foreign universities operating in the country to meet the new criteria to 1 January 2019 at the request of the institutions concerned and following the recommendation of the Presidency of the Hungarian Rectors’ Conference. The Venice Commission has welcomed that prolongation. Negotiations between the Hungarian Government and foreign higher education institutions affected, in particular, the Central European University, are still ongoing, while the legal limbo for foreign universities remains, although the Central European University complied with the new requirements in due time.

(35)  On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the grounds that the Amendment of Act CCIV of 2011 on National Tertiary Education disproportionally restricts Union and non-Union universities in their operations and that the Act needs to be brought back in line with Union law. The Commission found that the new legislation runs counter to the right of academic freedom, the right to education and the freedom to conduct a business as provided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”) and the Union’s legal obligations under international trade law.

(36)  On 9 August 2018, it became public that the Hungarian government plans to withdraw the Masters programme of Gender Studies at the public Eötvös Loránd University (ELTE) and to refuse the recognition of the MA in Gender Studies from the private Central European University. The European Parliament points out that a misinterpretation of the concept of gender has dominated the public discourse in Hungary and deplores this wilful misinterpretation of the terms ‘gender’ and ‘gender equality’. The European Parliament condemns the attacks on free teaching and research, in particular on gender studies, the aim of which is to analyse power relationships, discrimination and gender relations in society and find solutions to forms of inequality and which has become the target of defamation campaigns. The European Parliament calls for the fundamental democratic principle of educational freedom to be fully restored and safeguarded.

Freedom of religion

(37)  On 30 December 2011, the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities of Hungary, which entered into force on 1 January 2012. The Act reviewed the legal personality of many religious organisations and reduced the number of legally recognised churches in Hungary to 14. On 16 December 2011 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights shared his concerns about this Act in a letter sent to the Hungarian authorities. In February 2012, responding to international pressure, the Hungarian Parliament expanded the number of recognised churches to 31. On 19 March 2012 the Venice Commission adopted its Opinion on Act CCVI of 2011 on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion and the Legal Status of Churches, Denominations and Religious Communities of Hungary, where it indicated that the Act sets a range of requirements that are excessive and based on arbitrary criteria with regard to the recognition of a church. Furthermore, it indicated that the Act has led to a deregistration process of hundreds of previously lawfully recognised churches and that the Act induces, to some extent, an unequal and even discriminatory treatment of religious beliefs and communities, depending on whether they are recognised or not.

(38)  In February 2013, Hungary's Constitutional Court ruled that the deregistration of recognised churches had been unconstitutional. Responding to the Constitutional Court's decision, the Hungarian Parliament amended the Fundamental Law in March 2013. In June and September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament amended Act CCVI of 2011 to create a two-tiered classification consisting of “religious communities” and “incorporated churches”. In September 2013, the Hungarian Parliament also amended the Fundamental Law explicitly to grant itself the authority to select religious communities for “cooperation” with the state in the service of “public interest activities”, giving itself a discretionary power to recognise a religious organisation with a two-thirds majority.

(39)  In its judgment of 8 April 2014, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház and Others v. Hungary, the ECtHR ruled that Hungary had violated freedom of association, read in the light of freedom of conscience and religion. The Constitutional Court of Hungary found that certain rules governing the conditions of recognition as a church were unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to bring the relevant rules in line with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant Act was accordingly submitted to the Hungarian Parliament in December 2015, but it did not obtain the necessary majority. The execution of that judgment is still pending.

Freedom of association

(40)  On 9 July 2014, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights indicated in his letter to the Hungarian authorities that he was concerned about the stigmatising rhetoric used by politicians questioning the legitimacy of NGO work in the context of audits which had been carried out by the Hungarian Government Control Office concerning NGOs which were operators and beneficiaries of the NGO Fund of the EEA/Norway Grants. The Hungarian Government signed an agreement with the Fund and, as a result, the payments of the grants continue to operate. On 8-16 February 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders visited Hungary and indicated in his report that significant challenges stem from the existing legal framework governing the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as the rights to freedoms of opinion and expression, and of peaceful assembly and of association, and that legislation pertaining to national security and migration may also have a restrictive impact on the civil society environment.

(41)  In April 2017 a draft law on the Transparency of Organisations Receiving Support from Abroad was introduced before the Hungarian Parliament with the stated purpose of introducing requirements related to the prevention of money laundering or terrorism. The Venice Commission acknowledged in 2013 that there may be various reasons for a state to restrict foreign funding, including the prevention of money-laundering and terrorist financing, but those legitimate aims should not be used as a pretext to control NGOs or to restrict their ability to carry out their legitimate work, notably in defence of human rights. On 26 April 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights addressed a letter to the Speaker of the Hungarian National Assembly noting that the draft law was introduced against the background of continued antagonistic rhetoric from certain members of the ruling coalition, who publicly labelled some NGOs as “foreign agents” based on the source of their funding and questioned their legitimacy; the term “foreign agents” was, however, absent from the draft. Similar concerns have been mentioned in the statement of 7 March 2017 of the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law, as well as in the Opinion of 24 April 2017 prepared by the Expert Council on NGO Law, and the statement of 15 May 2017 by the UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders and on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

(42)  On 13 June 2017, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the draft law with several amendments. In its Opinion of 20 June 2017, the Venice Commission recognised that the term ‘organisation receiving support from abroad’ is neutral and descriptive, and some of those amendments represented an important improvement but at the same time some other concerns were not addressed and the amendments did not suffice to alleviate the concerns that the law would cause a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with the freedoms of association and expression, the right to privacy, and the prohibition of discrimination. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee noted the lack of a sufficient justification for the imposition of those requirements, which appeared to be part of an attempt to discredit certain NGOs, including NGOs dedicated to the protection of human rights in Hungary.

(43)  On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to start legal proceedings against Hungary for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, due to provisions in the NGO Law which in the view of the Commission, indirectly discriminate and disproportionately restrict donations from abroad to civil society organisations. In addition, the Commission alleged that Hungary had violated the right to freedom of association and the rights to protection of private life and personal data enshrined in the Charter, read in conjunction with the Treaty provisions on the free movement of capital, defined in Article 26(2) and Articles 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

(44)  In February 2018, a legislative package consisting of three draft laws, (T/19776, T/19775, T/19774), was presented by the Hungarian Government. On 14 February 2018, the President of the Conference of INGOs of the Council of Europe and President of the Expert Council on NGO Law made a statement indicating that the package does not comply with the freedom of association, particularly for NGOs which deal with migrants. On 15 February 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. On 8 March 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance warned that the bill would lead to undue restrictions on the freedom of association and the freedom of expression in Hungary. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that by alluding to the “survival of the nation” and protection of citizens and culture, and by linking the work of NGOs to an alleged international conspiracy, the legislative package would stigmatise NGOs and curb their ability to carry out their important activities in support of human rights and, in particular, the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It was further concerned that imposing restrictions on foreign funding directed to NGOs might be used to apply illegitimate pressure on them and to unjustifiably interfere with their activities. One of the draft laws aimed to tax any NGO funds received from outside Hungary, including Union funding, at a rate of 25 %; the legislative package would also deprive NGOs of a legal remedy to appeal against arbitrary decisions. On 22 March 2018, the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on the draft legislative package.

(45)  On 29 May 2018, the Hungarian Government presented a draft law amending certain laws relating to measures to combat illegal immigration (T/333). The draft is a revised version of the previous legislative package and proposes criminal penalties for ‘facilitating illegal immigration’. The same day, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees called for the proposal to be withdrawn and expressed concern that those proposals, if passed, would deprive people who are forced to flee their homes of critical aid and services, and further inflame tense public discourse and rising xenophobic attitudes. On 1 June 2018, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed similar concerns. On 31 May 2018, the Chair of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe confirmed the request for an opinion of the Venice Commission on the new proposal. The draft was adopted on 20 June 2018 before the delivery of the opinion of the Venice Commission. On 21 June 2018, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights condemned the decision of the Hungarian Parliament. On 22 June 2018, the Venice Commission and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights indicated that the provision on criminal liability may chill protected organisational and expressive activity and infringes upon the right to freedom of association and expression and should, therefore, be repealed. On 19 July 2018, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to Hungary concerning new legislation that criminalises activities that support asylum and residence applications and further restricts the right to request asylum.

Right to equal treatment

(46)  On 17-27 May 2016, the UN Working Group on discrimination against women in law and in practice visited Hungary. In its report, the Working Group indicated that a conservative form of family, whose protection is guaranteed as essential to national survival, should not be put in an uneven balance with women’s political, economic and social rights and the empowerment of women. The Working Group also pointed out that a woman’s right to equality cannot be seen merely in the light of protection of vulnerable groups alongside children, the elderly and the disabled, as they are an integral part of all such groups. New school books still contain gender stereotypes, depicting women as primarily mothers and wives and, in some cases, depicting mothers as less intelligent than fathers. On the other hand, the Working Party acknowledged the efforts of the Hungarian Government to strengthen the reconciliation of work and family life by introducing generous provisions in the family support system and in relation to early childhood education and care. In its report adopted on 27 June 2018, the limited election observation mission of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights for the 2018 Hungarian parliamentary elections stated that women are underrepresented in political life and there are no legal requirements to promote gender equality in elections. Although one major party placed a woman at the top of the national list and some parties addressed gender-related issues in their programmes, the empowerment of women received scant attention as a campaign issue, including in the media.

(47)  In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee welcomed the signature of the Istanbul Convention but expressed regret that patriarchal stereotyped attitudes still prevail in Hungary with respect to the position of women in society, and noted with concern discriminatory comments made by political figures against women. It also noted that the Hungarian Criminal Code does not fully protect female victims of domestic violence. It expressed concern that women are underrepresented in decision-making positions in the public sector, particularly in Government ministries and the Hungarian Parliament. The Istanbul Convention has not yet been ratified.

(48)  The Fundamental Law of Hungary sets forth mandatory provisions for the protection of parents’ workplaces and for upholding the principle of equal treatment; consequently, there are special labour law rules for women and for mothers and fathers raising children. On 27 April 2017, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion calling on Hungary to correctly implement Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(12), given that Hungarian law provides an exception to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex that is much broader than the exception provided by that Directive. On the same date, the Commission issued a reasoned opinion to Hungary for non-compliance with Directive 92/85/EEC of the Council(13) that stated that employers have a duty to adapt working conditions for pregnant or breastfeeding workers to avoid a risk to their health or safety. The Hungarian Government has committed itself to amend the necessary provisions of Act CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities, as well as Act I of 2012 on the Labour Code. Consequently, on 7 June 2018 the case was closed.

(49)  In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the constitutional ban on discrimination does not explicitly list sexual orientation and gender identity among the grounds of discrimination and that its restrictive definition of family could give rise to discrimination as it does not encompass certain types of family arrangements, including same-sex couples. The Committee was also concerned about acts of violence and the prevalence of negative stereotypes and prejudice against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, particularly in the employment and education sectors.

(50)  In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee also mentioned forced placement in medical institutions, isolation and forced treatment of large numbers of persons with mental, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities, as well as reported violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and allegations of a high number of non-investigated deaths in closed institutions.

Rights of persons belonging to minorities, including Roma and Jews, and protection against hateful statements against such minorities

(51)  In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated that he was concerned about the deterioration of the situation as regards racism and intolerance in Hungary, with anti-Gypsyism being the most blatant form of intolerance, as illustrated by distinctively harsh, including violence targeting Roma people and paramilitary marches and patrolling in Roma-populated villages. He also pointed out that, despite positions taken by the Hungarian authorities to condemn anti-Semitic speech, anti-Semitism is a recurring problem, manifesting itself through hate speech and instances of violence against Jewish persons or property. In addition, he mentioned a recrudescence of xenophobia targeting migrants, including asylum seekers and refugees, and of intolerance affecting other social groups such as LGBTI persons, the poor and homeless persons. The European Commission against Racism and Xenophobia (ECRI) mentioned similar concerns in its report on Hungary published on 9 June 2015.

(52)  In its Fourth Opinion on Hungary adopted on 25 February 2016, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities noted that Roma continue to suffer systemic discrimination and inequality in all fields of life, including housing, employment, education, access to health and participation in social and political life. In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended the Hungarian authorities to make sustained and effective efforts to prevent, combat and sanction the inequality and discrimination suffered by Roma, improve, in close consultation with Roma representatives, the living conditions, access to health services and employment of Roma, take effective measures to end practices that lead to the continued segregation of Roma children at school and redouble efforts to remedy shortcomings faced by Roma children in the field of education, ensure that Roma children have equal opportunities for access to all levels of quality education, and continue to take measures to prevent children from being wrongfully placed in special schools and classes. The Hungarian Government has taken several substantial measures to foster the inclusion of Roma. On 4 July 2012, it adopted the Job Protection Action Plan to protect the employment of disadvantaged employees and foster the employment of the long-term unemployed. It also adopted the “Healthy Hungary 2014–2020” Healthcare Sectoral Strategy to reduce health inequalities. In 2014, it adopted a strategy for the period 2014-2020 for the treatment of slum-like housing in segregated settlements. Nevertheless, according to Fundamental Rights Report 2018 of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, the percentage of young Roma with current main activity not in employment, education or training, has increased from 38 % in 2011 to 51 % in 2016.

(53)  In its judgement of 29 January 2013, Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that the relevant Hungarian legislation as applied in practice lacked adequate safeguards and resulted in the over-representation and segregation of Roma children in special schools due to the systematic misdiagnosis of mental disability, which amounted to a violation of the right to education free from discrimination. The execution of that judgment is still pending.

(54)  On 26 May 2016, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Hungarian authorities in relation to both Hungarian legislation and administrative practices which result in Roma children being disproportionately over-represented in special schools for mentally disabled children and subject to a considerable degree of segregated education in mainstream schools, thus hampering social inclusion. The Hungarian Government actively engaged in dialogue with the Commission. The Hungarian Inclusion Strategy focuses on promoting inclusive education, reducing segregation, breaking the intergenerational transmission of disadvantages, and establishing an inclusive school environment. Furthermore, the Act on National Public Education was complemented with additional guarantees as of January 2017, and the Hungarian Government initiated official audits in 2011-2015, followed by actions by government offices.

(55)  In its judgement of 20 October 2015, Balázs v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in the context of a failure to consider the alleged anti-Roma motive of an attack. In its judgment of 12 April 2016, R.B. v. Hungary, and in its judgment of 17 January 2017, Király and Dömötör v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that that there had been a violation of the right to private life on account of inadequate investigations into the allegations of racially motived abuse. In its judgment of 31 October 2017, M.F. v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there was a violation of the prohibition of discrimination in conjunction with the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment as the authorities had failed to investigate possible racist motives behind the incident in question. The execution of those judgments is still pending. Following the Balázs v. Hungary and R.B. v. Hungary judgments, however, the modification of the fact pattern of the crime of ‘inciting violence or hatred against the community’ in the Penal Code entered into force on 28 October 2016 with the purpose of implementing Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA(14). In 2011 the Penal Code had been amended in order to prevent campaigns of extreme right paramilitary groups, by introducing the so-called ‘crime in uniform’, punishing any provocative unsocial behaviour inducing fear in a member of a national, ethnic or religious community with three years of imprisonment.

(56)  On 29 June - 1 July 2015, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights conducted a field assessment visit to Hungary, following reports about the actions taken by the local government of the city of Miskolc concerning forced evictions of Roma. The local authorities adopted a model of anti-Roma measures, even before the change of the local decree of 2014, and public figures in the city often made anti-Roma statements. It was reported that in February 2013, the Mayor of Miskolc said he wanted to clean the city of “anti-social, perverted Roma” who allegedly illegally benefited from the Nest programme (Fészekrakó programme) for housing benefits and people living in social flats with rent and maintenance fees. His words marked the beginning of a series of evictions and during that month, fifty apartments were removed from 273 apartments in the appropriate category - also to clean up the land for the renovation of a stadium. Based on the appeal of the government office in charge, the Supreme Court annulled the relevant provisions in its decision of 28 April 2015. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and the Deputy-Commissioner for the Rights of National Minorities issued a joint opinion on 5 June 2015 about the fundamental rights violations against the Roma in Miskolc, the recommendations of which the local government failed to adopt. The Equal Treatment Authority of Hungary also carried out an investigation and rendered a decision in July 2015, calling on the local government to cease all evictions and to develop an action plan on how to offer housing in accordance with human dignity. On 26 January 2016 the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights sent letters to the governments of Albania, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, Serbia and Sweden concerning forced evictions of Roma. The letter addressed to the Hungarian authorities expressed concerns about the treatment of Roma in Miskolc. The action plan was adopted on 21 April 2016 and in the meantime a social housing agency was also established. In its decision of 14 October 2016, the Equal Treatment Authority found that the municipality fulfilled its obligations. Nevertheless, ECRI mentioned in its conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Hungary published on 15 May 2018 that, despite some positive developments to improve the housing conditions of Roma, its recommendation had not been implemented.

(57)  In its Resolution of 5 July 2017, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommended that the Hungarian authorities continue to improve the dialogue with the Jewish community, making it sustainable, and to give combatting anti-Semitism in public spaces the highest priority, to make sustained efforts to prevent, identify, investigate, prosecute and sanction effectively all racially and ethnically motivated or anti-Semitic acts, including acts of vandalism and hate speech, and to consider amending the law so as to ensure the widest possible legal protection against racist crime.

(58)  The Hungarian Government ordered that the life annuity of Holocaust survivors was to be raised by 50 % in 2012, established the Hungarian Holocaust – 2014 Memorial Committee in 2013, declared 2014 to be the Holocaust Memorial Year, launched renovation and restoration programmes of several Hungarian synagogues and Jewish cemeteries and is currently preparing for the 2019 European Maccabi Games to be held in Budapest. Hungarian legal provisions identify several offences related to hatred or incitement of hatred, including anti-Semitic or Holocaust-denying or denigrating acts. Hungary was awarded the chairmanship of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2015-2016. Nevertheless, in a speech held on 15 March 2018 in Budapest, the Prime Minister of Hungary used polemic attacks including clearly anti-Semitic stereotypes against George Soros that could have been assessed as punishable.

(59)  In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about reports that the Roma community continues to suffer from widespread discrimination and exclusion, unemployment, housing and educational segregation. It is particularly concerned that, notwithstanding the Public Education Act, segregation in schools, especially church and private schools, remains prevalent and the number of Roma children placed in schools for children with mild disabilities remains disproportionately high. It also mentioned concerns about the prevalence of hate crimes and about hate speech in political discourse, the media and on the internet targeting minorities, in particular Roma, Muslims, migrants and refugees, including in the context of government-sponsored campaigns. The Committee expressed its concern over the prevalence of anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Committee also noted with concern allegations that the number of registered hate crimes is extremely low because the police often fail to investigate and prosecute credible claims of hate crimes and criminal hate speech. Finally, the Committee was concerned about reports of the persistent practice of racial profiling of Roma by the police.

(60)  In a case regarding the village of Gyöngyöspata, where the local police was imposing fines solely on Roma for minor traffic offences, the first instance judgment found that the practice constituted harassment and direct discrimination against the Roma even if the individual measures were lawful. The second instance court and the Supreme Court ruled that the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU), which had submitted an actio popularis claim, could not substantiate discrimination. The case was brought before the ECtHR.

(61)  In accordance with the Fourth Amendment of the Fundamental Law, the ‘freedom of expression may not be exercised with the aim of violating the dignity of the Hungarian nation or of any national, ethnic, racial or religious community’. The Hungarian Penal Code punishes inciting violence or hatred against a member of a community. The Government has established a Working Group Against Hate Crime providing training for police officers and helping victims to cooperate with the police and report incidents.

Fundamental rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees

(62)  On 3 July 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the fast-track procedure for amending asylum law. On 17 September 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his opinion that Hungary violated international law by its treatment of refugees and migrants. On 27 November 2015, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights made a statement that Hungary’s response to the refugee challenge falls short on human rights. On 21 December 2015, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the Council of Europe and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights urged Hungary to refrain from policies and practices that promote intolerance and fear and fuel xenophobia against refugees and migrants. On 6 June 2016, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed concerns about the increasing number of allegations of abuse in Hungary against asylum-seekers and migrants by border authorities, and the broader restrictive border and legislative measures, including access to asylum procedures. On 10 April 2017, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees called for an immediate suspension of Dublin transfers to Hungary. In 2017, out of 3 397 applications for international protection filed in Hungary, 2 880 applications were rejected, which amounted to a rejection rate of 69,1 %. In 2015, out of 480 judicial appeals relating to applications for international protection, there were 40 positive decisions, i.e. 9 %. In 2016, there were 775 appeals, 5 of which resulted in positive decisions, i.e. 1 %, while there were no appeals in 2017.

(63)  The Fundamental Rights Officer of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency visited Hungary in October 2016 and March 2017, owing to the Officer’s concern that the Agency might be operating under conditions which do not commit to the respect, protection and fulfilment of the rights of persons crossing the Hungarian-Serbian border, that may put the Agency in situations that de facto violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Fundamental Rights Officer concluded in March 2017 that the risk of shared responsibility of the Agency in the violation of fundamental rights in accordance with Article 34 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation remains very high.

(64)  On 3 July 2014, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention indicated that the situation of asylum seekers and migrants in irregular situations needs robust improvements and attention to ensure against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Similar concerns about detention, in particular of unaccompanied minors, have been shared by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights in the report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014. On 21-27 October 2015 the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Hungary and indicated in its report a considerable number of foreign nationals’ (including unaccompanied minors) claims that they had been subjected to physical ill-treatment by police officers and armed guards working in immigration or asylum detention facilities. On 7 March 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed his concerns about a new law voted in the Hungarian Parliament envisaging the mandatory detention of all asylum seekers, including children, for the entire length of the asylum procedure. On 8 March 2017, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement similarly expressing his concern about that law. On 31 March 2017, the UN Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture urged Hungary to address immediately the excessive use of detention and explore alternatives.

(65)  In its judgment of 5 July 2016, O.M. v. Hungary, the ECtHR held that there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security in the form of detention that verged on arbitrariness. In particular, the authorities failed to exercise care when they ordered the applicant’s detention without considering the extent to which vulnerable individuals – for instance, LGBT people like the applicant – were safe or unsafe in custody among other detained persons, many of whom had come from countries with widespread cultural or religious prejudice against such persons. The execution of that judgment is still pending.

(66)  On 12-16 June 2017, the Special Representative of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on migration and refugees visited Serbia and two transit zones in Hungary. In his report, the Special Representative stated that violent pushbacks of migrants and refugees from Hungary to Serbia raise concerns under Articles 2 (the right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Special Representative also noted that the restrictive practices of admission of asylum seekers into the transit zones of Röszke and Tompa often make asylum-seekers look for illegal ways of crossing the border, having to resort to smugglers and traffickers with all the risks that this entails. He indicated that the asylum procedures, which are conducted in the transit zones, lack adequate safeguards to protect asylum seekers against refoulement to countries where they run the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. The Special Representative concluded that it is necessary that the Hungarian legislation and practices are brought in line with the requirements of the ECHR. The Special Representative made several recommendations, including a call on the Hungarian authorities to take the necessary measures, including by reviewing the relevant legislative framework and changing relevant practices, to ensure that all foreign nationals arriving at the border or who are on Hungarian territory are not deterred from making an application for international protection. On 5-7 July 2017 a delegation of the Council of Europe Lanzarote Committee (Committee of the Parties to the Council of Europe Convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse) also visited two transit zones and made a number of recommendations, including a call to treat all persons under the age of 18 years of age as children without discrimination on the ground of their age, to ensure that all children under Hungarian jurisdiction are protected against sexual exploitation and abuse, and to systematically place them in mainstream child protection institutions in order to prevent possible sexual exploitation or sexual abuse against them by adults and adolescents in the transit zones. On 18-20 December 2017, a delegation of the Council of Europe Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA) visited Hungary, including two transit zones, and concluded that a transit zone, which is effectively a place of deprivation of liberty, cannot be considered as appropriate and safe accommodation for victims of trafficking. It called on the Hungarian authorities to adopt a legal framework for the identification of victims of human trafficking among third-country nationals who were not legally resident and to step up its procedures for identifying victims of such trafficking among asylum seekers and irregular migrants. As of 1 January 2018, additional regulations were introduced favouring minors in general and unaccompanied minors in specific; among others a specific curriculum was developed for minor asylum seekers. ECRI mentioned in its conclusions on the implementation of the recommendations in respect of Hungary, published on 15 May 2018, that while acknowledging that Hungary has faced enormous challenges following the massive arrivals of migrants and refugees, it is appalled at the measures taken in response and the serious deterioration in the situation since its fifth report. The authorities should, as a matter of urgency, end detention in transit zones, particularly for families with children and all unaccompanied minors.

(67)  In mid-August 2018, the immigration authorities stopped giving food to adult asylum seekers who were challenging inadmissibility decisions in court. Several asylum seekers had to seek interim measures from the ECtHR to start receiving meals. The ECtHR granted interim measures in two cases on 10 August 2018 and in a third case on 16 August 2018 and ordered the provision of food to the applicants. The Hungarian authorities have complied with the rulings.

(68)  In its judgment of 14 March 2017, Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty and security. The ECtHR also found that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment in respect of the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia, as well as a violation of the right to an effective remedy in respect of the conditions of detention at the Röszke transit zone. The case is currently pending before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR.

(69)  On 14 March 2018, Ahmed H., a Syrian resident in Cyprus who had tried to help his family flee Syria and cross the Serbian-Hungarian border in September 2015, was sentenced by a Hungarian court to 7 years' imprisonment and 10 years expulsion from the country on the basis of charges of ‘terrorist acts’, raising the issue of proper application of the laws against terrorism in Hungary, as well as the right to a fair trial.

(70)  In its judgment of 6 September 2017 in Case C-643/15 and C-647/15, the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed in their entirety the actions brought by Slovakia and Hungary against the provisional mechanism for the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers in accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601. However, since that judgment, Hungary has not complied with the Decision. On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to refer the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union for non-compliance with their legal obligations on relocation.

(71)  On 7 December 2017, the Commission decided to move forward on the infringement procedure against Hungary concerning its asylum legislation by sending a reasoned opinion. The Commission considers that the Hungarian legislation does not comply with Union law, in particular Directives 2013/32/EU(15), 2008/115/EC(16) and 2013/33/EU(17) of the European Parliament and of the Council and several provisions of the Charter. On 19 July 2018, the Commission decided to refer Hungary to the Court of Justice for non-compliance of its asylum and return legislation with Union law.

(72)  In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that the Hungarian law adopted in March 2017, which allows for the automatic removal to transit zones of all asylum applicants for the duration of their asylum procedure, with the exception of unaccompanied children identified as being below the age of 14, does not meet the legal standards as a result of the lengthy and indefinite period of confinement allowed, the absence of any legal requirement to promptly examine the specific conditions of each affected individual, and the lack of procedural safeguards to meaningfully challenge removal to the transit zones. The Committee was particularly concerned about reports of the extensive use of automatic immigration detention in holding facilities inside Hungary and was concerned that restrictions on personal liberty have been used as a general deterrent against unlawful entry rather than in response to an individualised determination of risk. In addition, the Committee was concerned about allegations of poor conditions in some holding facilities. It noted with concern the push-back law, which was first introduced in June 2016, enabling summary expulsion by the police of anyone who crosses the border irregularly and was detained on Hungarian territory within 8 kilometres of the border, which was subsequently extended to the entire territory of Hungary, and decree 191/2015 designating Serbia as a “safe third country” allowing for push-backs at Hungary’s border with Serbia. The Committee noted with concern reports that push-backs have been applied indiscriminately and that individuals subjected to this measure have very limited opportunity to submit an asylum application or right to appeal. It also noted with concern reports of collective and violent expulsions, including allegations of heavy beatings, attacks by police dogs and shootings with rubber bullets, resulting in severe injuries and, at least in one case, in the loss of life of an asylum seeker. It was also concerned about reports that the age assessment of child asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors conducted in the transit zones is inadequate, relies heavily on visual examination by an expert and is inaccurate, and about reports alleging the lack of adequate access by such asylum seekers to education, social and psychological services and legal aid. According to the new proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU the medical age assessment will be a measure of a last resort.

Economic and social rights

(73)  On 15 February 2012 and 11 December 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing called on Hungary to reconsider legislation allowing local authorities to punish homelessness and to uphold the Constitutional Court’s decision decriminalising homelessness. In his report following his visit to Hungary, which was published on 16 December 2014, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights indicated his concern at measures taken to prohibit rough sleeping and the construction of huts and shacks, which have widely been described as criminalising homelessness in practice. The Commissioner urged the Hungarian authorities to investigate reported cases of forced evictions without alternative solutions and of children being taken away from their families on the grounds of poor socio-economic conditions. In its concluding observations of 5 April 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concerns about state and local legislation, based on the Fourth Amendment to the Fundamental Law, which designates many public areas as out-of-bounds for “sleeping rough” and effectively punishes homelessness. On 20 June 2018, the Hungarian Parliament adopted the Seventh amendment to the Fundamental law which forbids habitual residence in a public space. The same day, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing called Hungary’s move to make homelessness a crime cruel and incompatible with international human rights law.

(74)  The 2017 Conclusions of the European Committee of Social Rights stated that Hungary is not in compliance with the European Social Charter on the grounds that self-employed and domestic workers, as well as other categories of workers, are not protected by occupational health and safety regulations, that measures taken to reduce the maternal mortality have been insufficient, that the minimum amount of old-age pensions is inadequate, that the minimum amount of jobseeker’s aid is inadequate, that the maximum duration of payment of jobseeker’s allowance is too short and that the minimum amount of rehabilitation and invalidity benefits, in certain cases, is inadequate. The Committee also concluded that Hungary is not in conformity with the European Social Charter on the grounds that the level of social assistance paid to a single person without resources, including elderly persons, is not adequate, equal access to social services is not guaranteed for lawfully resident nationals of all States Parties and it has not been established that there is an adequate supply of housing for vulnerable families. With regard to trade union rights, the Committee has stated that the right of workers to paid leave is not sufficiently secured, that no promotion measures have been taken to encourage the conclusion of collective agreements, while the protection of workers by such agreements is clearly weak in Hungary and in the civil service the right to call a strike is reserved to those unions which are parties to the agreement concluded with the government; the criteria used to determine public servants who are denied the right to strike go beyond the scope of the Charter; public service unions can only call a strike with the approval of the majority of the staff concerned.

(75)  Since December 2010, strikes in Hungary were made illegal in principle when the government of Victor Orban passed an amendment to the so-called Act on strikes. The changes mean that strikes will, in principle, be allowed in companies associated with governmental administration through public service contracts. The amendment does not apply to professional groups that simply do not have such a right, such as train drivers, police officers, medical personnel and air traffic controllers. The problem lies somewhere else, mainly in the percentage of employees who must take part in the strike referendum, to make it important -up to 70 %. Then the decision on the legality of strikes will be taken by a labour court that is completely subordinate to the state. In 2011, nine applications for strike permits were submitted. In seven cases they were rejected without giving a reason; two of them were processed, but it proved impossible to issue a decision.

(76)  The UN Committee on the Rights of Children’s report on ‘Concluding observations on the combined third, fourth and fifth periodic reports of Hungary’, published in 14 October 2014, voiced concerns over an increasing number of cases where children are being taken away from their family based on poor socio economic condition. Parents may lose their child due to unemployment, lack of social housing and lack of space in temporary housing institutions. Based on a study by the European Roma Right Centre, this practice disproportionately affects Roma families and children.

(77)  In its Recommendation of 23 May 2018 for a Council Recommendation on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Hungary and delivering a Council opinion on the 2018 Convergence Programme of Hungary, the Commission indicated that the proportion of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion has decreased to 26,3 % in 2016 but remains above the Union average; children in general are more exposed to poverty than other age groups. The level of minimum income benefits is below 50 % of the poverty threshold for a single household, making it among the lowest in the Union. The adequacy of unemployment benefits is very low: the maximum duration of 3 months ranks as the shortest in the Union and represents only around a quarter of the average time required by job seekers to find employment. In addition, the levels of payment are among the lowest in the Union. The Commission recommended that the adequacy and coverage of social assistance and unemployment benefits be improved.

(78)  On [….] 2018, the Council heard Hungary in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU.

(79)  For those reasons, it should be determined, in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU, that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

There is a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded.

Article 2

The Council recommends that Hungary take the following actions within three months of the notification of this Decision: [...]

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on [...] day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Article 4

This Decision is addressed to Hungary.

Done at …,

For the Council

The President

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0216. (2) OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 127. (3) OJ C 407, 4.11.2016, p. 46. (4) OJ C 75, 26.2.2016, p. 52. (5) OJ C 249 E, 30.8.2013, p. 27. (6) OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 154. (7) OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 162. (8) OJ C 104 E, 30.4.2004, p. 408. (9) COM(2003)0606. (10) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 November 2012, Commission v. Hungary, C-286/12, ECLI:EU:C:2012:687. (11) 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 (OJ L 281 , 23.11.1995, p. 31). (12) Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23). (13) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1). (14) Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55). (15) Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 60). (16) Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98). (17) Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 96).

European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on autonomous weapon systems (2018/2752(RSP))

P8_TA(2018)0341 RC-B8-0308/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Title V, Articles 21 and 21(2)(c) of the Treaty on European Union ,

–  having regard to the ‘Martens clause’ included in Protocol 1 of 1977 additional to the Geneva Conventions,

–  having regard to Part IV of the UN 2018 Agenda for Disarmament, entitled ‘Securing Our Common Future’,

–  having regard to its study of 3 May 2013 on the human rights implications of the usage of drones and unmanned robots in warfare,

–  having regard to its various positions, recommendations and resolutions calling for an international ban on lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), such as its recommendation to the Council of 5 July 2018 on the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly(1), the mandate to start negotiations adopted in plenary on 13 March 2018 with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, its resolution of 13 December 2017 on the Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World 2016 and the European Union’s policy on the matter(2), its recommendation to the Council of 7 July 2016 on the 71st session of the United Nations General Assembly(3), and its resolution of 27 February 2014 on armed drones(4),

–  having regard to the annual report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, of 9 April 2013 (A/HRC/23/47),

–  having regard to the EU statements on lethal autonomous weapons systems made to the Group of Governmental Experts of the parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva, at its meetings of 13-17 November 2017, 9-13 April 2018 and 27-31 August 2018,

–  having regard to the contributions made by different states, including EU Member States, prior to the 2017 and 2018 meetings of the Group of Governmental Experts,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 31 May 2017 calling for a human-in-command approach to artificial intelligence and a ban on lethal autonomous weapon systems,

–  having regard to the call by the Holy See for a ban on lethal autonomous weapons,

–  having regard to the open letter of July 2015 signed by over 3 000 artificial intelligence and robotics researchers and that of 21 August 2017 signed by 116 founders of leading robotics and artificial intelligence companies warning about lethal autonomous weapon systems, and the letter by 240 tech organisations and 3 089 individuals pledging never to develop, produce or use lethal autonomous weapon systems,

–  having regard to the statements by the International Committee of the Red Cross and to civil society initiatives such as the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, which represents 70 organisations in 30 countries, including Human Rights Watch, Article 36, PAX and Amnesty International,

–  having regard to Rule 123(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas EU policies and actions are guided by the principles of human rights and respect for human dignity, the principles of the UN Charter and international law; whereas these principles should be applied in order to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security;

B.  whereas the term ‘lethal autonomous weapon systems’ refers to weapon systems without meaningful human control over the critical functions of selecting and attacking individual targets;

C.  whereas an unknown number of countries, publicly funded industries and private industries are reportedly researching and developing lethal autonomous weapon systems, ranging all the way from missiles capable of selective targeting to learning machines with cognitive skills to decide whom, when and where to fight;

D.  whereas non-autonomous systems such as automated, remotely operated and tele-operated systems should not be considered as lethal autonomous weapons systems;

E.  whereas lethal autonomous weapon systems have the potential to fundamentally change warfare by prompting an unprecedented and uncontrolled arms race;

F.  whereas the use of lethal autonomous weapon systems raises fundamental ethical and legal questions of human control, in particular with regard to critical functions such as target selection and engagement; whereas machines and robots cannot make human-like decisions involving the legal principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution;

G.  whereas human involvement and oversight are central to the lethal decision-making process, since it is humans who remain accountable for decisions concerning life and death;

H.  whereas international law, including humanitarian law and human rights law, fully applies to all weapon systems and their operators, and whereas compliance with international law is a key requirement that states must fulfil, particularly when it comes to upholding principles such as protecting the civilian population or taking precautions in attack;

I.  whereas the use of lethal autonomous weapon systems raises key questions about the implementation of international human rights law, international humanitarian law and European norms and values with regard to future military actions;

J.  whereas in August 2017, 116 founders of leading international robotics and artificial intelligence companies sent an open letter to the UN calling on governments to ‘prevent an arms race in these weapons’ and ‘to avoid the destabilising effects of these technologies’;

K.  whereas any given lethal autonomous weapon system could malfunction on account of badly written code or a cyber-attack perpetrated by an enemy state or a non-state actor;

L.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly called for the urgent development and adoption of a common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems, for an international ban on the development, production and use of lethal autonomous weapon systems enabling strikes to be carried out without meaningful human control, and for a start to effective negotiations for their prohibition;

1.  Recalls the ambition of the EU to be a global actor for peace, and calls for the expansion of its role in global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, and for its actions and policies to strive for the maintenance of international peace and security, ensuring respect for international humanitarian and human rights law and the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure;

2.  Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), the Member States and the European Council to develop and adopt, as a matter of urgency and prior to the November 2018 meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a common position on lethal autonomous weapon systems that ensures meaningful human control over the critical functions of weapon systems, including during deployment, and to speak in relevant forums with one voice and act accordingly; calls, in this context, on the VP/HR, the Member States and the Council to share best practices and garner input from experts, academics and civil society;

3.  Urges the VP/HR, the Member States and the Council to work towards the start of international negotiations on a legally binding instrument prohibiting lethal autonomous weapon systems;

4.  Stresses, in this light, the fundamental importance of preventing the development and production of any lethal autonomous weapon system lacking human control in critical functions such as target selection and engagement;

5.  Recalls its position of 13 March 2018 on the Regulation on the European Defence Industrial Development Programme, in particular paragraph 4 of Article 6 (eligible actions), and underlines its willingness to adopt a similar position in the context of the upcoming defence research programme, the defence industrial development programme and other relevant features of the post-2020 European Defence Fund;

6.  Underlines the fact that none of the weapons or weapon systems currently operated by EU forces are lethal autonomous weapon systems; recalls that weapons and weapon systems specifically designed to defend own platforms, forces and populations against highly dynamic threats such as hostile missiles, munitions and aircraft are not considered lethal autonomous weapon systems; emphasises that engagement decisions against human-inhabited aircraft should be taken by human operators;

7.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the United Nations and the Secretary-General of NATO.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0312. (2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0494. (3) OJ C 101, 16.3.2018, p. 166. (4) OJ C 285, 29.8.2017, p. 110.

European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on the state of EU-US relations (2017/2271(INI))

P8_TA(2018)0342 A8-0251/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the document entitled ‘Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe – A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, presented by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on 28 June 2016, and to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 7 June 2017 entitled ‘A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s external action’ (JOIN(2017)0021),

–  having regard to the outcomes of the EU-US summits held on 28 November 2011 in Washington, D.C., and on 26 March 2014 in Brussels,

–  having regard to the joint statements of the 79th Interparliamentary Meeting of the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) held on 28 and 29 November 2016 in Washington, D.C., the 80th TLD held on 2 and 3 June 2017 in Valletta, the 81st TLD held on 5 December 2017 in Washington, D.C., and the 82nd TLD held on 30 June 2018 in Sofia, Bulgaria,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 28 April 2015 entitled ‘The European Agenda on Security’ (COM(2015)0185),

–  having regard to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament and the Council of 6 April 2016 entitled ‘Joint Framework on countering hybrid threats: a European Union response’ (JOIN(2016)0018),

–  having regard to the Joint Declaration of the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission and of the Secretary General of NATO of 8 July 2016 on the common set of proposals endorsed by the EU and NATO Councils on 5 and 6 December 2016, and the progress reports on the implementation thereof of 14 June and 5 December 2017,

–  having regard to the joint EU-NATO Declaration of 2016,

–  having regard to the US National Security Strategy of 18 December 2017 and the US National Defence Strategy of 19 January 2018,

–  having regard to the European Reassurance Initiative,

–  having regard to the EU Climate Diplomacy Action Plan adopted in 2015 by the Foreign Affairs Council,

–  having regard to the Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21, the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the 11th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP11) held in Paris from 30 November to 11 December 2015,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96 of 22 November 1996 protecting against the effects of the extraterritorial application of legislation adopted by a third country, and to the actions based thereon or resulting therefrom(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2018 on the role of EU regions and cities in implementing the COP 21 Paris Agreement on climate change, in particular its paragraph 13(2),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on transatlantic relations, in particular its resolution of 1 June 2006 on improving EU-US relations in the framework of a Transatlantic Partnership Agreement(3), its resolution of 26 March 2009 on the state of transatlantic relations in the aftermath of the US elections(4), its resolution of 17 November 2011 on the EU-US Summit of 28 November 2011(5), and its resolution of 13 June 2013 on the role of the EU in promoting a broader Transatlantic Partnership(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2016 on the European Defence Union(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2017 on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2017 on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP)(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 February 2018 on the situation of UNRWA(10),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A8-0251/2018),

A.  whereas the EU-US partnership is based on strong political, cultural, economic and historic links, on shared values such as freedom, democracy, promoting peace and stability, human rights and the rule of law, and on common goals, such as prosperity, security, open and integrated economies, social progress and inclusiveness, sustainable development and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and whereas both the US and the EU are democracies under the rule of law with functioning systems of checks and balances; whereas this partnership is facing an important number of challenges and disruptions in the short term, but the long-term fundamentals remain strong and the cooperation between the EU and the US, as like-minded partners, remains crucial;

B.  whereas the EU and the US, building on their strong foundation of common values and shared principles, should explore alternative ways to strengthen the transatlantic relationship and respond effectively to the important challenges we face, by using all available channels of communication; whereas as legislators, the US Congress and the European Parliament play important and influential roles in our democracies and should use the full potential of their cooperation to preserve the democratic, liberal and multilateral order and promote stability and continuity on our continent and in the world;

C.  whereas in a global, complex and increasingly multipolar world, the EU and the US must play leading, key, constructive roles by strengthening and upholding international law, promoting and protecting fundamental rights and principles, and jointly addressing regional conflicts and global challenges;

D.  whereas the EU and the US are facing an era of geopolitical change and have to deal with similar complex threats, both conventional and hybrid, generated by state and non-state actors coming from the South and from the East; whereas cyber-attacks are increasingly common and sophisticated, and cooperation between the EU and the US through NATO can complement the efforts of both parties and protect critical government defence and other information infrastructure; whereas these threats require international cooperation to tackle them;

E.  whereas the EU recognises the US’s continued military support to ensure the security and defence of the EU, and whereas the EU owes gratitude to all Americans who sacrificed their lives to guarantee European security in the conflicts in Kosovo and Bosnia; whereas the EU currently seeks to ensure its own security by building greater strategic autonomy;

F.  whereas the US has decided to cut its peacekeeping budget within the UN by USD 600 million;

G.  whereas a more unpredictable US foreign policy is creating an increasing uncertainty in international relations and could leave some space for the rise of other actors on the global stage, such as China, whose political and economic influence is increasing worldwide; whereas many key countries in Asia, once closer to the US, are shifting towards China;

H.  whereas the EU remains fully committed to multilateralism and the promotion of shared values, including democracy and human rights; whereas the rules-based international order benefits both the US and the EU; whereas, in this regard, it is of the utmost importance that the EU and the US act jointly and in synergy in support of a rules-based order guaranteed by strong, credible and effective supranational organisations and international institutions;

I.  whereas the partnership between the US and Europe has been essential for the global economic, political and security order for over seven decades; whereas the transatlantic relationship faces many challenges and has been increasingly put under pressure on many issues since the election of President Trump;

J.  whereas, as part of the EU’s Global Strategy, climate policy has been integrated into foreign and security policy, and the links between energy and climate, security and development goals and migration, as well as fair and free trade, have been strengthened;

K.  whereas the EU remains fully committed to a rules-based, open and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system; whereas the WTO is at the core of the global trade system as the only institution that can ensure a genuine level playing field;

L.  whereas both the US and the EU should support the aspirations of the Western Balkans countries to join the transatlantic community; whereas alongside reinforced engagement by the EU, continued US commitment is critical in this respect;

M.  whereas the EU has a growing responsibility to be accountable for its own security, in a strategic environment that has deteriorated dramatically in recent years;

N.  whereas European security is based on the ambition of a common strategic autonomy, as recognised in June 2016 by the 28 Heads of State and Government in the European Union's Global Strategy;

An overarching framework based on shared values

1.  Recalls and insists that the longstanding EU-US partnership and alliance is based and should be based on jointly sharing and promoting together common values including freedom, rule of law, peace, democracy, equality, rules-based multilateralism, market economy, social justice, sustainable development, and respect for human rights, including minority rights, as well as collective security, with peaceful resolution of conflicts as a priority; stresses the importance of strengthening the EU-US relationship, which is one of the main axes of cooperation in a globalised world, so as to achieve these objectives;

2.  Welcomes the meeting between Commission President Juncker and US President Trump in Washington on 25 July 2018 as marking an improvement in bilateral relations; takes note of their statement and of their willingness to work towards a de-escalation of transatlantic tensions in the field of trade; recalls, in this light, the destructive impact of punitive tariffs; reiterates at the same time its support for a broad and comprehensive approach to trade agreements and multilateralism;

3.  Highlights that the EU-US relationship is the fundamental guarantor for global stability and has been the cornerstone of our efforts to ensure peace, prosperity and stability for our societies since the end of the Second World War, as well as the building-up of a multilateral political and economic cooperation and trade system based on rules and values; reaffirms that the EU-US relationship is strategic and genuine and that a strong transatlantic bond is in the interest of both parties and of the world; believes that the current one-sided ‘America first’ policy harms the interests of both the EU and the US, undermines mutual trust and may also have wider implications for global stability and prosperity; recalls the EU's interest in cultivating long-lasting, mutually beneficial partnerships that are based on shared values and principles which prevail over short‑term transactional gains;

4.  Underlines that the partnership goes far beyond foreign policy and trade issues stricto sensu, and also includes other topics such as (cyber) security, economic, digital and financial issues, climate change, energy, culture, as well as science and technology; stresses that these issues are closely interlinked and should be considered under the same overarching framework;

5.  Is concerned at the approaches taken by the US towards addressing global issues and regional conflicts since the election of President Trump; stresses the importance for the EU of transatlantic relations and of sustained dialogue underlining the significance of the issues bringing the EU and the US together; seeks clarity as to whether our transatlantic relationship, which was defined over decades, still has the same relevance for our American partners; stresses that the values-based overarching framework of our partnership is essential to uphold and further strengthen the architecture of the global economy and security; underlines that the issues that bring the US and the EU together should ultimately carry greater weight than what divides them;

6.  Stresses that, in an international system permanently characterised by instability and uncertainty, Europe has a responsibility to build up its strategic autonomy to face the growing number of common challenges; emphasises, therefore, the need for European countries to retain their ability to decide and act alone to defend their interests; recalls that strategic autonomy is both a legitimate ambition for Europe and a priority objective which must be articulated in the industrial and operational fields and in terms of capability;

Strengthening the partnership

7.  Recalls the high potential and the strategic interest of this partnership for both the US and the EU, in aiming to achieve mutual prosperity and security and to strengthen a rules- and values-based order supporting international institutions and providing them with means to improve global governance; calls for the fostering of our dialogue and engagement on all elements of this partnership and at all levels of cooperation, including with civil society organisations; highlights that our decisions and actions have an impact on the global economy and security architecture and therefore should lead by example and in the interests of both partners;

8.  Underlines the responsibilities of the US as a global power, and calls on the US administration to uphold the shared core values that are at the foundation of transatlantic relations, and to ensure, in all circumstances, respect for international law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with the UN Charter and the other international instruments signed or ratified by the US;

9.  Underlines that the EU and the US are each other’s most important partners in a multipolar world, and that unilateral moves only weaken the transatlantic partnership, which has to be a partnership of equals that is based on dialogue and aims to re-establish mutual trust;

10.  Regrets the long delay in appointing a new US Ambassador to the European Union but welcomes the fact of the nomination of the new Ambassador and the subsequent confirmation by the US Senate on 29 June 2018;

11.  Strongly criticises the statements by the new US ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who stated his ambition to empower nationalistic populists throughout Europe, and recalls that the role of diplomats is not to support individual political forces, but to advance mutual understanding and partnership; regards, furthermore, the statements by officials of the Trump administration expressing contempt for the EU and support for xenophobic and populist forces which seek to destroy the European project, as hostile and incompatible with the spirit of the transatlantic partnership;

12.  Calls on the VP/HR, the Council, the Commission and the Member States to enhance cooperation, coordination, consistency and effectiveness in EU policy towards the US, so as to present the EU as a unified and effective international player with a coherent message;

13.  Recalls that the US is a key partner by reason of the convergence of defence and security interests and strong bilateral relations; calls for an EU-US summit to be held as soon as possible in an effort to overcome current challenges and continue working on issues of mutual, global and regional concern;

14.  Considers the presence of US military forces to be important in European countries, where necessary and in line with the continued fulfilment of agreed commitments;

15.  Insists that a structured and strategic dialogue on foreign policy at transatlantic level, also involving the European Parliament and the US Congress, is key to strengthening the transatlantic architecture, including security cooperation, and calls for an expansion of the foreign policy scope of the EU-US dialogue;

16.  Recalls its suggestion to create a Transatlantic Political Council (TPC) for systematic consultation and coordination on foreign and security policy, which would be led by the VP/HR and the US Secretary of State and would be underpinned by regular contacts of political directors;

17.  Welcomes the ongoing and uninterrupted work of the TLD in fostering EU-US relations through parliamentary dialogue and coordination on issues of common interest; reiterates the importance of people-to-people contact and dialogue in strengthening transatlantic relations; calls, therefore, for the intensified engagement of both the US Senate and House of Representatives and the European Parliament; welcomes the relaunch of the bipartisan Congressional EU Caucus for the 115th Congress, and asks the European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) and the EU delegation in Washington to liaise more closely with them;

18.  Recalls that both in the EU and the US, our societies are strong, anchored in liberal democracy and the rule of law, and built on a plurality of actors, including among others our governments, parliaments, decentralised bodies and actors, various political institutions, businesses and trade unions, civil society organisations, free and independent media, religious groups, and academic and research communities; highlights that we should foster links across the Atlantic to promote the merits and importance of our transatlantic partnership at different levels and throughout both the EU and the US, not only focusing on the East and West coasts; calls for enhanced and dedicated programmes with appropriate funding to this effect;

19.  Welcomes the invigorating role of relations between European institutions and US federal states and metropolitan areas on the overall transatlantic relationship, particularly in the case of twinning relationships; highlights, in this context, the cooperation existing on the basis of the Under2 MOU; invites US federal states to strengthen their contacts with EU institutions;

20.  Stresses that cultural exchanges through educational programmes are fundamental to promoting and developing common values and to building bridges between the transatlantic partners; calls, therefore, for the reinforcement and multiplication of, and the facilitation of access to, mobility programmes for students between the US and the EU under Erasmus+;

21.  Expresses particular admiration for the way in which American schoolchildren have responded to the many tragedies involving the use of firearms in schools by standing up for stricter gun laws and against the influence which the National Rifle Association exerts on the legislative process;

Facing global challenges together

22.  Insists that the EU and the US should continue to play key constructive roles by jointly addressing regional conflicts and global challenges based on the principles of international law; stresses that the multilateralism to which Europe is deeply attached is increasingly called in question by the attitudes of the US and other world powers; recalls the importance of multilateralism in maintaining peace and stability, as a vehicle for promoting the values of the rule of law and tackling global issues, and insists that these should be addressed in the relevant international forums; is therefore concerned that recent unilateral decisions of the US – disengagement from key international agreements, revoking of certain commitments, undermining international rules, withdrawal from international forums and the fomenting of diplomatic and trade tensions – may diverge from these common values and put strain on and undermine the relationship; calls on the EU to show unity, firmness and proportionality in its responses to such decisions; calls on the EU Member States, therefore, to avoid any action or move aimed at gaining bilateral advantages to the detriment of a coherent common European approach;

23.  Notes that other major world powers, such as Russia and China, have robust political and economic strategies, many of which may go against and put at risk our joint values, international commitments and the transatlantic partnership as such; recalls that such developments make EU-US cooperation all the more essential so that we can continue to uphold open societies and promote and protect our common rights, principles and values, including compliance with international law; calls in this respect for increased EU-US coordination on aligning and setting up a joint sanctions policy in order to increase its effectiveness;

24.  Takes the view that addressing Russia's attempts to pressure, influence, destabilise and exploit the weaknesses and the democratic choices of Western societies requires a joint transatlantic response; believes, therefore, that the US and the EU should give priority to coordinated actions with respect to Russia, with NATO involvement when appropriate; notes with concern in this regard the statements by the US and Russian presidents in the context of their meeting on 16 July 2018 in Helsinki; recalls the clear danger to our democracies posed by fake news, disinformation and notably the malign interference sources; calls for the stipulation of a political and societal dialogue balancing anonymity and responsibility in social media;

25.  Underlines that security is multi-faceted and intertwined and that its definition not only covers military but also environmental, energy, trade, cyber and communications, health, development, accountability, humanitarian, etc. aspects; insists that security issues should be tackled through a broad approach; in this context, regrets with concerns the proposed substantial budget cuts, for example on state building in Afghanistan on development aid in Africa, on humanitarian aid and on contributions to UN programmes, operations and agencies by the US;

26.  Underlines that a transatlantic trade agreement, balanced and mutually beneficial, would have an impact that would go far beyond trade and economic aspects;

27.  States that NATO is still the main guarantor for the collective defence of Europe; Welcomes the reaffirmation of US commitment to NATO and to European security, and underlines that deepening EU-NATO cooperation also reinforces the transatlantic partnership;

28.  Stresses the importance of cooperation, coordination and synergy effects in the field of security and defence; underlines the importance of spending better on defence, and insists in this regard that burden-sharing should not be solely focused on inputs (the target of spending 2 % of GDP on defence) but also on outputs (capabilities measured in deployable, ready and sustainable forces); recalls that this quantified target input, however, reflects a growing sense of responsibility of Europeans for their own security, made indispensable by the deterioration of their strategic environment; welcomes the fact that defence is becoming a higher priority area for the EU and its Member States, which generates more military efficiencies to the benefit of both the EU and NATO, and welcomes in this context the presence of US troops on EU territory; states that NATO is still crucial for the collective defence of Europe and its allies (Article 5 of the Washington Treaty); stresses that NATO's ability to carry out its tasks remains closely dependent on the strength of the transatlantic relationship;

29.  Calls on the EU to strengthen the European Defence Union with a view to building capacities ensuring the strategic relevance of the EU in defence and security, as for example in creating more synergies and efficiencies in defence spending, research, development procurement, maintenance and training between Member States; insists that more defence cooperation at EU level strengthens the European contribution to peace, security and stability, regionally and internationally, and thereby also advances the objectives of the NATO alliance and reinforces our transatlantic bond; supports, therefore, the recent efforts to step up the European defence architecture, including the European Defence Fund and the newly established Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO);

30.  Welcomes the launch of PESCO and supports its first projects, such as military mobility; stresses that PESCO is of common interest to both the EU and NATO and should be a driver for further cooperation between the two organisations in terms of capability development and the consolidation of an EU pillar in NATO, within the context of each national constitution;

31.  Reiterates the need for the EU and the US to enhance their cooperation in the field of cybersecurity and cyber defence, namely through specialised agencies and task forces such as ENISA, Europol, Interpol, future structures of PESCO and EDF, especially countering cyberattacks and jointly advancing efforts to develop a comprehensive and transparent international framework setting up minimum standards for cybersecurity policies, while upholding fundamental liberties; considers it vital that the EU and NATO step up the sharing of intelligence in order to enable the formal attribution of cyberattacks and consequently enable the imposing of restrictive sanctions for those responsible for cyber-attacks; underlines the significance and positive contribution that the US European Reassurance Initiative has for the security of EU Member States;

32.  Underlines that the growing significance of Artificial Intelligence and machine learning requires enhanced EU-US cooperation and that measures should be taken to advance cooperation among US and European tech companies in order to ensure partnering on development and application is best used;

33.  Calls on the US Congress to include the European Parliament in its cyberthreat information-sharing programme with the parliaments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK;

34.  Underlines the need for a common approach to regulating digital platforms and to increasing their accountability in order to discuss the issues of net censorship, copyright and rights of the rightholders, personal data and the notion of net neutrality; reiterates the need to work together to promote an open, interoperable and secure internet, governed by a multi-stakeholder model which promotes human rights, democracy, the rule of law and freedom of expression and fosters economic prosperity and innovation, while respecting privacy and guarding against deception, fraud and theft; calls for the deployment of joint efforts to develop norms and regulations and promote the applicability of international law in cyberspace;

35.  Reiterates that net neutrality is enshrined in EU law; regrets the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to reverse net neutrality rules; welcomes the recent vote of the US Senate to reverse this decision; calls on the US Congress to follow the Senate decision in order to maintain an open, safe and secure internet that does not allow discriminatory treatment of internet content;

36.  Stresses the need for proper negotiations regarding standardisation, especially in the context of the increasingly rapid development of technology, especially in the IT area;

37.  Emphasises that an important part of strengthening EU-US counter-terrorism efforts includes the protection of critical infrastructure, including advancing common standards and stimulating compatibility and interoperability, as well as a comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism, also via coordination in regional, multilateral and global forums and cooperation in data exchanges relating to terrorist activities; reiterates the need to support mechanisms such as the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and other joint endeavours that can significantly contribute to and make the difference in the fight against terrorism and extremism; reminds both parties that the fight against terrorism must comply with international law and democratic values, fully respecting civil liberties and fundamental human rights;

38.  Expresses its concern over the recent appointment of Gina Haspel as director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), given her poor human rights track record, including her complicity in the CIA rendition and secret detention programme;

39.  Is very concerned at the US administration's reported dismantling of the limited restrictions to the drone programme, which increases the risk of civilian casualties and unlawful killings, as well as the lack of transparency around both the US drone programme and the assistance being provided by some EU Member States; calls on the US and EU Member States to ensure that the use of armed drones complies with their obligations under international law, including international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and that robust binding standards to govern the provision of all forms of assistance for lethal drone operations are established;

40.  Underlines the need for the EU and the US to fight tax evasion and other financial crimes and ensure transparency;

41.  Encourages further enhanced cooperation regarding the fight against tax evasion, tax avoidance, money laundering and terrorist financing, notably in the framework of the EU-US-TFTP (Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme) agreement, which should be strengthened to include data on financial flows associated with foreign interference or illicit intelligence operations; calls, furthermore, on the EU and the US to cooperate within the OECD in the fight against tax evasion and aggressive tax planning by setting international rules and norms to tackle this global problem; stresses that continued law enforcement cooperation is key to enhancing our common security, and calls on the US to ensure bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this field; deplores the partial repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act, as a result of which supervision of American banks has decreased significantly;

42.  Highlights the persisting weaknesses of the Privacy Shield as regards respect of the fundamental rights of data subjects; welcomes and supports the calls for the US legislator to move towards an omnibus privacy and data protection act; points out that in Europe the protection of personal data is a fundamental right and that the US has no rules comparable with the new General Data Processing Regulation (GDPR);

43.  Recalls the widespread transatlantic solidarity in reaction to the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, resulting in the expulsion of Russian diplomats by 20 EU Member States, Canada, the US, Norway and 5 EU aspirant states;

44.  Reiterates its concern over the rejection by Congress in March 2017 of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to ‘Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services’, which in practice eliminates broadband privacy rules that would have required Internet service providers to obtain consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing web browsing data or other private information with advertisers and other companies; considers that this is yet another threat to privacy safeguards in the US;

45.  Recalls that the US remains the only non-EU country in the EU's visa-free list which does not grant visa-free access to citizens of all EU Member States; urges the US to bring the five EU Member States concerned (Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania) into the US Visa Waiver Program as soon as possible; recalls that the Commission is legally obliged to adopt a delegated act – temporarily suspending the exemption from the visa requirement for nationals of third countries which have not lifted the visa requirement for citizens of certain Member States – within a period of 24 months from the date of publication of the notifications in this regard, which ended on 12 April 2016; calls on the Commission, on the basis of Article 265 TFEU, to adopt the required delegated act;

46.  Stresses that the EU is committed to strengthening democracy, human rights, rule of law, prosperity, stability, resilience and security of its neighbours first-hand through non-military means, notably through the implementation of association agreements; calls on the EU and the US to strengthen their cooperation and better coordinate their actions, project and positions in the EU neighbourhood, both Eastern and Southern; recalls that EU development and humanitarian policies around the world also contribute to global security;

47.  Commends the strategic focus and openness of the US towards the region, and recalls that the Balkans represent a challenge for Europe and for the security of the continent as a whole; therefore invites the US to be involved in further joint efforts in the Western Balkans, in particular on strengthening the rule of law, democracy, freedom of expression and security cooperation; recommends more common actions, such as anti-corruption mechanisms and institution-building, in order to provide more security, stability, resilience and economic prosperity to the countries of the region as well as building a role in resolving longstanding issues; takes the view that the EU and US should initiate a new high-level dialogue on the Western Balkans in order to ensure that policy goals and assistance programmes are in alignment, and, furthermore, take relevant measures;

48.  Calls on the EU and the US to play a more active and effective role in the resolution of the conflict on Ukraine’s territory and to support all efforts for a lasting peaceful solution which respects the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and foresees the return of Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine and to urge and support the reform processes and the economic development in Ukraine, which need to be fully in line with Ukraine's commitments and the recommendations made by international organisations; expresses its deepest disappointment at the further lack of progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements and at the deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation in Eastern Ukraine; states therefore, that the sanctions against Russia are still needed and that the US should coordinate its efforts with the EU; calls for closer cooperation in this issue between the VP/HR and the US Special Representative on Ukraine;

49.  Recalls also the importance for the EU and the US to seek a solution to the ‘frozen’ conflicts in Georgia and Moldova;

50.  Recalls that the international order is based on respecting international agreements; regrets in this light the decision by the US not to endorse the conclusions of the G7 Summit in Canada; reiterates its commitment to international law and to universal values, and in particular accountability, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful resolution of disputes; underlines that the consistency of our nuclear non-proliferation strategy is key for our credibility as a key global player and negotiator; calls on the EU and the US to cooperate in facilitating nuclear disarmament and effective measures for nuclear risk reduction;

51.  Stresses that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran is a significant multilateral agreement and a notable diplomatic achievement for multilateral diplomacy and EU diplomacy to promote stability in the region; recalls that the EU is determined to do its utmost to preserve the JCPOA with Iran as a key pillar of the international non-proliferation architecture, with relevance also for the North Korean question, and as a crucial element for the security and stability of the region; reiterates the need to address more critically Iranian activities related to ballistic missiles and regional stability, especially Iran´s involvement in various conflicts in the region, and the situation of human rights and minority rights in Iran that are separate from the JCPOA, in the relevant formats and forums; stresses that transatlantic cooperation in addressing these issues is key; underlines that, according to the multiple reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran is fulfilling its commitments under the JCPOA; criticises strongly President Trump's decision to leave the JCPOA unilaterally and to impose extraterritorial measures on EU companies which are active in Iran; stresses that the EU is determined to protect its interests and those of its companies and investors in the face of the extraterritorial effect of US sanctions; welcomes, in this context, the decision to activate the ‘blocking regulation’ aimed at protecting EU trade interests in Iran from the impact of US extraterritorial sanctions, and calls on the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service to take any further measures deemed necessary to safeguard the JCPOA;

52.  Is concerned about US security and trade policy in East and Southeast Asia, including the political vacuum resulting from the withdrawal of the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); reiterates the importance of constructive engagement on the part of the EU in East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific region, and welcomes in that context the active trade policy of the EU in that part of the world and the security-related EU initiatives, in particular as expressed in the Council conclusions on enhanced EU security cooperation in and with Asia, also for the sake of political and economic balance;

53.  Welcomes the opening of new high-level dialogues with North Korea (DPRK) and the recent summit in Singapore of 12 June 2018, recalls that these talks, which have yet to show any tangible and verifiable results, aim at a peaceful resolution of the tensions and thus at promoting regional and global peace, security and stability; underlines that, at the same time, the international community, including the EU and the US, must maintain pressure on DPRK until it credibly denuclearises by ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and permitting the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) and the IAEA to document its denuclearisation; expresses its concern over the insufficient progress towards denuclearisation made by DPRK, which on 24 August 2018 led President Trump to cancel the planned talks in DPRK with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo;

54.  Reminds the US that it still has not ratified the CTBT, despite being an Annex II state whose signature is necessary for the treaty’s entry into force; repeats the call made by the VP/HR urging world leaders to ratify that treaty; encourages the US to ratify the CTBT as soon as possible and to support the CTBTO further by persuading the remaining Annex II states to ratify the Treaty;

55.  Insists on the upholding of international maritime law, including in the South China sea; in this regard, invites the US to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS);

56.  Calls for enhanced cooperation between the EU and the US for the peaceful resolution of regional conflicts and the proxy war in Syria, as the lack of a common strategy undermines the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and calls on all parties and regional actors involved in the conflict to refrain from violence and any other actions that might aggravate the situation; reaffirms the primacy of the UN-led Geneva process in the resolution of the Syrian conflict, in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2254, negotiated by the parties to the conflict and with the support of key international and regional actors; calls for the full implementation and respect of the UN Security Council resolutions which are being violated by the countries party to the Astana negotiations; calls for joint efforts to guarantee full humanitarian access to those in need and for the independent, impartial, thorough and credible investigation and prosecution of those responsible; also calls for support for, inter alia, the work of the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) on international crimes committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2012;

57.  Recalls that the EU supports the resumption of a meaningful Middle East Peace Process towards a two-state solution, on the basis of the 1967 borders, with an independent, democratic, viable and contiguous Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with a secure state of Israel and its other neighbours, and insists that any action that would undermine these efforts must be avoided; deeply regrets, in this regard, the unilateral decision of the US government to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and to formally recognise the city as Israel's capital; underlines that the question of Jerusalem must be part of a final peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians; stresses that the joint roadmap should be strengthened, and emphasises the need for the US to coordinate with its European partners in its peace efforts in the Middle East;

58.  Commends UNRWA and its dedicated staff for their remarkable and indispensable humanitarian and development work for Palestinian refugees (in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria), which is vital to the security and stability of the region; deeply regrets the decision of the US administration to cut its funding to UNRWA, demands that the US reconsider this decision; underlines the consistent support of the European Parliament and the European Union for the Agency and encourages EU Member States to provide additional funding to guarantee the sustainability of UNRWA activities in the long run;

59.  Encourages further cooperation between EU and US programmes globally, promoting democracy, media freedoms, free and fair elections and the upholding of human rights, including rights of refugees and migrants, women, racial and religious minorities; stresses the importance of the values of good governance, accountability, transparency, and rule of law that underpin the defence of human rights; reiterates the EU’s strong and principled position against the death penalty and in favour of a universal moratorium on capital punishment with a view to its global abolition; underlines the need for cooperation in crisis prevention and peacebuilding, as well as in responding to humanitarian emergencies;

60.  Reiterates that the EU and the US have common interests in Africa, where both must coordinate and intensify their support, at local, regional and multinational levels, for good governance, democracy, human rights, sustainable social development, environmental protection, migration management, economic governance and security issues, as well as peaceful resolution of regional conflicts, fighting corruption, illegal financial transactions as well as violence and terrorism; takes the view that better EU/US coordination, including through enhanced political dialogue and devising joint strategies on Africa while duly taking into account the views of regional organisations and sub-regional groupings, would lead to more effective action and use of resources;

61.  Stresses the importance of the common political, economic and security interests of the EU and the US, with regard to the economic policies of countries such as China and Russia, and recalls that joint efforts, including at WTO level, could be helpful to address issues such as the current imbalances in global trade and the situation in Ukraine; calls on the US administration to refrain from further blocking the nomination of the judges on the WTO appellate body; emphasises the need to cooperate more closely in dealing with China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) strategy, including by developing cooperation in this regard between the EU and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) between the US, India, Japan, and Australia;

62.  Points to the need for better cooperation on Arctic policy, particularly in the context of the Arctic Council, especially as with climate change new navigation routes may open up and natural resources may become available;

63.  Insists that migration is a global phenomenon and should therefore be addressed through cooperation, partnership and protection of human rights and security, but also by managing migration routes and pursuing a global approach at UN level based on respect for international law, notably the 1951 Geneva Convention and its 1967 Protocol; welcomes the efforts made so far in the UN to achieve a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration as well as a global compact on refugees, and regrets the US decision of December 2017 to withdraw from the discussions; calls for a joint policy to fight the root causes of migration;

64.  Advocates enhanced EU-US cooperation on energy issues, including renewable energies, building on the framework of the EU-US Energy Council; therefore renews its call for the meetings to continue; calls, furthermore, for more cooperation on energy research and new technologies, as well as closer cooperation to protect energy infrastructure against cyber-attacks; insists on the need to work together on the security of energy supplies and stresses that further clarification is necessary on how Ukraine’s transit role will continue;

65.  Stresses its concern regarding the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and its potentially divisive role in relation to the energy security and solidary of Member States, and welcomes US support for ensuring energy security in Europe;

66.  Regrets the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement, but praises the continued efforts of individuals, companies, cities and states within the US that are still working towards fulfilling the Paris Agreement and fighting climate change, and highlights the need for a further engagement of the EU with these actors; takes note that climate change is no longer part of the US National Security Strategy; reaffirms the EU’s commitment to the Paris Agreement and to the UN Agenda 2030, and stresses the need to implement them in order to ensure global security and develop a more sustainable economy and society, recalls that a shift towards a green economy entails many opportunities for jobs and growth;

67.  Encourages further cooperation in innovation, science and technology, and calls for the renewal of the US-EU Science and Technology Agreement;

Defending a rules-based trading order in troubled times

68.  Notes that the US was the largest market for EU exports and the second largest source of EU imports in 2017; notes that there are differences in the trade deficits and surpluses between the EU and the US for trade in goods, trade in services, digital trade and foreign direct investment; emphasises that the EU-US trade and investment relationship – being the largest in the world and one which has always been based on shared values – is one of the most important drivers of global economic growth, trade and prosperity; notes further that the EU has a USD 147 billion surplus in goods with the US; notes that EU businesses employ 4.3 million workers in the US;

69.  Stresses that the EU and US are two key players in a globalised world that is evolving with unprecedented speed and intensity, and that given the shared challenges, the EU and the US have a common interest in collaborating and coordinating on trade policy matters to shape the future multilateral trading system and global standards;

70.  Points to the central role the WTO plays within the multilateral system, as the best option for guaranteeing an open, fair and rules-based system which takes account of and balances the many varying interests of its members; reiterates its support for further strengthening the multilateral trading system; supports the work undertaken by the Commission to further work with the US on a positive common response to the current institutional and systemic challenges;

71.  Stresses the role of the WTO in settling trade-related disputes; calls on all WTO members to ensure the proper functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system; regrets in this regard the United States’ blocking of new nominations to fill the vacancies the Appellate Body, which threatens the very functioning of the WTO dispute settlement system; calls on the Commission and all WTO members to explore ways to overcome this impasse on renewing judges at the WTO Appellate Body, and, if necessary by reforming the dispute settlement system; considers that such reforms could aim at ensuring the highest possible level of efficiency and independence of the system, while remaining consistent with the values and the general approach that the EU has constantly defended since the creation of the WTO, notably the promotion of free and fair trade on a global basis under the rule of law and the need for all WTO members to comply with all WTO obligations;

72.  Welcomes, while regretting the lack of results at the Eleventh WTO Ministerial Conference (MC11), the signature of the joint statement on the elimination of unfair market-distorting and protectionist practices by the US, the EU and Japan, which was also highlighted in the G20 statement of July 2017; calls for further cooperation with the US and Japan on this matter to address unfair trading practices such as discrimination, limiting market access, dumping and subsidies;

73.  Calls on the Commission to establish a work plan with the US and other WTO members on the elimination of distorting subsidies in the cotton sector and the fisheries sector (relating in particular to illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing); calls for cooperation in advancing the multilateral agenda on new issues such as e-commerce, digital trade, including digital development, investment facilitation, trade and the environment and trade and gender, and in promoting specific policies to facilitate the participation of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) in the global economy;

74.  Calls for the EU and the US to promote cooperation at international level in order to strengthen international agreements in the field of public procurement, notably the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA);

75.  Calls on the Commission to enter into dialogue with the United States with a view to resuming negotiations on the plurilateral Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA);

76.  Calls for the EU and the US to pool resources to fight unfair trade policies and practices, while respecting multilateral rules and the dispute settlement process in the WTO and avoiding unilateral actions as they are harmful for all global value chains in which EU and US companies operate; deeply regrets the uncertainty in the international trading system caused by the US’s employment of instruments and policy tools (e.g. Section 232 from 1962 and Section 301 from 1974) that were created before the creation of the WTO and its dispute settlement system; notes in this regard that the US decision to impose steel and aluminium tariffs under Section 232 cannot be justified on the grounds of national security, and calls on the US to grant the EU and other allies a full and permanent exemption from the measures; calls on the Commission to respond firmly should these tariffs be used as a way to curb EU exports; also stresses that any sanctions that may be taken by the US in the form of counter-measures on European goods following the publication of the Compliance Appellate Body report in the framework of the US complaint against the EU on measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft would not be legitimate, as 204 of the 218 claims put forward by the US were rejected by the WTO and a further report on the related case against US illegal subsidies is still expected;

77.  Takes note of the continuing bilateral cooperation between the EU and the US on a wide range of regulatory issues, as evidenced by the recently concluded bilateral agreement on prudential measures regarding insurance and reinsurance or the mutual agreement on recognition of inspections of medicine manufacturers; calls on the Commission and the Council to fully respect the role of the European Parliament in this process;

78.  Stresses the crucial importance of intellectual property to the EU and US economies; calls on both parties to support research and innovation on both sides of the Atlantic, guaranteeing high levels of intellectual property protection and ensuring that those who create high-quality innovative products can continue to do so;

79.  Calls for the EU and the US to improve market access for SMEs exporting to the US and to the EU, by means of increasing transparency on existing rules and market openings on both sides of the Atlantic, for instance through an SME portal;

80.  Highlights the importance of the US market to EU SMEs; calls for the EU and the US to address the disproportionate effect that tariffs, non-tariff barriers and technical barriers to trade have on SMEs on both sides of the Atlantic, covering not only a reduction in tariffs but a simplification of customs procedures and, potentially, new mechanisms aimed at helping SMEs to exchange experience and best practices in buying and selling on the EU and US markets;

81.  Calls for the EU and the US, in the framework of their bilateral cooperation, to refrain from tax competition with each other, as this will only lead to a decrease in investment in both economies;

82.  Calls for the EU and the US to agree on a framework for digital trade which respects each side’s existing legal frameworks and agreements, data protection legislation and data privacy rules, which is of particular relevance to the services sector; stresses, in this regard, that the EU and the US should work together in order to encourage third countries to adopt high data protection standards;

83.  Appeals to the EU and the US to scale up cooperation on climate change; calls for the EU and the US to make use of current and future trade negotiations at all levels to ensure the application of internationally agreed standards such as the Paris Agreement, to promote trade in environmentally sound goods, including technology, and to ensure global energy transition, with a clear and coordinated international trade agenda, both to protect the environment and to create opportunities for jobs and growth;

84.  Believes that a potential new agreement on EU-US trade and investment relations cannot be negotiated under pressure nor under threat, and that only a broad, ambitious, balanced and comprehensive agreement covering all trade areas would be in the interest of the EU; notes, in this regard, that the establishment of a possible specific and permanent regulatory and consultation cooperation mechanism could be advantageous; calls on the Commission to resume negotiations with the US under the right circumstances;

85.  Highlights that trade flows increasingly require new, faster, and more secure ways of moving goods and services across borders; calls for the EU and the US, as key trading partners, to collaborate on trade-related digital technology solutions to facilitate trade;

86.  Recalls the importance of the existing EU-US dialogue and cooperation on science and technology; recognises the role of EU-US endeavours in the field of research and innovation as key drivers of knowledge and economic growth, and supports the continuation and expansion of the EU-US Science and Technology Agreement beyond 2018, with a view to fostering research, innovation and new emerging technologies, protecting intellectual property rights, and creating more and better jobs, sustainable trade and inclusive growth;

87.  Shares the US’s concerns about global steel overcapacity; regrets, at the same time, that unilateral, WTO-incompatible measures will only undermine the integrity of a rules-based trading order; underlines that even a permanent EU exemption from US tariffs cannot legitimise this course of action; calls on the Commission to cooperate with the US in strengthening the efforts to fight steel overcapacity within the framework of the G20 Global Forum, in order to exploit the huge potential of multilateral action; reiterates its conviction that joint and concerted actions within the rules-based trading systems are the best way to solve such global problems;

88.  Reasserts the importance for the EU and the US of addressing, in a coordinated and constructive manner, the necessary modernisation of the WTO, with a view to making it more effective, transparent and accountable, as well as ensuring that, in the process of elaborating international trade rules and policies the gender, social, environmental and human rights dimensions are adequately integrated;

89.  Points out that the EU stands for an undistorted market economy, as well as open values and rule-based and fair trade; reiterates its support for the Commission strategy in response to the current trade policy of the United States while complying with the rules of the multilateral trading system; calls for unity among all EU Member States, and calls on the Commission to develop a common approach in addressing this situation; stresses the importance of preserving the unity of EU Member States in this respect, as joint EU actions in the framework of the common commercial policy (CCP) and the EU customs union at international level, as well as bilaterally with the US, have proven to be far more effective than any initiative undertaken by individual Member States; reiterates that the EU stands ready to work with the United States on trade-related issues of mutual concern within the rules of the multilateral trading system;

90.  Regrets President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the JCPOA and the effect this decision will have on EU companies doing business in Iran; supports all EU efforts aimed at preserving the interests of EU companies investing in Iran, in particular the Commission’s decision to activate the Blocking Statute, which demonstrates the EU’s commitment to the JCPOA; believes that the same statute could be used wherever it is appropriate;

91.  Calls for the EU and the US to reinforce cooperation and efforts to implement and expand due diligence schemes for enterprises in order to reinforce the protection of human rights internationally, including in the area of trade in minerals and metals from conflict-affected areas;

92.  Deplores the US’s disengagement from the protection of the environment; regrets, in this respect, President Trump’s decision, when the US is the largest importer of elephant hunting trophies, to lift the ban on imports of such trophies from certain African countries, including Zimbabwe and Zambia;

93.  Calls for the EU and the US to continue and strengthen transatlantic parliamentary cooperation, which should lead to an enhanced and broader political framework to improve trade and investment links between the EU and the US;

94.  Expresses its concern that the US and China might reach an agreement that is not fully compatible with the WTO, which could also undermine our interests and cast a pall over transatlantic trade relations; stresses, therefore, the need for a more global agreement with our principal trading partners, given our shared interests worldwide;

o
o   o

95.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the EEAS, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the accession and candidate countries, the US President, the US Senate and House of Representatives.

(1) OJ L 309, 29.11.1996, p. 1. (2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0068. (3) OJ C 298 E, 8.12.2006, p. 226. (4) OJ C 117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 198. (5) OJ C 153 E, 31.5.2013, p. 124. (6) OJ C 65, 19.2.2016, p. 120. (7) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0435. (8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0493. (9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0492. (10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0042.

European Parliament resolution of 12 September 2018 on the state of EU-China relations (2017/2274(INI))

P8_TA(2018)0343 A8-0252/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the establishment of diplomatic relations between the EU and China as of 6 May 1975,

–  having regard to the EU-China Strategic Partnership launched in 2003,

–  having regard to the main legal framework for relations with China, namely the EEC-China Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement(1), signed in May 1985, which covers economic and trade relations and the EU-China cooperation programme,

–  having regard to the EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation agreed on 21 November 2013,

–  having regard to the structured EU-China political dialogue formally established in 1994 and the High-Level Strategic Dialogue on strategic and foreign policy issues established in 2010, in particular the 5th and 7th EU-China High-Level Strategic Dialogues held in Beijing on 6 May 2015 and 19 April 2017 respectively,

–  having regard to the negotiations for a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which began in 2007,

–  having regard to the negotiations for a Bilateral Investment Agreement, which were started in January 2014,

–  having regard to the 19th EU-China Summit, which took place in Brussels on 1 and 2 June 2017,

–  having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 22 June 2016 on ‘Elements for new EU strategy with China’ (JOIN(2016)0030),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 18 July 2016 on EU Strategy on China,

–  having regard to the joint report from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 24 April 2018 entitled ‘Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Annual Report 2017’ (JOIN(2018)0007),

–  having regard to the Council’s guidelines of 15 June 2012 on the EU’s Foreign and Security Policy in East Asia,

–  having regard to the adoption of the new national security law by the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People’s Congress on 1 July 2015,

–  having regard to the White Paper of 26 May 2015 on China’s military strategy,

–  having regard to the EU-China dialogue on human rights launched in 1995 and the 35th round thereof, held in Brussels on 22 and 23 June 2017,

–  having regard to the more than 60 sectoral dialogues between the EU and China,

–  having regard to the establishment in February 2012 of the EU-China High-Level People‑to-People Dialogue, which accommodates all EU-China joint initiatives in this field,

–  having regard to the scientific and technological cooperation agreement between the European Community and China, which entered into force in 2000(2), and the Science and Technology Partnership Agreement signed on 20 May 2009,

–  having regard to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Climate Agreement, which came into force on 4 November 2016,

–  having regard to the Energy Dialogue between the European Community and China,

–  having regard to the EU-China Round Tables,

–  having regard to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, which took place from 18 to 24 November 2017,

–  having regard to the ‘Environmental Protection Tax Law’ promulgated by the National People’s Congress in December 2016, which came into effect on 1 January 2018,

–  having regard to the fact that the International Organisation for Migration has stated that environmental factors have an impact on national and international migration flows, as people leave places with harsh or deteriorating conditions resulting from accelerated climate change(3),

–  having regard to the 2018 EU-China Tourism Year (ECTY), launched in Venice on 19 January 2018,

–  having regard to the report of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China (FCCC) on working conditions, issued on 30 January 2018 and entitled ‘Access Denied – Surveillance, harassment and intimidation as reporting conditions in China deteriorate’,

–  having regard to EU Statement - Item 4 issued at the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council on 13 March 2018 entitled ‘Human rights situation that requires the Council’s attention’,

–  having regard to the 41st EP-China Inter-Parliamentary Meeting, which took place in Beijing in May 2018,

–  having regard to its resolutions on China, in particular those of 2 February 2012 on the EU foreign policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers: objectives and strategies(4), of 23 May 2012 on EU and China: Unbalanced Trade?(5), of 14 March 2013 on nuclear threats and human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea(6), of 5 February 2014 on a 2030 framework for climate and energy policies(7), of 17 April 2014 on the situation in North Korea(8), of 21 January 2016 on North Korea(9), and of 13 December 2017 on the Annual Report on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP)(10),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 7 September 2006 on EU-China relations(11), of 5 February 2009 on trade and economic relations with China(12), of 14 March 2013 on EU-China relations(13), of 9 October 2013 on the EU-China negotiations for a bilateral investment agreement(14) and on EU-Taiwan trade relations(15), and of 16 December 2015 on EU-China relations(16), and to its recommendation of 13 December 2017 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on Hong Kong, 20 years after handover(17),

–  having regard to its human rights resolutions of 27 October 2011 on Tibet, in particular self-immolation by nuns and monks(18), of 14 June 2012 on the human rights situation in Tibet(19), of 12 December 2013 on organ harvesting in China(20), of 15 December 2016 on the cases of the Larung Gar Tibetan Buddhist Academy and of Ilham Tohti(21), of 16 March 2017 on EU priorities for the UN Human Rights Council sessions in 2017(22), of 6 July 2017 on the cases of Nobel laureate Liu Xiabo and Lee Ming-che(23) and of 18 January 2018 on the cases of human rights activists Wu Gan, Xie Yang, Lee Ming-che and Tashi Wangchuk, and the Tibetan monk Choekyi(24),

–  having regard to the EU arms embargo introduced after the Tiananmen crackdown of June 1989, as supported by Parliament in its resolution of 2 February 2006 on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of CFSP(25),

–  having regard to the nine rounds of talks held from 2002 to 2010 between high-ranking representatives of the Chinese Government and the Dalai Lama, to China’s White Paper on Tibet entitled ‘Tibet’s Path of Development Is Driven by an Irresistible Historical Tide’ and published by China’s State Council Information Office on 15 April 2015, and to the 2008 Memorandum and the 2009 Note on Genuine Autonomy, both presented by the representatives of the 14th Dalai Lama,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0252/2018),

A.  whereas the 19th EU-China Summit in 2017 advanced a bilateral strategic partnership, which has a global impact, and highlighted joint commitments to addressing global challenges, common security threats and the promotion of multilateralism; whereas there are many areas where constructive cooperation could bring mutual benefits, including in international fora such as the UN and G20; whereas the EU and China have confirmed their intention to step up cooperation on the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement in combating climate change, cutting back on fossil fuels, promoting clean energy and reducing pollution; whereas further cooperation and coordination between the two sides in this sector is needed, including in the field of research and the exchange of best practices; whereas China has adopted a carbon emissions trading scheme based on the EU’s ETS; whereas the EU’s vision for multilateral governance is one of a rules-based order and based on universal values such as democracy, human rights, the rule of law, transparency and accountability; whereas in the current geopolitical context, it is more important than ever to promote multilateralism and a rules-based system; whereas the EU expects its relationship with China to be one of reciprocal benefit in both political and economic terms; whereas it expects China to assume responsibilities in line with its global impact and to support the rules-based international order from which it, too, benefits;

B.  whereas cooperation between the EU and China on foreign policy, security and defence, and in the fight against terrorism is extremely important; whereas cooperation between the two sides was essential in securing the Iranian nuclear deal; whereas China’s stance played a key role in creating space for negotiations in the North Korean crisis;

C.  whereas largely ignored in Europe, the Chinese leadership has gradually and systematically stepped up its efforts to translate its economic weight into political influence, notably through strategic infrastructure investments and new transport links, as well as strategic communication aimed at influencing European political and economic decision-makers, the media, universities and academic publishers and the wider public in order to shape perceptions about China and convey a positive image of the country, by building up ‘networks’ of supportive European organisations and individuals across societies; whereas China’s surveillance of the large number of mainland students now studying across Europe is cause for concern as are its efforts to control people in Europe who have fled China;

D.  whereas the 16+1 format between China on one hand, and 11 Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEs) and five Balkan countries on the other, was established in 2012 in the aftermath of the financial crisis and as part of Chinese sub-regional diplomacy to develop large-scale infrastructure projects and strengthen economic and trade cooperation; whereas planned Chinese investment and funding in these countries is substantial, but not as important as EU investment and engagement; whereas European countries participating in this format should consider giving greater weight to the notion of one voice for the EU in its relations with China;

E.  whereas China is the fastest-growing market for EU food products;

F.  whereas China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), including China’s Arctic Policy, is the most ambitious foreign policy initiative the country has ever adopted, comprising geopolitical and security-related dimensions and therefore going beyond the claimed scope of economic and trade policy; whereas BRI was further strengthened with the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in 2015; whereas the EU insists on a multilateral governance structure and on non-discriminatory implementation of the BRI; whereas the European side wishes to guarantee that any connectivity project under BRI will honour the obligations stemming from the Paris accord as well as ensure that other international environmental, labour and social standards and the rights of indigenous people are upheld; whereas the Chinese infrastructure projects could create large debts for the European governments to Chinese state-owned banks offering loans on non-transparent terms and create few jobs in Europe; whereas some BRI-related infrastructure projects have already placed third governments in a state of over‑indebtedness; whereas so far the lion’s share of all BRI-related contracts have been awarded to Chinese companies; whereas China is using some of its industrial standards in BRI-related projects in a discriminatory way; whereas BRI-related projects must not be awarded in a non‑transparent tender; whereas within the BRI, China is using a multiplicity of channels; whereas 27 national EU ambassadors to Beijing have recently compiled a report that sharply criticises the BRI project, denouncing it as being designed to hamper free trade and put Chinese companies at an advantage; whereas BRI is regrettably devoid of any kind of human rights safeguards;

G.  whereas China’s diplomacy has increasingly emerged as a stronger player from the 19th Party Congress and this year’s National People’s Congress (NPC), with at least five high-ranking officials in charge of the country’s foreign policy and a substantial boost to the budget of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; whereas a newly created State International Development Cooperation Agency will be in charge of coordinating China’s growing budget for foreign aid;

H.  whereas China introduced limits on terms of office in the 1980s in response to the excesses of the Cultural Revolution; whereas on 11 March 2018 the NPC voted almost unanimously in favour of abrogating the limit of two consecutive terms for the posts of President and Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China;

I.  whereas the Chinese top leadership, while claiming non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs, regularly calls into question Western countries’ political system in its official communications;

J.  whereas on 11 March 2018, the NPC endorsed the establishment of a National Supervisory Commission, a new party-controlled body designed to institutionalise and expand control over all civil servants in China, listing it as a state body within China’s Constitution;

K.  whereas in 2014, the State Council of China announced detailed plans to create a Social Credit System with the aim of rewarding behaviour that the Party considers financially, economically and socio-politically responsible, while sanctioning non-compliance with its policies; whereas the project of social credit scoring will likely also have an impact on foreigners living and working in China, including EU citizens, and entail consequences for EU and other foreign companies operating in the country;

L.  whereas it is clear that in some regions of China, the livelihoods of the rural population will deteriorate because of variations in temperature and precipitation and through other climate extremes; whereas relocation planning has become an effective adaptation policy option to reduce climate-induced vulnerability and poverty(26);

M.  whereas the human rights situation in China has continued to deteriorate with the government stepping up its hostility toward peaceful dissent, the freedom of expression and religion, and the rule of law; whereas civil society activists and human rights defenders are being detained, prosecuted and sentenced on the basis of vague charges such as ‘subverting state power’ and ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble’, and are often detained incommunicado at undisclosed locations, without access to medical care or legal representation; whereas detained human rights defenders and activists are sometimes held in ‘residential surveillance in a designated location’, a method used to cut off detainees from contact, during which torture and ill-treatment are frequently reported; whereas China continues to deny free speech and the freedom to inform, and a high number of journalists, bloggers and independent voices have been imprisoned; whereas in its strategic framework on human rights and democracy, the EU has pledged that human rights, democracy, and rule of law will be promoted ‘in all areas of the EU’s external actions without exception’ and that the EU will ‘place human rights at the centre of its relations with all third countries including strategic partners’; whereas the EU-China summits have to be used to bring about concrete results in the field of human rights, namely the release of jailed human rights defenders, lawyers and activists;

N.  whereas EU diplomats have at times been prevented by the Chinese authorities from observing trials or visiting human rights defenders, work that is in line with the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders;

O.  whereas China has set up a sprawling state architecture of digital surveillance, ranging from predictive policing to the arbitrary collection of biometric data in an environment devoid of privacy rights;

P.  whereas the Chinese Government has passed a slew of new laws, in particular, the State Security Law, passed on 1 July 2015, the Counterterrorism Law, the Cybersecurity Law and the Overseas NGO Management Law (ONGO Law), that designate public activism and peaceful criticism of the government as state security threats, strengthen the censorship, surveillance and control of individuals and social groups and deter individuals from campaigning for human rights;

Q.  whereas the ONGO Law, which came into force on 1 January 2017, is one of the biggest challenges to international NGOs (INGOs) because this law regulates all activities in China funded by INGOs and provincial security officers are primarily responsible for implementing the ONGO Law;

R.  whereas the new regulations on religious affairs that took effect on 1 February 2018 are more restrictive towards religious groups and activities and force them to fall more closely into line with party policies; whereas the new rules threaten persons associated with religious communities that do not have legal status in the country with the imposition of fines when they travel abroad for the purpose of religious education, in the broad sense, and even more so for pilgrimages, which are subject to fines amounting to a multiple of the lowest salary; whereas freedom of religion and conscience has reached a new low since the start of the economic reforms and the opening up of China in the late 1970s; whereas religious communities have been facing increasing repression in China, with Christians, both in underground and state‑sanctioned churches, being targeted through the harassment and detention of believers, the demolition of churches and the crackdown on Christian gatherings;

S.  whereas the situation in Xinjiang, where 10 million Muslim Uighurs and ethnic Kazakhs live, has rapidly deteriorated, in particular since President Xi’s ascension to power, as absolute control of Xinjiang has been elevated to a top priority, driven by both periodic terrorist attacks in or allegedly connected to Xinjiang by Uighurs and the strategic location of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region for the BRI; whereas an extrajudicial detention programme has been established, holding tens of thousands of people who are forced to undergo political ‘re-education’, as well as the development of a sophisticated network of invasive digital surveillance, including facial recognition technology and data collection, mass deployment of police, and strict restrictions on religious practices and the Uighur language and customs;

T.  whereas the situation in Tibet has deteriorated over the past few years, in spite of economic growth and infrastructure development, with the Chinese Government curtailing a wide range of human rights under the pretext of security and stability, and engaging in relentless attacks against Tibetan identity and culture; whereas the surveillance and control measures have been on the increase over the past few years as well as arbitrary detentions, acts of torture and ill-treatment; whereas the Chinese Government has created in Tibet an environment in which there are no limits to state authority, a climate of fear is pervasive, and every aspect of public and private life is tightly controlled and regulated; whereas in Tibet, any acts of non-violent dissent or criticism of state policies with regard to ethnic or religious minorities can be considered as ‘splittist’ and therefore criminalised; whereas access to the Tibet Autonomous Region today is more restricted than ever for foreigners, including EU citizens, particularly for journalists, diplomats and other independent observers, and even more difficult for EU citizens of a Tibetan background; whereas no progress has been made in the resolution of the Tibetan crisis in the last few years as the last round of peace talks took place in 2010; whereas the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Tibet has led to an increase of self-immolation cases with a total number of 156 since 2009;

U.  whereas the People’s Republic of China (PRC) State Council issued a white paper on the practice of the ‘one country, two systems’ policy in Hong Kong on 10 June 2014, stressing that the autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) is ultimately subject to the central PRC Government’s authorisation; whereas over the years the people of Hong Kong have witnessed mass demonstrations in favour of democracy, media freedom and the full implementation of the Basic Law; whereas Hong Kong’s traditional open society has paved the way for the development of a genuine and independent civil society that actively and constructively takes part in the public life of the SAR;

V.  whereas the contrasting political developments of the PRC and Taiwan, with an increasingly authoritarian and nationalist party-state regime on one side and a multi-party democracy on the other, raises the danger of an escalation of the cross-strait relations; whereas the EU adheres to the ‘one China’ policy as regards Taiwan, and supports the ‘one country, two systems’ principle as regards Hong Kong;

W.  whereas after over three years of talks, China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) agreed in August 2017 on a one-page framework as a basis for future discussions on a Code of Conduct (CoC) for all parties in the South China Sea; whereas the disputed Chinese land reclamation has largely been completed in the Spratly Islands, but continued last year in the Paracel Islands further north;

X.  whereas China too is becoming a more active and important external player in the Middle East due to its obvious economic, security and geopolitical interests;

Y.  whereas China is increasingly providing Official Development Aid (ODA) and is emerging as a major actor in development policy, providing a much-needed boost to development policy but at the same time raising concerns about local ownership of projects;

Z.  whereas China’s presence and investments in Africa have been greatly increasing and this has led to an exploitation of natural resources often without any consultation of local populations;

1.  Reasserts that the EU-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is one of the most important partnerships for the EU and that there is still much more potential for deepening this relationship and for further cooperation in the international arena; stresses the importance of strengthening cooperation and coordination in the field of global governance and international institutions, notably at UN and G20 level; stresses that in the context of a complex, globalised and multipolar world where China has become a significant economic and political actor, the EU has to maintain opportunities for a constructive dialogue and cooperation and to promote all necessary reforms in areas of common interest; reminds China of its international obligations and responsibilities in terms of contributing to peace and global security, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council;

2.  Recalls that the EU-China Comprehensive Strategic Partnership is founded on a shared commitment to openness and working together as part of a rules-based international system; stresses that both sides have committed to establishing a transparent, just and equitable system of global governance, sharing the responsibility for promoting peace, prosperity and sustainable development; recalls that the EU’s engagement with China should be principled, practical and pragmatic, staying true to its interests and values; is concerned that the increase in China’s global economic and political weight over the past decade has put the shared commitments at the core of EU-China relations to the test; underlines China's responsibilities as a global power and calls on the authorities to ensure in all circumstances respect for international law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms, in accordance with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other international instruments signed or ratified by China; calls on the Council, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission to ensure that EU-China cooperation is grounded in the rule of law, universality of human rights, the international human rights commitments undertaken by both sides and the commitment to progress towards the achievement of the highest standard of human rights protection; stresses that reciprocity, a level playing field and fair competition across all areas of cooperation should be strengthened;

3.  Stresses that addressing global and regional challenges, such as security, disarmament, non-proliferation, counter-terrorism and cyberspace, cooperation on peace, climate change, energy, oceans and resource efficiency, deforestation, wildlife trafficking, migration, global health, development and combatting the destruction of cultural heritage sites and the looting and trafficking of illegal antiquities all require genuine partnership between the EU and China; urges that the EU capitalise on China’s commitment to tackling global problems such as climate change and further extend successful cooperation in peacekeeping with China, as one of the biggest contributors to the UN budget and an increasing contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping operations, to other areas of joint interest while promoting multilateralism and a global governance based on respect for international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law; welcomes in this regard the successful counter-piracy cooperation since 2011 in the Gulf of Aden; calls on the EU and its Member States to proactively promote the EU’s economic and political interests and to defend EU values and principles; stresses that multilateralism is one of the core EU values with regard to global governance and that it must be actively safeguarded when dealing with China;

4.  Notes that the High Representative's and the Commission's Joint Communication ‘Elements for a new EU Strategy on China’, together with the Council conclusions of 18 July 2016, provide the policy framework for EU engagement with China over the coming years;

5.  Underlines that the Council has concluded that in conducting their relations with China, Member States, the High Representative and the Commission will cooperate to ensure consistency with EU law, rules and policies, and that the overall outcome is beneficial for the EU as a whole;

6.  Recalls that as it continues to grow and integrate into the global economy through its ‘going out’ policy as announced in 2001, China seeks to increase its access to the European market for Chinese goods and services and to technology and know-how in order to support plans such as ‘Made in China 2025’, and to strengthen its political and diplomatic influence in Europe; stresses that these ambitions have intensified in particular in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis, shaping new dynamics in EU-China relations;

7.  Calls on those Member States participating in the 16+1 format to ensure that their participation in this format enables the EU to have one voice in its relationship with China; calls on those Member States to carry out sound analysis and scrutiny of suggested infrastructure projects involving all the stakeholders and to ensure no compromising of national and European interests for short-term financial support and long- term commitments to Chinese involvement in strategic infrastructure projects and potentially greater political influence, which would undermine the EU’s common positions on China; is aware of China's increasing influence on the infrastructure and markets of the EU candidate countries; underlines the necessity of transparency of the format by inviting the EU institutions to its meetings and keeping them fully briefed on its activities in order to ensure that relevant aspects are coherent with EU policy and legislation and give all sides mutual benefits and opportunities;

8.  Notes the Chinese interest in strategic infrastructure investments in Europe; concludes that the Chinese Government is using the BRI as a very effective narrative framework for elements of its foreign policy and that EU public diplomacy efforts need to be strengthened in the light of this development; supports the call on China to adhere to the principles of transparency in public procurement as well as environmental and social standards; calls on all EU Member States to support EU public diplomacy responses; suggests that data on all Chinese infrastructure investments in EU Member States and countries in process of EU accession negotiations be shared with the EU institutions and other Member States; recalls that such investments are part of an overall strategy to have Chinese state-controlled or state-funded companies take control of banking and the energy sector, as well as other supply chains; underlines six overarching challenges of the BRI: a multilateral approach to BRI governance; very little local labour employed, receiving country and third-country contractor involvement extremely limited (about 86 percent of BRI projects involve Chinese contractors), construction materials and equipment imported from China, lack of transparency on tenders, and the potential use of Chinese standards instead of international standards; insists that the BRI must include human rights safeguards, and believes that it is of the utmost importance to develop synergies and projects in full transparency and with the involvement of all the stakeholders and in line with EU legislation, while complementing EU policies and projects in order to deliver benefits for all countries along the planned routes; welcomes the setting-up of the EU-China Connectivity Platform, which promotes cooperation in transport infrastructure across the Eurasian continent; notes with satisfaction that several infrastructure projects have been identified, and underlines that projects should be implemented on the basis of key principles such as promotion of economically, socially and environmentally sustainable projects, geographic balance, and a level playing field among investors and project promoters, as well as transparency;

9.  Takes positive note that the EU policy on China forms part of a rounded policy approach to the Asia-Pacific region, taking full advantage and account of the EU's close relations with partners such as the United States, Japan, South Korea, the ASEAN countries, Australia and New Zealand;

10.  Stresses that EU-China cooperation should be more people-oriented and deliver more real benefits to citizens in order to build mutual trust and understanding; calls on the EU and China to live up to the promises made on the occasion of the 4th EU-China High Level People-to-People Dialogue in 2017, and to promote more interactions among people, for instance by intensifying cultural cooperation in the field of education, training, youth and gender equality and joint initiatives in the field of people-to-people exchange;

11.  Draws attention to the need for greater support to students and scholars from China who are in Europe, so that they are less vulnerable to being pressured by Chinese authorities to surveil one another and to become tools of the Chinese state, as well as the importance of looking very carefully at substantial mainland funding to academic institutions across Europe;

12.  Welcomes the outcome of the 4th EU-China High Level People-to-People Dialogue that took place on 13 and14 November 2017 in Shanghai; stresses that the High Level People-to-People Dialogue should help build mutual trust and consolidate intercultural understanding between EU and China;

13.  Welcomes the 2018 EU-China Tourism Year (ECTY); highlights that besides its economic significance, it is a fine example of EU cultural diplomacy in the framework of the EU-China strategic partnership, as well as a way to develop a better understanding between European and Chinese peoples; underlines that the 2018 EU-China Tourism Year coincides with the European Year of Cultural Heritage and that an increasing number of Chinese tourists highly value the cultural richness of Europe;

14.  Calls on the EU Member States to urgently and decisively step up collaboration and unity on their China policies, including in the UN fora, in view of the EU’s failure, for the first time ever, to make a joint statement on China’s human rights records at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in June 2017; strongly suggests taking advantage of Europe’s much greater collective bargaining power with China, and that Europe defends its democracies so as to better face up to China’s systematic efforts to influence its politicians and civil society, in order to shape an opinion more conducive to China’s strategic interests; in that regard calls on the larger Member States to use their political and economic weight towards China to promote the EU’s interests; is concerned that China is also attempting to influence educational and academic institutions and their curricula; proposes that the EU and the Member States foster high-quality European thinktanks on China in order to ensure the availability of independent expert advice for strategic orientations and decision-making;

15.  Underlines that the promotion of human rights and the rule of law must be at the core of the EU's engagement with China; firmly condemns the ongoing harassment, arbitrary arrest and prosecution of human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists, bloggers, academics and labour rights defenders and their families without due process, including foreign nationals both in mainland China and abroad; underlines that a vibrant civil society and the work of human rights defenders are key to an open and prosperous society; stresses the importance for the EU to robustly act to promote full respect for human rights in the context of its relationship with China, focusing on both immediate results such as to end the government’s crackdown on human rights defenders, civil society actors and dissidents, to end all judicial harassment and intimidation against them, to immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners, including EU citizens and medium/long-term goals such as legal and policy reforms in line with international human rights law. and to develop, implement and continue to adapt a strategy to maintain visibility of EU action on human rights in China, including a strategy on public communications; insists that EU and Member State diplomats must not be prevented or obstructed from implementing the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders; commits that the EU must prioritise providing protection and support for human rights defenders at risk;

16.  Calls on the EU and its Member States to pursue a more ambitious, united and transparent policy with regard to human rights in China and to substantially consult and engage with civil society, in particular ahead of high-level meetings and human rights dialogues; underlines that the EU at the 35th round of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue emphasised the deteriorating situation for civil and political rights in China, including restrictions on freedom of expression; calls on China to act upon the issues raised at the Human Rights Dialogue, to fulfil its international obligations and to respect its own constitutional safeguards for upholding the rule of law; insists on maintaining a regular, high-level and results-oriented human rights dialogue; is concerned that the evaluation of human rights dialogues with China have never been public and has never been open to independent groups from China; calls on the EU to set clear benchmarks for progress, to ensure more transparency and to involve independent Chinese voices in the discussion; calls on the EU and its Member States to disclose, collect and address all forms of visa harassment (delayed or denied visa issuance/access with no reasons given and pressure applied by Chinese authorities during the application process in forms of ‘interviews’ with Chinese interlocutors unwilling to identify themselves) regarding scholars, journalists or members of civil society organisations;

17.  Is seriously worried about the findings of the FCCC’s 2017 report that the Chinese Government has intensified its attempts to deny or restrict the access of foreign journalists to large parts of the country while increasing the use of the visa renewal process to pressure unwanted correspondents and news organisations; urges the EU and its Member States to demand from the Chinese authorities reciprocity in press freedom, and warns against the pressure foreign correspondents are experiencing at home as Chinese diplomats reach out to media headquarters to criticise the work of reporters in the field;

18.  Notes that the PRC is the EU’s second-largest trading partner and that the EU is the PRC’s largest trading partner; stresses the constant growth in trade between the two but considers the balance of trade in goods to be skewed in the PRC’s favour; calls for a cooperative approach and a constructive attitude in order to effectively address matters of concern and exploit the great potential of EU-PRC trade; calls on the Commission to intensify cooperation and dialogue with the PRC;

19.  Notes the findings of recent investigations that since 2008, China has acquired assets in Europe worth USD 318 billion; notes that this figure does not include several mergers, investments and joint ventures;

20.  Notes that the PRC is a major global trade player and that the country’s large market could in principle represent, particularly in the current global trade context, a good opportunity for the EU and for European businesses; recalls that Chinese companies, including state-owned enterprises, are benefiting from wide open markets in the EU; acknowledges the remarkable results of the PRC in lifting hundreds of millions of citizens out of poverty over the past four decades;

21.  Notes that EU outward foreign direct investment (FDI) in the PRC has steadily decreased since 2012, particularly in the traditional manufacturing sector, with a parallel increase in investment in high-tech services, utilities, and agricultural and construction services, while the PRC’s investment in the EU has grown exponentially over the past few years; acknowledges that since 2016 the PRC has become a net investor in the EU; takes note of the fact that in 2017, 68 % of Chinese investments into Europe came from state-owned enterprises; is concerned about state-orchestrated acquisitions that might hinder European strategic interests, public security objectives, competitiveness and employment;

22.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposal on an FDI screening mechanism in the areas of security and public order, which represents one of the EU’s endeavours to adapt to a changing global environment, without specifically targeting any one of the EU’s international trade partners; cautions that the mechanism should not lead to protectionism in disguise; calls, nonetheless, for its swift adoption;

23.  Welcomes the commitments made by President Xi Jinping to further open up the Chinese market to foreign investors and improve the investment environment, to complete the revision of the negative list on foreign investment and lift restrictions for European companies, and to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights and level the playing field by making the PRC’s market more transparent and better regulated; calls for the fulfilment of these commitments;

24.  Reiterates the importance of ceasing all discriminatory practices against foreign investors; recalls, in this respect, that such reforms will benefit both Chinese and European businesses, especially micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs);

25.  Calls on the Commission to promote the Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a gold standard in its trade relations with China; points out the need for a systematic dialogue with China and other WTO partners on regulatory requirements relating to the digitisation of our economies and its multifaceted impact on: trade, production chains, cross-border digital services, 3D printing, consumption patterns, payments, taxes, the protection of personal data, property rights issues, the provision and protection of audiovisual services, the media and people-to-people contacts;

26.  Calls on the PRC to accelerate the process of joining the WTO Government Procurement Agreement and to submit an accession offer so as to give European companies access to its market on an equivalent basis to the access that Chinese companies already enjoy in the EU; regrets the fact that the Chinese public procurement market remains largely closed to foreign suppliers, with European businesses suffering from discrimination and a lack of access to the Chinese market; calls on the PRC to allow non-discriminatory access to European businesses and workers on public procurement; calls on the Council to swiftly adopt the International Procurement Instrument; calls on the Commission to be vigilant against contracts awarded to foreign enterprises suspected of dumping practices and to take action where necessary;

27.  Calls for coordinated cooperation with the PRC on the Belt and Road Initiative on the basis of reciprocity, sustainable development, good governance, and open and transparent rules, in particular as regards public procurement; regrets, in this respect, the fact that the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the European Investment Fund and the PRC’s Silk Road Fund (SRF) and that signed by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Asian Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the New Development Bank and the World Bank have not yet improved the business environment for European enterprises and workers; regrets the absence of professional sustainable impact assessments in various projects relating to Belt and Road, and underlines the importance of investment quality, particularly with regard to positive effects on employment, labour rights, environmentally sound production, and the mitigation of climate change, in line with multilateral governance and international standards;

28.  Supports the ongoing negotiations on a comprehensive EU-PRC Investment Agreement, which were launched in 2013, and invites the PRC to engage more in this process; calls on both parties to renew their efforts to advance the negotiations, which are aimed at achieving a genuine level playing field for European businesses and workers, and to ensure reciprocity in market access, striving for specific provisions on SMEs and public procurement; calls on both parties, moreover, to seize the opportunity provided by the investment agreement to increase their cooperation in the area of environmental and labour rights, and to include a sustainable development chapter in the text;

29.  Recalls that EU companies face a growing number of restrictive market access measures in the PRC owing to joint venture obligations in several sectors of industry and further discriminatory technical requirements, including forced data localisation and source code disclosure, and regulatory rules for foreign-owned business; welcomes, in this regard, the Notice on Several Measures on Promoting Further Openness and Active Utilisation of Foreign Investment, issued by the PRC’s State Council in 2017, but regrets the absence of a timeline for achieving its goals; calls on the Chinese authorities, therefore, to swiftly materialise these commitments;

30.  Calls for both the EU and its Member States and China to intensify cooperation to build up circular economies, as this urgent need has become even more visible following China’s legitimate decision to ban imports of plastic waste from Europe; calls on both partners to intensify economic and technological cooperation in order to prevent global production chains, trade and transport, and tourism services from causing an unacceptable build-up of plastic pollution in our oceans;

31.  Calls on the PRC to strive to play a responsible role on the global stage, with complete cognisance of the responsibilities arising from its economic presence and performance in third countries and on global markets, including by lending its active support to the multilateral rules-based trading system and the WTO; believes, in the present context of global value chains, that heightening international trade tensions should be resolved through negotiations, while reiterating the need to pursue multilateral solutions; calls, in this respect, for the fulfilment of obligations enshrined in the PRC’s Accession Protocol to the WTO and the protection of its operative mechanisms; underlines the notification and transparency obligations stemming from WTO agreements as regards subsidies, and expresses concerns about the current practice of the direct or indirect subsidisation of Chinese companies; calls for coordination with major EU trading partners on joint efforts and action to tackle and eliminate state-induced market distortions affecting global trade;

32.  Regrets the fact that the PRC, despite the completion of the procedure for reforming the European anti-dumping duties calculation methodology, has not yet withdrawn its case against the EU at the WTO appellate body;

33.  Expresses concern at the escalating tariff measures being taken by China and the United States;

34.  Expresses concern at the number of restrictions that European companies, and MSMEs in particular, continue to face in the PRC, including the 2017 Foreign Investment Catalogue and the 2017 Free Trade Zone Negative List, as well as in sectors covered by the ‘Made in China 2025’ plan; calls for the rapid reduction of these restrictions in order to fully harness the potential of cooperation and synergies between Industry 4.0 schemes in Europe and the ‘Made in China 2025’ strategy, in view of the need to restructure our production sectors towards intelligent manufacturing, including cooperation in the development and definition of respective industrial standards in multilateral fora; recalls the importance of reducing government subsidies in the PRC;

35.  Calls on the PRC to stop making market access increasingly conditional on forced technology transfers, as stated in the European Union Chamber of Commerce’s 2017 position paper on China;

36.  Calls for the resumption of negotiations on the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA), by building on the fruitful collaboration between the EU and the PRC in the fight against climate change and the strong joint commitment towards the implementation of the Paris Agreement; stresses the trade potential of technological cooperation on clean technologies;

37.  Notes with concern the conclusions of the Commission’s report on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries, which singles out the PRC as the chief concern; reiterates the need to ensure protection for the European knowledge-based economy; calls on the PRC to fight the illicit use of European licences by Chinese companies;

38.  Calls on the Commission to provide for a European Union presence at the China International Import Expo to be held in Shanghai in November 2018, and to provide SMEs, in particular, with the opportunity to showcase their work; calls on the Commission to reach out to chambers of commerce, particularly in Member States that are currently less involved in trade with China, in order to promote this opportunity;

39.  Expresses concern about the PRC’s state measures that caused trade distortions, including industrial overcapacity in raw material sectors such as the steel and aluminium sectors, among others; recalls the commitments made at the first ministerial meeting of the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity in 2017 to refrain from providing market-distorting subsidies, but regrets the failure of the Chinese delegation to deliver data on capacity; calls on the PRC to fulfil its commitment to identify and disclose data on its subsidies and support measures for the steel and aluminium industries; recognises the link between global industrial overcapacity and the surge in protectionist trade measures, and continues to urge multilateral cooperation in order to address the structural concerns behind overcapacity; welcomes the proposed tripartite action by the US, Japan and the EU at WTO level;

40.  Highlights the importance of an ambitious EU-PRC agreement on geographical indications (GIs), based on the highest international standards, and welcomes the EU-PRC 2017 joint announcement on the list of 200 Chinese and European GIs, for which protection will be the subject of negotiations; considers, however, that given that negotiations were launched in 2010, the list is a very modest outcome, and regrets the lack of progress in this regard; calls for an early conclusion of negotiations and urges both parties to consider the opportunity of the upcoming EU-PRC Summit as a good occasion to score effective progress to this end; reiterates the need to cooperate further in the field of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures in order to reduce burdens on EU exporters;

41.  Welcomes China’s decision to delay by one year the implementation of new certifications for imported food and drink, which would have dramatically reduced food imports from the EU; welcomes, moreover, the delay in implementation of new standards for electric vehicles and calls for substantive dialogue and increased coordination regarding such initiatives;

42.  Recommends that the EU and the Chinese Government launch a joint initiative within the G20 to establish a Global Forum on Aluminium Excess Capacity, with a mandate to address the entire value chain of the bauxite, alumina and aluminium industry, including raw material prices and environmental aspects;

43.  Calls on the Commission to actively monitor the Chinese trade distortion measures, which are affecting EU companies’ positions in global markets, and to take appropriate action in the WTO and other fora, including through dispute settlement;

44.  Notes that a new Chinese foreign investment law is in the process of being drafted; urges the Chinese parties concerned to strive for transparency, accountability, predictability and legal certainty, and to take into account the proposals and expectations of the current EU-China dialogue on the trade and investment relationship;

45.  Express concerns about the new cybersecurity law, which includes, inter alia, new regulatory barriers for foreign companies that sell telecommunications and IT equipment and services; regrets the fact that such recently adopted measures, together with the establishment of Chinese Communist Party groups within private companies, including foreign firms, and measures such as the NGO law, make the overall business environment in the PRC more hostile for foreign and private economic operators;

46.  Notes that in 2016 the PRC’s banking system surpassed that of the euro area as the world’s largest; calls on the PRC to allow foreign banking enterprises to compete on an equal footing with domestic institutions and to cooperate with the EU in the area of financial regulation; welcomes the PRC’s decision to reduce tariffs on 187 consumer goods and the removal of foreign ownership caps for banks;

47.  Recalls its 2015 report on relations between the EU and the PRC, in which it called for the launch of negotiations for a bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan; points out that the Commission has on more than one occasion announced the launch of negotiations on investment with Hong Kong and Taiwan, but deems it regrettable that no such negotiations have actually begun; reiterates its support for a bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan and Hong Kong; recognises that both partners could also act as a springboard to mainland China for EU businesses;

48.  Calls on the Commission to coordinate with the Member States and under the consultation of Parliament to formulate a unified European position and common economic strategy towards the PRC; calls on all Member States to consistently adhere to this strategy;

49.  Underlines the potential consequences of the proposed social credit system for the business environment, and calls for its implementation in a transparent, fair and equitable manner;

50.  Welcomes the legislative progress in the EU on Regulation (EU) 2017/821 on supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas, and similar conflict minerals legislation in China aimed at ensuring that the trade in these minerals does not finance armed conflict; emphasises the need to prevent conflict minerals from being processed in our mobile phones, cars and jewellery; calls on both the Commission and the Chinese Government to set up structured cooperation to support the implementation of the new legislation and to effectively prevent global, Chinese and EU smelters and refiners from using conflict minerals, to protect mine workers, including children, from being abused, and to require EU and Chinese companies to ensure that they import these minerals and metals from responsible sources only;

51.  Notes that at the 19th Party Congress held in October 2017 and during the last session of the NPC, General Secretary and President Xi Jinping strengthened his position of power within the party, paving the way for the unlimited extension of his mandate, and increased the control of the party organs over the state apparatus and the economy, including the setting up of party cells in foreign enterprises; notes that the corresponding overhaul of the political system of the PRC is accompanied by a further shift in political focus towards a policy based on close surveillance in all areas;

52.  Stresses that the creation of the National Supervisory Commission, whose legal status is equal to that of the courts and the public prosecutor, is a drastic step towards merging party and state functions, as it establishes a State supervisory body that takes its orders from and shares offices and staff with the Party’s Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI); is concerned about the far-ranging personal consequences of this extension of the party supervision to a large number of people, as it means that the anti-corruption campaign can be expanded to prosecute not just party members but also civil servants, from managers of state-owned companies to university professors and directors of village schools;

53.  Observes that while the Social Credit System is still under construction, blacklists of non-compliant individuals and legal entities, as well as ‘red lists’ for outstanding individuals and companies, form the core of the current stage of implementation, whereby the main focus is on punishing offenders on the blacklists and rewarding those on the red lists; notes that in early 2017 China's Supreme People's Court stated that more than six million Chinese nationals had been banned from flying as a result of social misdeeds; firmly rejects the public naming and shaming of blacklisted persons as an integral part of the Social Credit System; underlines the importance and necessity of a dialogue between the EU institutions and their Chinese counterparts on all serious societal consequences of the present central planning and local experiments with the Social Credit System;

54.  Expresses concern at China’s massive cyberspace surveillance systems and calls for the adoption of a regulation on enforceable privacy rights; condemns the ongoing crackdown on internet freedom by the Chinese authorities, in particular the freedom to access foreign websites, and regrets the policy of self-censorship adopted by some Western companies operating in China; recalls that eight out of the world's 25 most popular websites are blocked in China, including websites from major IT firms;

55.  Remarks that Xi’s declaration about the vital importance of ‘long-term stability’ in Xinjiang to the success of BRI has resulted in the intensification of longstanding strategies of control augmented by a variety of technological innovations and a rapid increase in expenditure on domestic security, and the use of counter-terrorism measures to criminalise dissent and dissident individuals via the application of a broad definition of terrorism; is concerned by the state’s implementation of measures to ensure the ‘comprehensive supervision’ of the region via installation of China’s ‘Skynet’ electronic surveillance in major urban areas, installations of GPS trackers in all motor vehicles, use of facial recognition scanners at checkpoints and at train and petrol stations, and a blood-collecting effort by Xinjiang’s police to further expand China’s DNA database; expresses its deepest concern at the sending of thousands of Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs to political ‘re-education camps’ based on analysis of the data harvested through a system of ‘predictive policing’, including for having travelled abroad or being adjudged to be too religiously devout; judges that Xi’s proclamation that BRI will ‘benefit people across the whole world’ as it will be based on the ‘Silk Road spirit’ of ‘peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness’ is far removed from the reality confronting Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs in Xinjiang; urges the Chinese authorities to free those reportedly detained for their beliefs or cultural practices and identities;

56.  Stresses that the institutional and financial strengthening of China’s diplomacy reflects the high priority given by Xi Jinping to foreign policy as part of his vision to turn China into a global power by 2049; notes that the shifting of responsibility for foreign affairs, made during the last session of the NPC, proves the growing role of foreign policy in the Party's decision-making process; underlines the fact that the establishment of the State International Development Cooperation Agency expresses the great importance that Xi’s leadership attaches to bolstering its global security interests through economic means, for example by ‘better serving’ BRI; concludes, therefore, that over the next five years China will be more present and more engaged overseas, with diplomatic and economic initiatives to which the EU and its Member States must find common answers and strategies;

57.  Stresses the importance of ensuring peace and security in the South and East China Seas for stability in the region; underlines the importance of ensuring freedom and safety of navigation in the region for many Asian and European states; notes that structures completed over the last year on land features in both the Spratlys and Paracels in the South China Sea include large hangars along 3 km-long airstrips, hardened shelters for missile platforms, large underground storage areas, many administrative buildings, military jamming equipment, large networks of high frequency and over-the-horizon radar and sensor arrays, and that this points to a phase of consolidation and further build-up of far-reaching surveillance and military capabilities, while further militarisation of the islands through placement of even more advanced military platforms might be reserved as potential retaliation to fresh legal actions or expanded international naval presence; calls on China and ASEAN to speed up consultations on a Code of Conduct for the peaceful resolution of disputes and controversies in this area; insists that the issue should be solved according to international law under the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS); underlines that the EU and its Member States, as contracting parties to UNCLOS), acknowledge the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal; reiterates its call on China to accept the Tribunal’s award; underlines that the EU would like to maintain the international order based upon the rule of law;

58.  Is strongly concerned about the shrinking space for civil society since Xi Jinping rose to power in 2012, especially in view of the Overseas NGO Management Law which entered into force on 1 January 2017, putting all foreign NGOs, including thinktanks and academic institutions, under an increased administrative burden and economic pressure and under the strict control of a Supervisory Unit affiliated with the Ministry of Public Security, with a strongly negative impact on their operations and funding; expects that European NGOs enjoy in China the same liberties that China's NGOs enjoy in the EU; calls on the Chinese authorities to repeal restrictive legislation such as the Overseas NGO Law, which is inconsistent with the right to freedom of association, opinion and expression;

59.  Insists that the Chinese authorities must guarantee that all those in detention must be treated in accordance with international norms and provided with access to legal counsel and medical treatment, in line with the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment;

60.  Encourages China, as the 20th anniversary of its signature to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights approaches, to ratify it and to ensure its full implementation, including by ending all abusive practices and adapting its legislation as necessary;

61.  Condemns the use of the death penalty, recalling that China has executed more people than all other countries combined and in 2016 the country carried out about 2 000 death sentences; urges China to shed light on the scale of executions in the country and to ensure judicial transparency; calls for the EU to increase its diplomatic efforts and demand respect for human rights and the abolition of the death penalty;

62.  Is strongly concerned that the main content of the new religious regulations will result in all religions and non-religious ethical associations, whether authorised or unauthorised, being given certain labels by the Chinese Government; underlines the fact that there are many congregations of the house churches in China who refuse to join the party- and state-sanctioned Three-Self Patriotic Movement Committee and the Christian Council for theological reasons; calls on the Chinese Government to allow the many house churches which are willing to register to do so directly with the government’s Department of Civil Affairs, so that their rights and interests as social organisations will be protected;

63.  Urges China to review its policies in Tibet; calls on China to review and amend the laws, regulations and measures passed in recent years that severely limit the exercise of civil and political rights of Tibetans, including their freedom of expression and their religious freedom; urges the Chinese leadership to pursue development and environmental policies that respect the economic, social and cultural rights of Tibetans and are inclusive of local populations, in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals; calls on the Chinese government to investigate the ongoing cases of enforced disappearances, torture and ill-treatment of Tibetans and to respect their rights to freedom of association, peaceful assembly and freedom of religion and belief, in line with international human rights standards; stresses that the degradation of human rights in Tibet must be systematically raised at each EU-China Summit; calls for the resumption of a constructive and peaceful dialogue between the Chinese authorities and representatives of the Tibetan people; urges China to give EU diplomats, journalists and citizens unfettered access to Tibet in reciprocity to the free and open access to the entire territories of the EU Member States that Chinese travellers enjoy; calls on the Chinese authorities to allow Tibetans in Tibet to travel freely and to respect their right to freedom of movement; urges the Chinese authorities to allow independent observers, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to access Tibet; urges the EU institutions to take the issue of access to Tibet into serious consideration in the discussions on the EU-China visa facilitation agreement;

64.  Notes that the Annual Report 2017 on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European Commission concludes that despite some challenges, overall the ‘one country, two systems’ principle worked well, that the rule of law prevailed and free speech and freedom of information are generally respected, but that this report also voices concerns about the gradual erosion of the ‘one country, two systems’ principle, giving rise to legitimate questions about its implementation and Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy in the long term; underlines that the Annual Report observes that two negative trends regarding free speech and freedom of information became more pronounced, namely self-censorship when reporting on China’s domestic and foreign policy developments and pressure on journalists; fully supports the encouragement of the EU to the Hong Kong SAR and the Central Government authorities to resume electoral reform in line with the Basic Law and to reach agreement on an electoral system that is democratic, fair, open and transparent; underlines that the people of Hong Kong have a legitimate right to continue to rely on a judiciary which is trusted, the prevalence of the rule of law and low levels of corruption, transparency, human rights, freedom of opinion, and high standards of public health and safety; underlines that the full respect of Hong Kong's autonomy could provide the model for a process of deep democratic political reforms in China and the gradual liberalisation and opening of Chinese society;

65.  Calls for the EU and its Member States to do their utmost to urge the PRC to refrain from further military provocation towards Taiwan and endangering peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait; emphasises that all cross-strait disputes should be settled by peaceful means on the basis of international law; expresses its concern about the unilateral decision by China to start using new flight routes above the Taiwan Strait; encourages the resumption of official dialogues between Beijing and Taipei; reiterates its consistent support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), where Taiwan’s continuous exclusion is not in line with the EU’s interests;

66.  Recalls that as North Korea’s biggest trade partner and main source of food and energy, China continues to play an instrumental role in addressing North Korea’s globally threatening provocations together with the international community; welcomes, therefore, China’s recent inclination to uphold some of the international sanctions against Pyongyang, including suspending coal imports from North Korea and restricting financial activities of North Korean individuals and businesses, as well as trade restrictions on textiles and seafood; also welcomes Beijing’s efforts to establish dialogue with Pyongyang; urges the EU to speak with unity on China in order to play a constructive role in supporting the upcoming inter-Korean summit as well as the North Korea-US summit, with a view to actively assisting with the verifiable denuclearisation of North Korea and the establishment of permanent peace on the Korean peninsula;

67.  Commends China for adhering to the sanctions against North Korea; calls on China to constructively contribute to the resolving of the situation in the Korean peninsula and to continue applying sanctions against North Korea until it has made significant progress in giving up its nuclear weapons, changing its rhetoric vis-à-vis South Korea and Japan and starting to uphold human rights;

68.  Underlines the importance of China’s efforts to achieve peace, security and stability in the Korean peninsula;

69.  Welcomes China’s contributions to United Nations and African Union peacekeeping; remarks that the EU aims to reinforce its engagement with China on foreign policy and security issues by encouraging China to mobilise its diplomatic and other resources to support international security, and to contribute to peace and security in the EU’s neighbourhood based on international law; notes that the cooperation with China in the field of export control, disarmament, non-proliferation issues and the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula is essential to ensure stability in the East Asia region;

70.  Welcomes China’s aim to develop into a sustainable economy; stresses that the EU can support China’s economic reform programme with its know-how; underlines that China is a key partner for the EU with regard to tackling climate change and global environmental challenges; aims to work together with China to speed up the implementation of the Paris Climate Agreement;

71.  Welcomes the reforms undertaken by China since the launch of its ‘ecological civilisation’ approach; considers the special status granted to environmental NGOs in courts, audits of the environmental impact of the work of officials, and high investment in electro-mobility and clean energy as reforms in the right direction;

72.  Welcomes China’s 2016 action plan to tackle antimicrobial resistance; stresses the importance of cooperation between China, which accounts for half the world’s annual antimicrobial drug consumption, and the EU in tackling this global threat; insists that animal welfare provisions should be included in bilateral EU-China trade agreements;

73.  Takes note of China’s decision to ban imports of solid waste, which highlights the importance of the process of designing, producing, repairing, reusing and recycling products, with a particular emphasis on the production and use of plastic; recalls China’s recent attempt to ban exports of rare earth elements, and asks the Commission to take into consideration the interdependence of the global economies when prioritising EU policies;

74.  Believes that there would be scope, an interest in and a need for the EU and ASEAN to work together to develop a joint circular economy strategy; believes China could play a key role in taking this initiative forward in ASEAN;

75.  Argues that China and the European Union will benefit from promoting sustainability in their economies and from developing a multi-sector sustainable and circular bioeconomy;

76.  Welcomes the agreement to increase cooperation on research and innovation in flagship initiatives such as those on food, agriculture and biotechnologies, environment and sustainable urbanisation, surface transport, safer and greener aviation and biotechnologies for environment and human health that were agreed upon during the 3rd EU-China Innovation Cooperation Dialogue in June 2017 and the corresponding Roadmap for EU-China science and technology (S&T) cooperation from October 2017; calls on the EU and China to continue these efforts and to put the results of the research and development projects into practice;

77.  Points out that the EU and China are heavily dependent on fossil fuels and together account for around a third of total global consumption, which places China at the top of the World Health Organisation (WHO) ranking for deadly outdoor air pollution; stresses that increased trade in bioeconomy products made from renewable materials can help reduce the fossil dependency of China’s and the Union’s economies; calls for the EU and China to deepen their relations in other areas of mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions such as electric mobility, renewable energies and energy efficiency, to continue and broaden the EU-China Roadmap on energy cooperation beyond 2020, and to intensify joint efforts on developing instruments for green finance, especially climate finance; calls for China and the EU to explore and engage in the advance planning and development of cross-border electricity transmission lines, using high-voltage direct current technology to make renewable energy sources more accessible;

78.  Encourages the EU and China to continue their partnership on sustainable urbanisation, including in areas such as clean transport, air quality improvement, the circular economy and ecodesign; stresses the need for further environmental protection measures, bearing in mind that more than 90 % of cities do not comply with the national standard of PM 2.5 air pollution concentration and that in China more than one million people die each year from diseases linked to air pollution;

79.  Underlines the mutual interest of the EU and China in promoting low-carbon development and addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in transparent, public and well-regulated energy markets; believes in the value of strategic EU-China partnerships as necessary for the implementation of the Paris Agreement and for the effective combating of climate change; calls on the EU and China to use their political weight to advance the implementation of the Paris Agreement as well as of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and urges a cooperative approach at the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC as well as at the High‑level Political Forum of the UN; calls on both sides to adopt a joint statement on climate action to demonstrate their shared commitment to a strong implementation of the Paris Agreement and active participation in the 2018 Talanoa Dialogue as well as at COP24; encourages both sides to play a responsible role in international negotiations by contributing to the objective to limit global warming through their respective internal climate policies, as well as by making financial contributions to reach the goal of providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation and adaptation;

80.  Welcomes the launch of the nationwide emissions trading system in China in December 2017; takes note of the successful cooperation during the preparation phase between China and the EU enabling the launch; recognises the willingness of the Chinese leadership to reduce GHG emissions, and looks forward to the results of the ongoing work on monitoring, reporting and verification, which is key to the good functioning of the system; stresses the importance of economy-wide action on climate change, and welcomes the intention to expand its coverage to include industrial sectors and improve the trading arrangements of the system; calls on the EU and China to continue their partnership within the cooperation project for the development of China’s carbon market, for it to become an effective instrument that creates meaningful incentives for emission reduction and further aligning it to the EU emissions trading system; calls on both sides to further promote carbon pricing mechanisms in other countries and regions, by using their own experiences and expertise and by exchanging best practice as well as engaging in efforts to build up cooperation between existing carbon markets in order to work towards a global level playing field;

81.  Hopes that China will uncouple economic growth from ecological degradation, by incorporating biodiversity protection into its ongoing global strategies, facilitating the achievement of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the SDGs, and implementing the ivory trade ban effectively; acknowledges the work done by the EU-China Bilateral Coordination Mechanism (BCM) on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) to tackle illegal logging globally; urges China, however, to investigate the significant undocumented trade in timber between the FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreement signatory states and China;

82.  Recommends the adoption of mandatory Chinese policy guidelines on responsible overseas forestry investments to be implemented jointly with the supplier countries, involving Chinese companies in tackling the illegal timber trade;

83.  Welcomes the fact that China and the EU have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on water policy, with the aim of enhancing dialogue on the development and enforcement of legislation to protect water; strongly supports the September 2017 Turku Declaration signed by the EU and China, which stressed that good water governance should give priority to ecology and green development, to putting water conservation in a prominent position and to restoring water ecosystems; underlines that the MOU on establishing an EU‑China Water Policy Dialogue not only enriches the contents of China-EU strategic partnership, but also specifies the direction, scope, methodology and financial arrangements for cooperation;

84.  Recognises the key role of the Commission‑funded cooperation project between European and Chinese organisations, implemented in 2014-2017 under the auspices of the Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC), in assessing the standards and arrangements for radiological and nuclear emergency management in China and in enhancing the capabilities of the Chinese Nuclear Power Technology Research Institute in the area of severe accident management guidelines;

85.  Encourages Chinese and European investors to adopt better global standards of social and environmental responsibility and to improve the safety standards of their extractive industries worldwide; reiterates that, with regard to negotiations on a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with China, the European Union must lend support to sustainable development initiatives by encouraging responsible investment and promoting core environmental and labour standards; asks the Chinese and European authorities to put in place incentives to encourage Chinese and European mining companies to conduct their activities in developing countries in conformity with international human rights standards and to encourage investment in capacity-building for knowledge and technology transfer and local recruitment;

86.  Welcomes the announcement by China in the context of the One Planet Summit in December 2017 to make the environmental impacts of companies in China and of Chinese investment abroad more transparent; is concerned that infrastructure projects such as the One Belt One Road (OBOR) Initiative by China might have a negative impact on the environment and climate and could lead to the increased use of fossil fuels in other countries involved or affected by the infrastructure development; calls for the EU institutions and Member States to perform environmental impact assessments and to include sustainability clauses in any cooperation project within the OBOR framework; insists on the establishment of a joint committee, composed of representatives of involved countries and third parties, to supervise the impact on the environment and climate; welcomes the initiative of the Commission and the EEAS to draw up an EU-Asia connectivity strategy in the first half of 2018; insists that this strategy should include strong commitments to sustainability, environmental protection and climate action;

87.  Welcomes China’s progress in enhancing food safety standards, key features in protecting Chinese consumers and preventing food fraud; stresses the improvement of consumer empowerment as an important step in the rise of a consumer culture in China;

88.  Encourages the Chinese and European police and law enforcement services to take common action to control the export of illegal drugs and to share intelligence on drug trafficking by exchanging information to identify individuals and criminal networks; notes that, according to the study entitled ‘European Drug Report 2017: Trends and Developments’ published by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), much of the supply of new psychoactive substances to Europe originates in China, with new substances being produced in bulk by chemical and pharmaceutical companies in China, from where they are shipped to Europe, where they are processed into products, packaged and sold;

89.  Acknowledges that families and individuals have migrated in response to drought and other natural disasters, and that, in response, the Chinese authorities have planned several large-scale relocation projects; is concerned by reports from the Ningxia region pointing out numerous problems with the new towns, and reprisals for people who refused to move; expresses its concern about the fact that environmental defenders are being detained, prosecuted and sentenced and that registered domestic environmental NGOs are facing increasing scrutiny by the Chinese supervisory authorities;

90.  Asks China to further expand its law enforcement efforts to stop illegal fishing, as Chinese fishing boats continue to poach in foreign waters, including Korea’s Western Sea, the East China Sea, the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean, and even South America;

91.  Asks Chinese exporters and European importers to cut toxic residues in Chinese-made clothes by establishing proper chemical management regulations and by phasing out the use of lead, nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), phthalates, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), formaldehyde and other toxic products found in textiles;

92.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the European External Action Service, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the accession and candidate countries, the Government of the People’s Republic of China, the Chinese National People’s Congress, the Taiwanese Government and the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan.

(1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1985, p. 2. (2) OJ L 6, 11.1.2000, p. 40. (3) https://www.iom.int/migration-and-climate-change (4) OJ C 239 E, 20.8.2013, p. 1. (5) OJ C 264 E, 13.9.2013, p. 33. (6) OJ C 36, 29.1.2016, p. 123. (7) OJ C 93, 24.3.2017, p. 93. (8) OJ C 443, 22.12.2017, p. 83. (9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0024. (10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0493. (11) OJ C 305 E, 14.12.2006, p. 219. (12) OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 132. (13) OJ C 36, 29.1.2016, p. 126. (14) OJ C 181, 19.5.2016, p. 45. (15) OJ C 181, 19.5.2016, p. 52. (16) OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 92. (17) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0495. (18) OJ C 131 E, 8.5.2013, p. 121. (19) OJ C 332 E, 15.11.2013, p. 69. (20) OJ C 468, 15.12.2016, p. 208. (21) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0505. (22) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0089. (23) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0308. (24) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0014. (25) OJ C 288 E, 25.11.2006, p. 59. (26) Y. Zhen, J. Pan, X. Zhang, ‘Relocation as a policy response to climate change vulnerability in Northern China’, ISSC and UNESCO 2013, World Social Science Report 2013, Changing Global Environments, pp. 234-241.