Choisissez la langue de votre document :
- bg - български
- es - español
- cs - čeština
- da - dansk
- de - Deutsch
- et - eesti keel
- el - ελληνικά
- en - English
- fr - français
- ga - Gaeilge
- hr - hrvatski
- it - italiano
- lv - latviešu valoda
- lt - lietuvių kalba
- hu - magyar
- mt - Malti
- nl - Nederlands
- pl - polski
- pt - português
- ro - română
- sk - slovenčina
- sl - slovenščina
- fi - suomi
- sv - svenska
|
 Consultation on the privileges and immunities of Alfonso Luigi Marra |
| |||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the requests for consultation on the privileges and immunities of Alfonso Luigi Marra, forwarded on 7 March 2018 by the Court of Appeal (Corte d’Appello) of Naples (Italy) in connection with legal proceedings instituted against him (Ref. Nos 4831/2015 RG and 4832/2015 RG respectively) and announced in plenary on 17 April 2018, – having heard Alfonso Luigi Marra in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, – having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013(1), – having regard to its resolution of 11 June 2002 on the immunity of Italian Members and the Italian authorities’ practices on the subject(2), – having regard to Rule 5(2) and Rule 9(14) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0325/2018), A. whereas Alfonso Luigi Marra served as a Member of the European Parliament from 21 July 1994 to 19 July 1999; B. whereas two sets of legal proceedings were instituted against Mr Marra in connection with allegedly defamatory statements he had made in a leaflet dated 19 September 1996, i.e. when he was a Member of the European Parliament; whereas Mr Marra was ordered to pay compensation to the injured parties both by the court of first instance (judgments of 17 and 22 February 2000) and the court of second instance (judgments of 6 March 2002); whereas at the request of Mr Marra, by decisions of 20 February 2007 the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) referred the matter to the Court of Justice for preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the Community rules on the immunity of Members of the European Parliament; C. whereas, in the meantime, Parliament had adopted its resolution of 11 June 2002 on the immunity of Italian Members in Italy and the Italian authorities’ practices on the subject; whereas on that occasion Parliament considered that the case of Alfonso Luigi Marra raised a prima facie case of absolute immunity, that the competent courts should be put on notice to transmit to Parliament the documentation necessary to establish whether the cases in question involve absolute immunity under Article 8 of Protocol No 7 and that the competent courts should be invited to stay proceedings pending a final determination by Parliament; whereas it was apparent from the orders for reference to the Court of Justice that that resolution had not reached the Italian courts; D. whereas, in the context of the abovementioned reference for preliminary rulings, the Court of Justice held that where an action has been brought against a Member of the European Parliament before a national court and that court is informed that a procedure for defence of the privileges and immunities of that Member, as provided for in Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, has been initiated, that court must stay the judicial proceedings and request the Parliament to issue its opinion as soon as possible(3); E. whereas, following the ruling of the Court of Justice, by judgments of 10 December 2009 the Italian Supreme Court referred the matter back to the Court of Appeal of Naples in order for the latter to take a decision on Mr Marra’s case in the light of both Parliament’s resolution of 11 June 2002 and the relevant case law of the Court of Justice; whereas by judgments of 5 December 2012 the Court of Appeal, without staying the proceedings and requesting Parliament’s opinion, confirmed its previous judgments, by which Mr Marra had been ordered to pay compensation to the injured parties; whereas by judgments of 30 April 2015 the Italian Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the Court of Appeal and referred the matter back to it so that it could stay the proceedings and request Parliament’s opinion; whereas the Court of Appeal of Naples did indeed decide to stay the proceedings and, by letter of 27 January 2018, to consult the European Parliament on the privileges and immunities of Alfonso Luigi Marra; F. whereas Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union are mutually exclusive(4); whereas the case at hand only concerns allegedly discriminatory opinions expressed by a Member of the European Parliament; whereas the applicability of Article 8 alone is therefore self-explanatory; G. whereas under Article 8 of Protocol No 7, Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties; whereas such immunity must, to the extent that it seeks to protect the freedom of expression and independence of Members of the European Parliament, be considered as an absolute immunity barring any judicial proceedings in respect of an opinion expressed or a vote cast in the exercise of parliamentary duties(5); H. whereas the Court of Justice has held that, in order to enjoy immunity, an opinion must be expressed by a Member of the European Parliament in the performance of his duties, thus entailing the requirement of a link between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties; whereas such a link must be direct and obvious(6); whereas even though the allegedly defamatory statements were made between 1996 and 2001 before the judgment of 2011 in Case Patriciello, the fact remains that the Italian courts sought the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs in 2018, which is to say after that case law was established; I. whereas the facts of the case, as laid out in the documents provided to the Committee on Legal Affairs and in the hearing before it, indicate that Mr Marra’s statements do not have a direct and obvious connection with his parliamentary duties; J. whereas Alfonso Luigi Marra cannot therefore be deemed to have been acting in the performance of his duties as a Member of the European Parliament in relation to the opinions expressed by him in the case at hand; 1. Considers that the opinions expressed by Alfonso Luigi Marra are not covered by parliamentary immunity within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the competent authority of the Italian Republic and to Alfonso Luigi Marra.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Request for the waiver of the immunity of Manolis Kefalogiannis |
| |||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Manolis Kefalogiannis forwarded on 31 May 2017 by the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic, in connection with procedure No ABM:EOE 20/2017 and announced in plenary on 3 July 2017, – having heard Manolis Kefalogiannis in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure, – having also heard Kristian Knudsen, acting Director-General of the Directorate-General for Personnel of the European Parliament, – having held an exchange of views with the Deputy Public Prosecutor against Economic Crime of the Hellenic Republic, – having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and Article 6(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, – having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 12 May 1964, 10 July 1986, 15 and 21 October 2008, 19 March 2010, 6 September 2011 and 17 January 2013(1), – having regard to Article 62 of the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic, – having regard to Rule 5(2), Rule 6(1) and Rule 9 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0333/2018), A. whereas the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic has requested that the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Manolis Kefalogiannis, be waived in order to initiate criminal proceedings against him for two alleged offences; B. whereas Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union stipulates that Members of the European Parliament may not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties; C. whereas, pursuant to Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their national parliament; D. whereas, in accordance with Article 62 of the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic, no Member of Parliament may be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or subjected to other measures involving deprivation of liberty during their term of office without the authorisation of the Chamber of Deputies; E. whereas the request of the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic relates to proceedings concerning alleged offences under Article 385(1)(b) of the Greek Criminal Code and Article 4 of Law No 2803/2000, which concern extortion with threat and fraud respectively; F. whereas Manolis Kefalogiannis is alleged to have attempted to commit fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, resulting in a loss of more than EUR 73 000, for attempting to illegally misappropriate part of his assistant’s salary by an amount of EUR 4 240 per month between July 2014 and the end of 2016; G. whereas, pursuant to Rule 9(8) of the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Legal Affairs shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member, nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, the Committee acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case; H. whereas it is also not for the European Parliament to take a stance on the guilt or otherwise of the Member or whether the acts attributed to the Member warrant the opening of criminal proceedings, nor to pronounce itself on the relative merits of national legal and judicial systems; I. whereas in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, parliamentary immunity is not a Member’s personal privilege but a guarantee of the independence of Parliament as a whole and of its Members; J. whereas the purpose of parliamentary immunity is to protect Parliament and its Members from legal proceedings in relation to activities carried out in the performance of parliamentary duties and which cannot be separated from those duties; K. whereas, where the procedure in question does not concern opinions or votes delivered by a Member within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, immunity should be waived, unless it appears that the underlying intention of the judicial procedure may be to harm the Member's political activity or reputation and thus the independence of Parliament (fumus persecutionis); L. whereas any conclusion needs to be drawn on the basis of the information and explanations provided in this case, including the replies given by the Deputy Public Prosecutor against Economic Crime of the Hellenic Republic during the exchange of views conducted with him, and given the circumstances in which the case against Manolis Kefalogiannis was dealt with by the authorities involved, the uncertainties as to the elements on which the request for waiver of immunity is based and the serious doubts surrounding the proceedings, including the reasons underlying the request for waiver of immunity; M. whereas this therefore appears to be a case in which fumus persecutionis can be assumed to be present; N. whereas the immunity of Manolis Kefalogiannis should therefore not be waived; 1. Decides not to waive the immunity of Manolis Kefalogiannis; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic and to Manolis Kefalogiannis.
| ||||||||||
| Electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union *** |
| ||||||
(Special legislative procedure – consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council regulation (14463/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0412/2018), – having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs on the proposed legal basis, – having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0323/2018), 1. Gives its consent to the draft Council regulation; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. | |||||||
| EU-Bahamas Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12389/2017), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Commonwealth of the Bahamas on the short-stay visa waiver (12388/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0173/2018), – 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0304/2018), 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 Commonwealth of the Bahamas. | |||||||
| EU-Mauritius Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12396/2017), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Mauritius amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Mauritius on the short-stay visa waiver (12395/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0177/2018), – 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0303/2018), 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 Republic of Mauritius. | |||||||
| EU-Antigua and Barbuda Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12383/2017), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Antigua and Barbuda amending the Agreement between the European Community and Antigua and Barbuda on the short-stay visa waiver (12382/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0174/2018), – 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0305/2018), 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 Antigua and Barbuda. | |||||||
| EU-Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12393/2017), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Federation of St Kitts and Nevis on the short-stay visa waiver (12391/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0176/2018), – 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0306/2018), 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 Federation of St Kitts and Nevis. | |||||||
| EU-Barbados Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12386/2017), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Barbados amending the Agreement between the European Community and Barbados on the short-stay visa waiver (12385/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0175/2018), – 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0301/2018), 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 Barbados. | |||||||
| EU-Seychelles Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver *** |
| ||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (12399/2017), – having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Seychelles amending the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Seychelles on the short-stay visa waiver (12398/2017), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2), point (a), and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0172/2018), – 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0302/2018), 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 Republic of Seychelles. | |||||||
| Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: application EGF/2018/002 PT/Norte – Centro – Lisboa wearing apparel |
| |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0621 – C8‑0399/2018), – having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(1) (EGF Regulation), – having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(2), and in particular Article 12 thereof, – having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(3) (IIA of 2 December 2013), and in particular point 13 thereof, – having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 13 of the IIA of 2 December 2013, – having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, – having regard to the letter of the Committee on Regional Development, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0311/2018), A. whereas the Union has set up legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who are suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns or of the global financial and economic crisis, and to assist their reintegration into the labour market; B. whereas the Union’s financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible; C. whereas Portugal submitted application EGF/2018/002 PT/Norte – Centro – Lisboa wearing apparel for a financial contribution from the EGF following 1 161 redundancies in the economic sector classified under the NACE Revision 2 Division 14 (Manufacture of wearing apparel) in the NUTS level 2 regions of Norte (PT11), Centro (PT16) and Lisboa (PT17) in Portugal; D. whereas the application is based on the intervention criteria of point (b) of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation, which requires at least 500 workers being made redundant over a reference period of nine months in enterprises operating in the same economic sector defined at NACE Revision 2 division level and located in one region or two contiguous regions, or in more than two contiguous regions defined at NUTS 2 level provided that there are more than 500 workers affected in two of the regions combined in a Member State; 1. Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in point (b) of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation are met and that Portugal is entitled to a financial contribution of EUR 4 655 883 under that Regulation, which represents 60 % of the total cost of EUR 7 759 806; 2. Notes that the Portuguese authorities submitted the application on 24 April 2018, and that, following the provision of additional information by Portugal, the Commission finalised its assessment on 10 September 2018 and notified it to Parliament on the same day; 3. Notes that Portugal argues that the redundancies are linked to major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation, more particularly to the liberalisation of trade in textiles and clothing following the expiry of the World Trade Organization Multifibre Agreement at the end of 2004 which has led to radical changes in the structure of world trade in textiles and clothing; 4. Notes that the unemployment rate in the wearing apparel sector in the districts where the redundancies occurred is higher than in the Norte, Centro and Lisboa regions where those districts are situated and that prospects for redeployment are low as the dismissed workers are mostly low-skilled women; 5. Recalls that the redundancies that occurred in two enterprises operating in the Portuguese wearing apparel sector are expected to have a significant adverse effect on the local economy, and that the impact of the layoffs is linked to redeployment difficulties due to the scarcity of jobs, to the low educational background of the dismissed workers, and to the high number of job seekers; 6. Recommends the application of Structural and Investment Funds, and in particular the European Social Fund, to improve the qualifications of Portuguese workers in order to reduce unemployment, and especially youth unemployment and long-term unemployment; 7. Notes that the application relates to 1 161 workers made redundant, of whom 730 will be targeted by the proposed measures; points to the fact that the majority of the redundant workers are women (88,63 %); further notes that 20,55 % of the redundant workers are over 55 years of age; acknowledges, in view of that fact, the importance of active labour market measures co-funded by the EGF to improving the chances of reintegration of those vulnerable groups into the labour market; 8. Welcomes the fact that personalised services co-financed by the EGF will also be provided to up to 730 young people under the age of 30 not in employment, education or training (NEETs); 9. Notes that Portugal is planning three types of actions for the redundant workers covered by this application: (i) training and re-training, (ii) promotion of entrepreneurship, (iii) allowances; 10. Stresses that training and re-training should create real alternatives for re-integration in the region taking account of sectors with growing labour demand; 11. Notes that financial allowances, including training, mobility and meal allowances, do not exceed the maximum of 35 % of the total costs set out in the EGF Regulation and that those actions are conditional on the active participation of the targeted beneficiaries in job-search or training activities; 12. Acknowledges that the coordinated package of personalised services has been drawn up in consultation with a working group, which included the Public Employment Service, representatives of the trade unions, the Institute of Social Security and the Authority for Work Conditions; 13. Stresses that the Portuguese authorities have confirmed that the eligible actions do not receive assistance from other Union funds or financial instruments and have provided assurances that any double financing will be prevented and that the proposed actions will be complementary to actions funded by the Structural Funds; 14. Reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies, by virtue of national law or collective agreements, or measures for restructuring companies or sectors and welcomes Portugal’s confirmation in that regard; 15. Recalls that in line with Article 7 of the EGF Regulation, the design of the coordinated package of personalised services should anticipate future labour market perspectives and required skills and should be compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy; 16. Calls on the Commission to urge national authorities to provide more details, in future proposals, on the sectors which have growth prospects and are therefore likely to hire people, as well as to gather substantiated data on the impact of the EGF funding, including on the quality of jobs and the reintegration rate achieved through the EGF; 17. Recalls its appeal to the Commission to ensure public access to all the documents related to EGF cases; 18. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution; 19. Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union; 20. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its Annex, to the Council and the Commission. ANNEX DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Portugal – EGF/2018/002 PT/Norte – Centro – Lisboa wearing apparel (The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2018/1720.)
| ||||||||||||||
| Appointment of the Managing Director of the EFSI |
| |||||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the proposal of the Steering Board of the European Fund for Strategic Investments of 19 July 2018 for the re-appointment of its Managing Director (C8‑0423/2018), – having regard to Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory Hub and the European Investment Project Portal and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013 — the European Fund for Strategic Investments(1), – having regard to Rule 122a of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs under Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0314/2018), A. whereas Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 provides that the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI are to be appointed by the EIB for a fixed term of three years, renewable once, after approval by the European Parliament following an open and transparent selection process in line with EIB procedures, during which the European Parliament shall be kept duly informed in a timely manner at all stages; B. whereas, on 19 July 2018, the Steering Board of the EFSI adopted a proposal for the re-appointment of the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI and transmitted this proposal to the European Parliament; C. whereas, on 25 September 2018, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs held a hearing with Wilhelm Molterer, the proposed candidate for the function of Managing Director of the EFSI, at which he made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the Committees; 1. Gives its consent to the appointment of Wilhelm Molterer as the Managing Director of the European Fund for Strategic Investments; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission, the European Investment Bank and the governments of the Member States.
| ||||||||||
| Appointment of the Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI |
| |||||||||
(Consent) The European Parliament, – having regard to the proposal of the Steering Board of the European Fund for Strategic Investments of 19 July 2018 for the re-appointment of its Deputy Managing Director (C8‑0424/2018), – having regard to Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory Hub and the European Investment Project Portal and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013 — the European Fund for Strategic Investments(1), – having regard to Rule 122a of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the joint deliberations of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs under Rule 55 of the Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0312/2018), A. whereas Article 7(6) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 provides that the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI are to be appointed by the EIB for a fixed term of three years, renewable once, after approval by the European Parliament following an open and transparent selection process in line with EIB procedures, during which the European Parliament shall be kept duly informed in a timely manner at all stages; B. whereas, on 19 July 2018, the Steering Board of the EFSI adopted a proposal for the re-appointment of the Managing Director and Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI and transmitted this proposal to the European Parliament; C. whereas, on 25 September 2018, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs held a hearing with Iliyana Tsanova, the proposed candidate for the function of Deputy Managing Director of the EFSI, at which she made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the Committees; 1. Gives its consent to the appointment of Iliyana Tsanova as the Deputy Managing Director of the European Fund for Strategic Investments; 2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission, the European Investment Bank and the governments of the Member States.
| ||||||||||
| Quality of water intended for human consumption ***I |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure – recast)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Resources for economic, social and territorial cohesion and resources for the investment for growth and jobs goal ***I |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading) The European Parliament, – having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0498), – having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 177 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0307/2018), – having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, – after consulting the European Economic and Social Committee, – after consulting the Committee of the Regions, – having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0282/2018), A. Whereas for reasons of urgency it is justified to proceed to the vote before the expiry of the deadline of eight weeks laid down in Article 6 of Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; 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 23 October 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for economic, social and territorial cohesion and the resources for the Investment for growth and jobs goal
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/1719.) | ||||||||
| Alignment of reporting obligations in the field of environment policy ***I |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The role of employee financial participation in creating jobs and reactivating the unemployed |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The European Parliament, – having regard to the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), and in particular Article 3(3), – having regard to Article 9 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which requires the EU to promote a high level of employment, guarantee adequate social protection, fight against social exclusion and ensure a high level of education, training and protection of human health, – having regard to the Council conclusions of 7 December 2015 on the promotion of the social economy as a key driver of economic and social development in Europe, – having regard to the Commission communication of 2 June 2016 entitled ‘A European agenda for the collaborative economy’ (COM(2016)0356), – having regard to the Commission communication of 27 March 2014 entitled ‘Long-term Financing of the European Economy’ (COM(2014)0168), – having regard to the Commission communication of 12 December 2012 entitled ‘Action Plan: European company law and corporate governance – a modern legal framework for more engaged shareholders and sustainable companies’ (COM(2012)0740), – having regard to the Commission communication of 3 October 2012 entitled ‘Single Market Act II – Together for new growth’ (COM(2012)0573), – having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020), – having regard to the Commission recommendation of 3 October 2008 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market(1), – having regard to the Commission communication of 25 June 2008 entitled ‘Think Small First – A “Small Business Act” for Europe’ (COM(2008)0394) and the Commission’s 2008 and 2009 Work Programmes, – having regard to the Commission communication of 14 March 2006 entitled ‘Implementing the Lisbon Community Programme for Growth and Jobs: Transfer of Businesses – Continuity through a new beginning’ (COM(2006)0117), – having regard to the Commission communication of 5 July 2002 entitled ‘A framework for the promotion of employee financial participation’ (COM(2002)0364) and Parliament’s resolution of 5 June 2003 thereon(2), – having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 21 October 2010 on employee financial participation in Europe, – having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2013 on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring(3), – having regard to its resolution of 14 January 2014 on financial participation of employees in companies’ proceeds(4), and the opinion of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (2013/2127(INI)), – having regard to the study requested by Parliament’s Committee on Employment and Social Affairs entitled ‘Employee financial participation in companies’ proceeds’, which was published in September 2012, – having regard to the Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan published on 8 June 2017 (COM(2017)0292), – having regard to the Commission’s pilot project entitled the ‘Promotion of employee ownership and participation’, of which the final version was published in 2014, – having regard to the PEPPER IV Report, entitled ‘Benchmarking of employee participation in profits and enterprise results in the member and candidate countries of the European Union’, which was published in October 2009 by the Free University of Berlin, – having regard to the PEPPER III Report, entitled ‘Promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results in the new member and candidate countries of the European Union’, which was published in June 2006 by the Free University of Berlin, – having regard to the report of 18 December 2003 of the high-level group of independent experts on transnational obstacles to the growth of employee financial participation in transnational enterprises, – having regard to the PEPPER II Report, entitled ‘Promotion of participation by employed persons in profits and enterprise results (including equity participation) in Member States’, which was published by the Commission in January 1997 (COM(1996)0697), – having regard to the PEPPER I Report, entitled ‘Promotion of employee participation in profits and enterprise results’, which was published in March 1991 by the Commission and the European University Institute, – having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0293/2018), A. whereas there are several employee financial participation (EFP) models an employer can choose from: profit sharing, individual employee share ownership, worker ownership in cooperative models and employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs); B. whereas the most appropriate EFP model must be carefully chosen by the individual company and its workers, taking due account of the specific national taxation rules and sectoral context, and will mostly depend on the size, activity and status of the company, especially if it is listed; whereas it is not appropriate to develop a comprehensive ‘one size fits all’ model for EFP at EU level; C. whereas, according to data from the 2013 European Company Survey(5), EFP schemes can vary greatly according to company characteristics; whereas 62 % of European establishments use some form of variable pay, with profit sharing accounting for 30 % and pay linked to group performance 25 %; whereas share-ownership schemes are used by 5 % of establishments; whereas these EFP schemes are more prevalent in the private sector than in the public sector (with some national exceptions), as well as in certain economic sectors, particularly information and communications technology, finance, insurance, and consultancy; whereas larger companies are more likely to use these EFP schemes than small and medium-sized enterprises, and they are also more common in foreign-capital or multinational companies and in companies located in economically(6) central or advanced regions; D. whereas ESOPs are a form of EFP using an intermediate entity able to exercise voting rights or other forms of governance on behalf of employees, who could voluntarily choose them; E. whereas EFP schemes involving workers in consultation and decision-making have proven(7) benefits for both employees and the company, including in terms of sustainable governance, transparency, social dialogue, mutual respect between employers and employees, and other aspects such as recruitment, retention, motivation, job satisfaction and skills development, as well as overall performance and profitability; F. whereas employee participation in decision-making could improve organisational performance and employees’ quality of working life, and whereas it could act as a workplace innovation tool(8) to promote a sense of ownership, enhance the flow of information in the company and improve levels of trust between employers and employees; G. whereas EFP schemes can have positive impacts on the economy of Member States by supporting companies, including SMEs, and the job market; whereas workers’ financial participation in their company can contribute to job satisfaction, a sense of ownership, mutual respect between employers and employees and overall performance, and can help employees find opportunities in their home countries; H. whereas, in the context of the development of the Capital Market Union (CMU), EFP could contribute to the CMU objectives of inclusive growth and transparency in economic activity; whereas EFP, if coupled with training for participants provided by companies and Member States, could improve financial education amongst EU citizens, potentially reducing their reluctance to invest, and potentially increasing retail investment; I. whereas the European Employment Strategy and the Europe 2020 Strategy set priorities to improve the quality of jobs and ensure better working conditions; whereas increasing employee participation in company financial results and offering better rewards could help meet these goals; J. whereas EFP must go hand-in-hand with a high level of information, training and consultation with staff so that they are fully aware of the functioning of the financial participation schemes that they could join, to enable them to make a fully informed assessment of the potential benefits and risks of these schemes, such as in the case of the company’s bankruptcy; K. whereas, through EFP, enhanced social dialogue and strategic decision-making, employers might invest in development opportunities for their workforce, thus contributing to the fight against social exclusion and ensuring a high level of training; L. whereas, by involving employees in the decision-making process, depending on the specificity of the scheme, EFP can, in some cases, help companies, including SMEs, with respect to restructuring and business continuity by addressing company succession and generational renewal problems, for example in family businesses; M. whereas it should be borne in mind that EFP has positive and negative elements to it; N. whereas EFP bears some financial risks, but might also act as a shock absorber, allowing bonuses or other rewards and also ensuring that workers have a portfolio of saved shares; whereas ESOPs in particular may be an example of an employee buy-out model for non-listed companies where the priority buy-out process could allow employees to potentially safeguard their own jobs when there is the possibility of buy-outs by other companies; O. whereas measures are therefore needed to protect employees from facing risks such as losing both their job and the capital invested when their employer is impacted by a crisis; whereas EFP may not be used to reduce the social and employment rights acquired by employees, must not replace normal basic pay, other forms of remuneration or contributions to pension schemes, and must not be a way to transfer risks onto the worker or not to comply with labour law; P. whereas participation in the EFP should remain voluntary for employees, particularly in SMEs, while not affecting their labour market mobility, their social security or their right to take collective action; whereas employees should therefore have access at all times to information regarding the economic situation of the company, with the exception of its trade secrets and commercially sensitive information, and be informed of the advantages and disadvantages of each EFP scheme available; Q. whereas fiscal incentives are key elements to promote EFP that could pay off in a medium to long term, considering that countries which have a long tradition of employee financial participation also have the most developed employee ownership and the highest fiscal benefits; R. whereas proactive employment policies such as support for genuine self-employment and regular and social entrepreneurship are critical tools for the reintegration of the unemployed into the labour market, in line with the European Entrepreneurship Action Plan adopted in January 2013; S. whereas the current European Social Fund promotes social entrepreneurship and the social and solidarity economy, and the upcoming ESF Plus should continue to do so; whereas EFP can make a valuable contribution to the development of the social and solidarity economy by, for example, making investment or funding more accessible; T. whereas EFP can be complementary to EU programmes aimed at improving access to capital, especially for SMEs, such as the COSME programme, the InnovFin programme, the Creative Europe programme and the European structural and investment funds; U. whereas EFP could be a complementary tool to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund which helps people who have lost their jobs as a result of major structural changes due to globalisation or the economic and financial crisis with respect to re-skilling, training, supporting self-employment, business start-ups and employee takeovers; V. whereas EU guidelines for EFP could help Member States develop frameworks for EFP schemes that could potentially lead to benefits both for employers and employees and also increase public awareness of EFP; 1. Calls on the Commission to consider appropriate recommendations to encourage Member States and companies, particularly SMEs, to develop and offer EFP schemes for the benefit and in the interest of both employees and companies; stresses that these schemes should:
2. Calls on the Member States to provide non-mandatory incentives, including tax incentives that do not override national taxation rules, in line with best practice principles, when promoting employee ownership schemes among companies and employees, at the same time as supporting the highest standards of social protection for employees and safeguarding their right to collective action; 3. Underlines that EFP has to be embedded in a system of workers’ involvement, for example in company decision-making, including through workers’ representatives, and that EFP must not be a substitute for fair and decent pay, nor an alternative to public pensions or to collectively agreed pension schemes; 4. Calls on the Commission to implement the ‘five-point action plan’ included in the final report of the pilot project for the promotion of employee ownership and participation of 2014; 5. Recognises the link between legislative measures at national level favouring EFP schemes and the number of companies and employees using them; 6. Highlights the transnational obstacles that are faced by both companies offering such schemes in several Member States, and employees, namely discrepancies in legislation and the risks of double taxation which may incur substantial administrative costs and impinge on the freedom of movement of workers, which plays an important role in combating the scourge of unemployment and enhancing convergence and integration among Member States; 7. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise awareness as advised in the final report of the pilot project for the promotion of employee ownership and participation from 2014, to capitalise on the findings of research projects and encourage the cross-border transferability of best practices, and to propose a set of simple, elementary and basic supportive models; 8. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide dedicated websites that would include model profit-sharing agreements for SMEs and very small enterprises (VSEs) for ease of implementation, as well as information about attached risks and other relevant material; further calls on the Commission and Member States to continue collecting data on the use and spread of financial participation schemes, as well as to examine the impact of financial participation on the functioning of the company, the quality of its work and its retention of workers, with the help of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions; 9. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to assist companies which show an interest in EFP with solutions and specific support measures to avoid excessive administrative and development costs associated with implementing EFP, especially in SMEs, and to encourage outsourcing operators such as banks and investment funds to propose simple EFP schemes tailored to suit this type of company, while making sure that intermediaries do not take advantage of the smallest companies, and that there are no hidden costs; 10. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote financial education in order to empower EU citizens and raise awareness about the implications of EFP; 11. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to engage with social partners, employee ownership organisations and other stakeholders at the beginning of the process in order to design the most appropriate EFP frameworks, and when an EFP scheme is considered relevant, to negotiate it on a ‘plant-by-plant’ basis while considering the size and type of company, its workforce and financial situation, but also the national legislation and practices; 12. Recommends negotiating employee savings schemes and tools at a branch-by-branch level in order to provide SMEs and VSEs with standard agreements that can be implemented directly and conveniently by these companies; 13. Highlights that EFP should be open to all employees on a non-discriminatory basis, regardless of age, gender, nationality, full-time / part-time work arrangements, etc.; 14. Adds that differentiation between employees may be justified to meet the different needs and interests of the employees, such as restricted shares plans that are confined to executives; 15. Considers that ESOPs should also allow employees to use the ESOP account for other equity than that of the current employer, so as to mitigate concentration risk, particularly for SMEs; 16. Recalls that the decision to join EFP schemes should be totally voluntary, meaning no action should be taken against employees if they decide not to join and when they agree, their participation should be based on appropriate training and the informed consent of the employee, who is fully aware of his or her entitlements, obligations and risks, of the situation of the company, of the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme, of the taxation effects when joining the scheme and of the conditions which apply when he or she leaves the company or the scheme; 17. Considers that EFP should not replace or diminish normal basic remuneration or any other form of contribution such as social security contributions, but should be complementary to all social and contractual rights, this being a pre-condition to implementing EFP; 18. Believes that more links should be developed between EFP and the social economy, especially through programmes such as Creative Europe which offer microloans up to EUR 25 000 to small companies and social businesses; 19. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider the rapid evolution and change of the labour market and the consequent challenges regarding skills, digitalisation, automation, wealth inequalities and social security cuts, and the continuous creation of new opportunities to support and protect workers and enable them to adapt and develop professionally and personally; 20. Stresses the important role that EFP can play in fostering entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial mind set by facilitating research and access to capital, especially for start-ups; 21. Highlights that although micro-enterprises play an important role in the economy of most EU Member States, no supportive measures for employee share ownership are implemented for them as yet; 22. Welcomes initiatives led by directorates-general of the Commission such as DG EMPL, FISMA and GROW supporting employment, SMEs and the capital markets union, and calls for a coordinated approach for the best use of available resources, remembering that the final beneficiary is the European citizen; 23. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Legal notice - Privacy policy |