European Parliament decision of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois (2018/2075(IMM))

P8_TA(2018)0401 A8-0349/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Steeve Briois forwarded on 21 February 2018 by the Minister of Justice of the French Republic in connection with a judicial inquiry (B-49 2018/00242) opened against Steeve Briois at the Nanterre Regional Court in response to an application with joinder filed by the ‘Maison des Potes – Maison de l’Égalité’ association on grounds of public incitement to racial or religious discrimination and announced in plenary on 28 May 2018,

–  having heard Steeve Briois in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  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 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic, as amended by Constitutional Law No 95-880 of 4 August 1995,

–  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 (A8-0349/2018),

A.  whereas the Public Prosecutor at the Versailles Court of Appeal has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Steeve Briois, in connection with a legal action concerning an alleged offence;

B.  whereas the waiver of immunity of Steeve Briois relates to an alleged offence of public incitement to discrimination on grounds of nationality, race or religion by word of mouth, in written form or by means of images or electronic public communication by a person or persons unknown, an offence provided for in French law, namely in Article 24, paragraph 8, Article 23, paragraph 1, and Article 42 of the Law of 29 July 1881 and Article 93-3 of Law No 82-652 of 29 July 1982, the penalties for which are laid down in Article 24, paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Law of 29 July 1881 and Article 121-7 of the French Criminal Code;

C.  whereas the judicial inquiry against Steeve Briois was opened in response to a civil action brought on 22 May 2014 by the ‘Maison des Potes – Maison de l’Égalité’;

D.  whereas the complaint concerned statements made in a brochure entitled ‘Handbook for Front National local councillors’, published on 19 September 2013 and posted on the official website of the Front National federation on 30 November 2013, that encouraged any National Front candidates elected to the post of local councillor in the elections held on 23 and 30 March 2014 to recommend, at the first sitting of their new local council, that priority should be given to French people (‘priorité nationale’) when allocating social housing;

E.  whereas French law might attribute criminal liability not only to the material author of a publication;

F.  whereas the investigators were informed in the course of the investigation by the Front National’s then publications director that the contested handbook had been drawn up by the services of the general secretariat; whereas Steeve Briois was at the time general-secretary;

G.  whereas with a view to carrying out the initial questioning of Steeve Briois in connection with the charges brought against him, the competent authorities made an application for his immunity to be waived;

H.  whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union states that Members of the European Parliament shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of the Parliament of that State;

I.  whereas Article 26 of the French Constitution provides that no Member of the French Parliament shall be prosecuted, investigated, arrested, detained or tried in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his official duties;

J.  whereas the scope of immunity accorded to Members of the French Parliament corresponds in fact to the scope of immunity accorded to Members of the European Parliament under Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union; whereas the Court of Justice has held that for a Member of the European Parliament to enjoy immunity, an opinion must be expressed by the Member in the performance of his duties, thus entailing the requirement of a link between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties; whereas such link must be direct and obvious;

K.  whereas Steeve Briois was not a Member of the European Parliament when the alleged offence took place, namely on 19 September and 30 November 2013, but the allegedly offensive materials were still available for consultation by anyone wishing to access them on 23 June and 2 October 2014;

L.  whereas the charges are manifestly unrelated to the position of Steeve Briois as a Member of the European Parliament and concern instead activities of a national or regional nature, given that the statements were made to prospective local council members with a view to the local elections to be held on 23 and 30 March 2014;

M.  whereas the alleged actions do not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast by the Member of the European Parliament in the performance of his duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

N.  whereas there is no reason to suspect that the intention underlying the legal proceedings, which were opened following an application by the ‘Maison des Potes – Maison de l’Égalité’ association and submitted before the Member assumed his seat in the European Parliament, is to obstruct the parliamentary work of Steeve Briois (fumus persecutionis);

1.  Decides to waive the immunity of Steeve Briois;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Minister of Justice of the French Republic and to Steeve Briois.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C‑200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C‑163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.

European Parliament decision of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Sophie Montel (2018/2076(IMM))

P8_TA(2018)0402 A8-0350/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Sophie Montel forwarded on 21 February 2018 by the Minister of Justice of the French Republic in connection with a judicial inquiry (B-49 2018/00243) opened against Sophie Montel at the Nanterre Regional Court in response to an application with joinder filed by the ‘Maison des Potes – Maison de l’ Égalité’ association on grounds of public incitement to racial or religious discrimination and announced in plenary on 28 May 2018,

–  having heard Sophie Montel in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  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 26 of the Constitution of the French Republic, as amended by Constitutional Law No 95-880 of 4 August 1995,

–  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 (A8-0350/2018),

A.  whereas the Public Prosecutor at the Versailles Court of Appeal has requested the waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament, Sophie Montel, in connection with a legal action concerning an alleged offence;

B.  whereas the waiver of immunity of Sophie Montel relates to an alleged offence of public incitement to discrimination on grounds of nationality, race or religion by word of mouth, in written form or by means of images or electronic public communication by a person or persons unknown, an offence provided for in French law, namely in Article 24, paragraph 8, Article 23, paragraph 1, and Article 42 of the Law of 29 July 1881 and Article 93-3 of Law No 82-652 of 29 July 1982, the penalties for which are laid down in Article 24, paragraphs 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the Law of 29 July 1881 and Article 121-7 of the French Criminal Code;

C.  whereas the judicial inquiry against Sophie Montel was opened in response to the civil action brought on 22 May 2014 by the ‘Maison des Potes – Maison de l’Égalité’;

D.  whereas the complaint concerned statements made in a brochure entitled ‘Handbook for Front National local councillors’, published on 19 September 2013 and posted on the official website of the Front National federation on 30 November 2013, that encouraged any National Front candidates elected to the post of local councillor in the elections held on 23 and 30 March 2014 to recommend, at the first sitting of their new local council, that priority should be given to French people (‘priorité nationale’) when allocating social housing;

E.  whereas French law might attribute criminal liability not only to the material author of a publication;

F.  whereas the investigators were informed in the course of the investigation by the Front National’s then publications director that the contested handbook had been drawn up by the services of the general secretariat; whereas Sophie Montel was at the time responsible for coordinating elected representatives in that general secretariat;

G.  whereas with a view to carrying out the initial questioning of Sophie Montel in connection with the charges brought against her, the competent authorities made an application for her immunity to be waived;

H.  whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union states that Members of the European Parliament shall enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of the Parliament of that State;

I.  whereas Article 26 of the French Constitution provides that no Member of the French Parliament shall be prosecuted, investigated, arrested, detained or tried in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of his official duties;

J.  whereas the scope of immunity accorded to Members of the French Parliament corresponds in fact to the scope of immunity accorded to Members of the European Parliament under Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union; whereas the Court of Justice has held that for a Member of the European Parliament to enjoy immunity, an opinion must be expressed by the Member in the performance of his duties, thus entailing the requirement of a link between the opinion expressed and the parliamentary duties; whereas such link must be direct and obvious;

K.  whereas Sophie Montel was not a Member of the European Parliament when the alleged offence took place, namely on 19 September and 30 November 2013, but the allegedly offensive materials were still available for consultation by anyone wishing to access them on 23 June and 2 October 2014;

L.  whereas the charges are manifestly unrelated to the position of Sophie Montel as a Member of the European Parliament and concern instead activities of a national or regional nature, given that the statements relate to prospective local council members with a view to the local elections to be held on 23 and 30 March 2014;

M.  whereas the alleged actions do not relate to opinions expressed or votes cast by the Member of the European Parliament in the performance of her duties within the meaning of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

N.  whereas there is no reason to suspect that the intention underlying the legal proceedings, which were opened following an application by the ‘Maison des Potes – Maison de l’Égalité’ association and submitted before the Member assumed her seat in the European Parliament, is to obstruct the parliamentary work of Sophie Montel (fumus persecutionis);

1.  Decides to waive the immunity of Sophie Montel;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Minister of Justice of the French Republic and to Sophie Montel.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C‑200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C‑163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.

European Parliament decision of 24 October 2018 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Georgios Kyrtsos (2018/2041(IMM))

P8_TA(2018)0403 A8-0351/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the request for waiver of the immunity of Georgios Kyrtsos, forwarded on 27 February 2018 by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic, for non-payment of an Easter bonus of EUR 986,46 (file No AVM O 2017/6101), and announced in plenary on 14 March 2018,

–  having heard Georgios Kyrtsos in accordance with Rule 9(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and to 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 (A8-0351/2018),

A.  whereas the Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme Court of the Hellenic Republic has requested the waiver of the immunity of Georgios Kyrtsos, Member of the European Parliament, in connection with possible legal action concerning an alleged offence;

B.  whereas Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union states that Members of the European Parliament enjoy, in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of the parliament of that State;

C.  whereas Article 62 of the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic provides that, during their parliamentary term, members of parliament may not be prosecuted, arrested, imprisoned or otherwise confined without prior leave granted by parliament;

D.  whereas Georgios Kyrtsos, as legal representative (chairman and chief executive officer) of the companies KMP Publishing House Ltd and Free Sunday Publishing House Ltd, hired his former employee on 26 July 2005 in the name of KMP Publishing House Ltd under a contract for employment in both companies as art director;

E.  whereas Georgios Kyrtsos is accused of non-payment to his former employee of an Easter bonus of EUR 986,46 on 27 April 2016, in violation of Emergency Law No 690/1945, as replaced by Article 8(1) of Law 236/95, and constituting an offence under Article 28 of Law No 3996/2011, in conjunction with Joint Ministerial Decision 19040/1981;

F.  whereas the alleged offence clearly has no direct link with the office of Georgios Kyrtsos as a Member of the European Parliament but is instead connected to his former position as manager of two newspaper firms;

G.  whereas the prosecution does not concern opinions expressed or votes cast in the performance of the duties of the Member of the European Parliament in question for the purposes of Article 8 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union;

H.  whereas there is no reason to suspect that the intention underlying criminal proceedings is to damage a Member’s political activity (fumus persecutionis);

1.  Decides to waive the immunity of Georgios Kyrtsos;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision and the report of its committee responsible immediately to the Greek authorities and to Georgios Kyrtsos.

(1) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1964, Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier, 101/63, ECLI:EU:C:1964:28; judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 July 1986, Wybot v Faure and others, 149/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:310; judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2008, Mote v Parliament, T-345/05, ECLI:EU:T:2008:440; judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 October 2008, Marra v De Gregorio and Clemente, C-200/07 and C-201/07, ECLI:EU:C:2008:579; judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-42/06, ECLI:EU:T:2010:102; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2011, Patriciello, C-163/10, ECLI: EU:C:2011:543; judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013, Gollnisch v Parliament, T-346/11 and T-347/11, ECLI:EU:T:2013:23.

European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2018 on the Council position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019 (11737/2018 – C8-0410/2018 – 2018/2046(BUD))

P8_TA(2018)0404 A8-0313/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union(1),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(2),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU, and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012(3),

–  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(4) (the “MFF Regulation”),

–  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(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2018 on general guidelines for the preparation of the budget(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 April 2018 on Parliament’s estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2019(7),

–  having regard to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019, which the Commission adopted on 21 June 2018 (COM(2018)0600),

–  having regard to the position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019, which the Council adopted on 4 September 2018 and forwarded to Parliament on 13 September 2018 (11737/2018 – C8‑0410/2018),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2018 on the mandate for the trilogue on the 2019 draft budget(8),

–  having regard to Letter of amendment No 1/2019 (COM(2018)0709) to the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019,

–  having regard to Rule 88 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the other committees concerned (A8-0313/2018),

Section III

General overview

1.  Stresses that Parliament's reading of the 2019 Budget fully reflects the political priorities adopted by an overwhelming majority in its abovementioned resolutions of 15 March 2018 on general guidelines and of 5 July 2018 on a mandate for the trilogue; recalls that at the core of those priorities are: sustainable growth, innovation, competitiveness, security, tackling root causes of refugees and migration flows, managing refugee and migration flows, the fight against climate change and the transition to sustainable energy, and a particular focus on young people;

2.  Highlights that ahead of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, the Union needs the necessary financial resources to respond to citizens expectations, to allow the Union to effectively tackle the numerous abovementioned priorities and challenges it faces and to improve the day-to-day life of its citizens;

3.  Points out that Europe's citizens expect the Union to strain every sinew to ensure economic growth and foster job creation evenly within all its regions; recalls that meeting those expectations requires investments in research and innovation, digitalisation, education, infrastructure and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to foster employment, particularly among the young people of Europe; expresses disapproval that the Council yet again proposes cuts to the very programmes that are designed to make the Union economy more competitive and innovative; stresses moreover that many of those programmes, for example Horizon 2020, are heavily oversubscribed, which constitutes a poor use of resources and means that many excellent projects do not receive funding; highlights also the fact that programmes such as Erasmus+, Horizon 2020 and the Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME) provide a vivid demonstration of the advantages of working together across the Union and help create a feeling of European belonging; decides therefore to reinforce considerably Erasmus+ and to strengthen programmes that contribute to growth and job creation, including Horizon 2020, Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) and COSME;

4.  Reiterates its commitment to its pledges made during the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) negotiations, namely to minimise the impact of EFSI-related cuts on Horizon 2020 and CEF in the framework of the annual budgetary procedure; proposes, therefore, to offset those cuts by restoring the original annual profile of those two programmes, in order to allow them to fully accomplish the objectives agreed during the adoption of the relevant legislation;

5.  Highlights that youth unemployment remains unacceptably high in certain Member States especially in the economically lagging regions and that the situation of young people in NEET (not in education, employment or training) situations and the long-term unemployed is particularly worrying; stresses that young people are the most at risk of poverty and social and economic exclusion; decides therefore to reinforce the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) beyond the level proposed by the Commission; stresses that such reinforcement should in no way be seen as a frontloading of the YEI allocation endorsed in the context of the MFF mid-term revision; and urges Member States to increase the level of absorption of the funding and create more quality youth employment;

6.  Recalls the necessity of a strong fight against poverty;

7.  Recalls that cohesion policy plays a primary role in the development and growth of the Union and in the convergence in Member States and regions; emphasises Parliament’s commitment to ensuring adequate appropriations for those programmes that represent a core policy of the Union;

8.  Stresses that the Funds under the Cohesion policy should neither directly or indirectly support relocation as defined in Article 2(61a) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014; urges Member States’ managing authorities to ensure that contributions under the Funds are not granted to beneficiaries that have carried out a relocation within five years preceding the application for a contribution; and to ensure that contributions are repaid in full from beneficiaries that carry out a relocation within five years after having received the contribution;

9.  Regrets that, under current projections, only 19,3 % of the Union budget 2014 – 2020 would be devoted to climate-related measures, failing thus to reach the target of 20 %, an objective which pre-dates the Paris Climate agreement; understands that this is largely due to delays in cohesion policy and the rural development programmes; urges Member States, who manage them, to speed up their implementation with a focus on climate-related spending in order to offset the lower allocations made during the first years of the MFF; calls on the Commission to develop an action plan within programmes having massive potential to contribute to reaching the climate-related spending target; calls also for a robust, annual consolidation exercise to progress towards the mainstreaming target, with concrete and coherent safeguards that guarantee climate proof budgetary decisions are in line with the Union’s commitments under the Paris agreement, with comprehensive reporting to launch initiatives if targets are not met;

10.  Underlines that Heading 3 has been largely mobilised in recent years to address the migratory and refugee challenge and that such actions should continue and be reinforced as much and for as long as needed; calls on the Commission to actively monitor the adequacy of allocations under Heading 3 and make full use of all available instruments to respond in a timely manner to any unforeseen event that might require additional funding in the area of migration with a special attention to the case of island regions falling under the scope of Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; decides to reinforce the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) to fully cover the needs of the Union in the field of migration, notably to support Members States in improving reception conditions, integration measures and practices for asylum seekers and migrants, and enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States and fair and effective return strategies; notes, once again, that the Heading 3 ceiling is inadequate to provide appropriate funding to the internal dimension of those priorities, as well as to other priority programmes, for example in the fields of health, food safety, security, justice, citizenship and culture; considers that local authorities with the willingness to support the Union Resettlement Programme should be further supported through the direct management strand of the AMIF;

11.  Insists that in the light of recent security concerns across the Union, funding under Heading 3 should also pay particular attention to measures which will lead to enhancing security of Union citizens; decides for that reason to reinforce agencies in the field of Justice and Home Affairs such as the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL), European Union Agency for the operational management of Large-Scale IT Systems (eu-LISA), the European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit (Eurojust) and for the new European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) which, due to increased workload and additional tasks, have been facing shortage of staff and funding in the past years;

12.  Reiterates that part of the solution to the migratory and refugee challenge as well as to the security concerns of Union citizens lies in addressing the root causes of migration and devoting sufficient financial means to internal and external instruments that aim at tackling issues such as poverty, lack of employment, education and economic opportunities, instability, conflict and climate change in the European Neighbourhood and Africa; is of the opinion that the Union should make optimal use of financial means under Heading 4 which proved to be insufficient to equally address all external challenges;

13.  Acknowledges the challenges posed to some Member States by the large influx of migrants and asylum seekers; regrets that all efforts to establish a fair and humane migrant scheme at Union level have been unsuccessful so far;

14.  Regrets that Parliament has not been duly involved in the discussions on the extension of the Facility for Refugees in Turkey (FRT); reiterates its longstanding position that new initiatives must not be financed to the detriment of existing Union external projects; maintains, while recalling its support for the continuation of the FRT, that, given the stretched situation under Heading 4 to respond to external challenges, including migration, the Union budget should contribute to the financing of the second tranche in the same proportion as for the first one, i.e. EUR 1 billion, while the Member States should contribute EUR 2 billion to its financing;

15.  Recalls the importance of Turkey as a neighbouring country, including for regional stability, and stresses the need for Turkey to respect international law in the region and to return to a reform path that guarantees the wellbeing of its citizens and the full respect of all their rights;

16.  Restores all cuts proposed by Council to the Draft Budget 2019 (2019 DB) across all headings, with limited exceptions in Heading 4 and subheading 1b; refuses to accept the proposed cuts to programs with the highest European added value, for example those to Horizon 2020 and CEF, two programmes already affected by redeployments to EFSI, or majority of cuts to external policies; stresses that the logic behind Council’s cuts is not substantiated by the actual implementation figures and ignores the varying implementation patterns of certain programmes;

17.  Concludes that, for the purpose of adequately financing all pressing needs, and considering the very tight or inexistent margins under certain headings in 2019, all means available in the MFF Regulation in terms of flexibility will need to be deployed; expects that the Council will share that approach and that an agreement will easily be reached in conciliation, allowing the Union to rise to the occasion and effectively respond to the challenges ahead, particularly given that this year’s conciliation will be the last ahead of the May 2019 European elections;

18.  Sets the overall level of appropriations for 2019 at EUR 166 340 415 936 in commitment appropriations and EUR 149 349 039 470 in payment appropriations, representing an increase of EUR 721 061 034 in commitment appropriations compared to the 2019 DB;

Subheading 1a – Competitiveness for growth and jobs

19.  Rejects Council’s unjustified EUR 794 million cuts to subheading 1a, which represent just over half of the overall Council cuts in commitments in MFF headings; notes that such cuts run counter to Council’s stated political priorities; is concerned moreover that they could hamper implementation of programmes that play a vital role in the creation of jobs and growth, which could have a negative impact on the economy;

20.  Points in that connection to programmes such as Horizon 2020 and CEF and the flagship space programmes, such as Copernicus, which provide very strong European added-value; regrets the significant Council cuts in the Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation with an overwhelmingly negative impact on Horizon 2020 and especially regrets cuts in relevant budget lines such as Strengthening research in future and emerging technologies and Strengthening European research infrastructure; notes also that many of those programmes make an important contribution to the fight against climate change, and considers that that contribution should be strengthened; decides therefore to reverse all cuts made by the Council and, furthermore, to fully restore the original profile of the Horizon 2020 and CEF lines that were cut for the provisioning of the EFSI Guarantee Fund;

21.  Recalls that Erasmus+ remains a highly valued and hugely popular programme promoting youth learning mobility and vocational training, as demonstrated by the volume of applications received, which by far exceeds the funding available, and notes also that it helps foster a strong sense of European identity and encouragement for young people to take part in European democracy; deeply regrets that the 2019 DB for Erasmus+ falls well below Parliament’s expectations, failing to go beyond the programmed figures under the current MFF; considers it therefore essential to reinforce the education and training and youth strands of Erasmus +, as a corollary to the strengthening of the YEI under subheading 1b;

22.  Regrets that after the publication, on 3 February 2014, of its first EU Anti-Corruption report, the Commission refused to continue that practice of annual reports and instead integrated anti-corruption policies into the Economic Semester; notes that the country-specific reports in the context of the Economic Semester do not contain a clear description of the state of play, nor do they contain recommendations on anti-corruption measures for all Member States; urges the Commission once more to submit to Parliament a second EU Anti-Corruption report, and in this context not to evaluate anti-corruption efforts only in terms of economic loss but to also analyse the detrimental effects of corruption on the fundamental rights of Union citizens;

23.  Recalls the importance of fostering extensive synergies between CEF-Transport and CEF-Digital in order to maximise the financial leverage for projects aimed at boosting the digitalisation of the TEN-T corridors;

24.  Highlights yet again the fact that SMEs are an essential part of the Union economy and play a crucial role in job creation throughout the Union; believes that there is a need to create an SME-friendly business environment, as well as to support SME clusters and networks, supporting also cooperative companies with social, solidarity and ethic practices; notes, however, with deep concern the Council cuts to the SME instrument, which send a contradictory signal to businesses in the Union; considers that the Union budget and access to finance backed by it, start-ups and microenterprises can be a key tool in making SMEs more competitive and more innovative and in fostering the spirit of enterprise in the Union; recalls in that regard COSME and Horizon 2020;

25.  Decides, therefore, to further reinforce, beyond the 2019 DB and the pre-EFSI profiles, those programmes that are key to boosting growth and jobs and tackling climate change and that reflect widely agreed Union priorities, namely Erasmus+, Horizon 2020 (including Marie Curie, leadership in space, European Research Council, SME Instrument), COSME, CEF and EaSI;

26.  Increases therefore the level of commitment appropriations for subheading 1a above the 2019 DB by EUR 566 773 112 (excluding pre-EFSI restoration, compensation for the European Labour Authority proposal, pilot projects and preparatory actions), to be financed within the margin available and by a further mobilisation of the Global Margin for Commitments;

27.  Welcomes the commitment to a renewed Union defence agenda, namely through the agreement on the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); expresses its intention to pay particular attention to the implementation by the Commission of the agreements found on the EDIDP and the European Solidarity Corps, as set out in the Amending Letter issued by the Commission on 16 October 2018;

Subheading 1b – Economic, social and territorial cohesion

28.  Welcomes the decreasing rate of youth unemployment at Union level with 14,8 % (as of 1 October 2018), but regrets that the level still remains unacceptably high in certain Member States; emphasises that, in order to address that issue, it is of importance to ensure proper funding of the Youth Guarantee schemes through YEI and the European Social Fund (ESF); welcomes the agreement on the need to provide fresh funding for YEI, and the inclusion of the corresponding appropriations in the 2019 DB; considers nevertheless that, given the challenges and risks posed by youth unemployment, YEI should benefit from increased appropriations and therefore decides to bring YEI to EUR 580 million in commitments in 2019; considers that that increase is in addition to the amount for YEI currently programmed for the 2014-2020 period;

29.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that the implementation of cohesion policy programmes is accelerated to catch up with the delays; notes that even though the Council has not questioned the level of payment appropriations as proposed by the Commission, Parliament will carefully examine the Commission’s updated forecasts, to adjust the payment appropriations to real needs in order to avoid the reconstitution of a payment backlog at the end of the current MFF;

30.  Emphasises, with regret, that disasters generally affect those who have less means to protect themselves; notes that the response to natural or man-made disasters should be as rapid as possible so that damage is minimal and people and property can be saved; highlights the need for an additional increase in funds, particularly in the budget lines linked to disaster prevention and preparedness within the Union, taking into account, in particular, fires in Greece, Spain and Portugal (resulting in a tragic loss of human life), which have a dramatic and substantial impact on people;

31.  In line with the agreement reached on the revision of the Structural Reforms Support Programme (SRSP), agrees with the transfer of EUR 40 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 17,2 million in payment appropriations from subheading 1b to Heading 2;

Heading 2 – Sustainable growth: natural resources

32.  Recalls that the Commission’s proposal to increase appropriations to finance the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) needs is largely due to a significantly lower amount of assigned revenue being expected to be available in 2019;

33.  Notes the Council’s cuts of EUR 310 million in commitment appropriations (- 0,52 % compared to 2019 DB) and EUR -328,13 million in payment appropriations (- 0,57 % compared to 2019 DB), but considers that the Commission’s Amending Letter should remain the basis for any reliable revision of EAGF appropriations and restores the 2019 DB levels accordingly, pending an examination of that Amending Letter in conciliation;

34.  Decides to increase the funding for the emergency support in particular for pig-meat against the African swine fever in order to reduce the negative impact upon farmers and employees in the regions most affected by the disease; decides to express its strong support for the agricultural sector in the Union by increasing the appropriations for fruit and vegetables, in order to tackle the effects of the crisis in the sector and the effects of the Russian embargo, as well as for measures to tackle the effects of plaques xilella fastidiosa and the volatility of the price of olive oil;

35.  Points out the essential role played by the Union decentralised agencies in the area of the environment, public health and food safety in aiding the Union and the Member States make informed, science-based decisions about protecting and improving the environment and public health, while enhancing cooperation between Member States to address the concerns of Union citizens;

36.  Decides to propose an increase of EUR 20 million above the level of the 2019 DB for the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to promote innovation in the agriculture and forestry sectors and to ensure the profitability and sustainability of those livelihoods in the future;

37.  Decides, in line with its Europe 2020 targets and with its international commitments to tackle climate change, to propose an increase of EUR 15,6 million above the level of the 2019 DB for climate-related actions; moreover, recalls the Union’s commitments to halt and reverse the decline of biodiversity and underlines that that increase contributes also to biodiversity protection;

38.  Decides, in the light of the successful conclusion of the negotiations on the SRSP revision, to lift the reserve introduced by the Council on the amounts transferred from subheading 1b;

39.  Points to the effects of the extreme drought affecting the Member States in recent months, causing considerable losses to agriculture and jeopardising a large number of businesses, and highlights in that regard the need to guarantee support measures aimed at helping the worst-affected farmers;

40.  Decides to use the maximum appropriations for POSEI programmes provided for in the relevant Regulation(9), underlining the relevance of those programmes for the resilience of the agricultural producers and highlights the fragile economic situation of the outermost regions;

41.  Increases therefore commitment appropriations by EUR 154,1 million, excluding pilot projects and preparatory actions, leaving a margin of EUR 190,8 million below the ceiling for commitments in Heading 2;

42.  Underlines that the persistent imbalances in the food supply chain, in which the position of primary producers is considerably weaker than that of other actors, should lead the Commission to take steps to improve the transparency of prices and margins in the food supply chain, thereby guaranteeing a fair price for the production and ensuring improvements in the income of small and medium farmers;

43.  Draws attention to the threat factors weighing on numerous forest ecosystems, such as, among others, the spread of invasive alien species, pests (such as pine nematode and others) and forest fires; considers that sufficient financial resources should be addressed through community support programs and measures, to the evaluation of ecological and plant health of forests and their rehabilitation, including reforestation; notes that such resources are particularly important and urgent to some Member States, namely Portugal, Greece and Spain following multiple previous fires throughout those territories;

Heading 3 - Security and Citizenship

44.  Reiterates its long-standing conviction that the Heading 3 ceiling has proven vastly insufficient to adequately fund the internal dimension of essential challenges related on the one hand to internal security and citizens' safety, and on the other hand to refugees and migrants;

45.  Expects the pressure on those Member States’ migration and asylum systems, as well as on their borders, to remain high in 2019, as in the years that will follow, and is therefore of the opinion that additional funding is needed in the field of refugees and migration, also in view of any future, unpredictable needs in that area; reinforces therefore the AMIF as regards supporting legal migration to the Union and promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals and enhancing fair and effective return strategies, in particular to support Member States in improving integration measures for refugees and migrants, especially children and unaccompanied minors;

46.  Welcomes the increase in commitment appropriations for AMIF in order to finance the new Dublin II legislation (assuming it is adopted by the end of 2018) and rejects the Council’s decision to move the corresponding appropriations into a reserve;

47.  Underlines that internal security must remain one of the Union’s main priorities and stresses the role of the Internal Security Fund (ISF) as the key financial instrument to support Member States in the area of security, including in the fight against terrorism and radicalisation, serious and organised crime and cybercrime; decides therefore to increase budgetary appropriations of the ISF, also to strengthen support for border management and to provide assistance for victims of terrorist acts;

48.  Points out the essential role played by the Union agencies in the area of justice and home affairs in enhancing cooperation between Member States to address the concerns of Union citizens; decides to increase budgetary appropriations and staffing of EUROPOL, CEPOL, eu-LISA, Eurojust and for the EPPO;

49.  Insists, in that context, that the EPPO be adequately financed and staffed; notes that in the 2019 DB, the Union contribution amounts to a total of EUR 4 911 000; points out that that appropriation is intended to cover the EPPO’s staff-related expenditure, infrastructure, other administrative expenditure and operational expenditure; notes that only 35 staff posts are provided for, which implies that after deducting the posts for 23 European Prosecutors, only 12 posts are foreseen for administrative tasks; considers that that is not realistic, in particular with regard to the two additional Member States that have recently decided to join the EPPO; decides, therefore, to frontload the staff increase foreseen for 2020, and to align the grading of the Chief Prosecutor and the European Prosecutors to those of OLAF's and Europol's management level;

50.  Regrets Council’s arbitrary cuts of more than EUR 35 million in commitment appropriations to numerous programmes in the areas of culture, citizenship, justice and public health, despite the excellent implementation rates of those programmes and the already insufficient levels of financing that leave many high-quality projects unfunded; restores all lines at least to the level of the draft budget while proposing additional increases to relevant lines;

51.  Stresses the value of Creative Europe in supporting the Union’s audio-visual and cultural sectors and insists that funding levels should match the ambitions of the programme; calls for an increase in committee appropriations for the MEDIA and the Culture sub-programmes, inter alia to tackle low application success rates; also increases appropriations for multimedia actions and for strengthening the financial capacity of SMEs in the European cultural and creative sectors;

52.  Recalls its support for the rights, equality, citizenship and justice programmes; decides to increase commitment appropriations for instruments dealing with non-discrimination and equality in general, and specifically the Daphne programme, and to fight gender-based violence and enforce women's and LGBTQI+ rights;

53.  Recalls that culture- and education-related projects are supported across a range of Union programmes and instruments, notably the ESI Funds, EFSI and Horizon 2020; urges the Commission to improve cross-programme synergies to deliver effective spending; calls on the Commission, in particular, to fully exploit potential synergies existing between various Union programmes – such as Horizon 2020, CEF, Erasmus+, EaSI, Creative Europe and COSME, EFSI and ESI Funds – to support more projects in the field of cultural and creative industries;

54.  Reinforces Heading 3 by EUR 127,75 million in commitment appropriations with respect to the draft budget, excluding pilot projects and preparatory actions, and proposes to finance those reinforcements by a further mobilisation of special instruments;

Heading 4 – Global Europe

55.  Stresses that the complex geopolitical challenges the Union is facing call urgently for a stronger Union external presence; emphasises once again that the Union’s external action can only be credible if it is backed by sufficient financial resources; recalls that the funding needs greatly exceed the current size of Heading 4 and calls for appropriate room for manoeuvre in the event of unforeseen external crises;

56.  Recalls that the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has to cut across the Union´s internal and external policies, whereas a special focus should be given to the provision of sufficient good-quality food, clean water and the building of additional wastewater disposal facilities in order to deliver on SDG 2 and 6; furthermore, draws the attention to the scale and implications of energy poverty in developing countries and demands additional action to reduce energy poverty in line with SDG 7, in particular in remote rural areas in off-grid energy regions;

57.  In that respect, reaffirms, in line with its position expressed in its abovementioned resolution of 5 July 2018, that the current ratio of contribution to the FRT from the Union budget (EUR 1 billion) and Member States (EUR 2 billion) should be maintained for the financing of the second tranche of the FRT; decides therefore to reduce the contributions of the Union budget from EUR 1,45 billion to EUR 450 million; believes that the difference should be instead financed by the bilateral contributions of Member States;

58.  Believes that the promotion of peace, security and justice in developing countries is of paramount importance to addressing the root causes of migration and corresponding humanitarian challenges in the Southern Neighbourhood, such as Libya; underlines the importance of supporting good governance, democracy, the rule of law and vibrant civil society to effectively combat poverty over the long-term, and address the challenges of the climate change in developing countries; decides therefore to increase resources for the Development and Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the Southern part of the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) under its various strands, to reflect also the considerable stress under which ENI will continue to be in 2019;

59.  Recalls that the Union has committed to comprehensively protect and promote the rights of the child, girls and women as well as people with disabilities and special needs in its external policy; stresses the importance of implementing the EU Guidelines for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Child in the European Union, the European Union Gender Action Plan and European Disability Policy in external relations; in that spirit, deems it appropriate to dedicate 10 % of the resources available under humanitarian aid to access to education in crisis areas;

60.  Underscores the strategic importance of providing sufficient funding for the Western Balkans in order to consolidate their path towards accession; fails to understand the Council’s proposal to cut the allocation for political reforms, as such reforms are the backbone of any democratic transformation; stresses the need for appropriate financial backing for the 2018-2020 Action Plan of the Western Balkan Strategy, and decides, consequently, to increase the allocation to the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) for the region;

61.  Highlights that the situation in the countries of the Eastern Partnership represents also a significant challenge for the Union; is convinced of the importance of providing additional funding to support our neighbours’ reform efforts, contribute to increasing resilience and fostering peace and improving day to day life of the citizens of those countries;

62.  Calls for enhanced Union support to UNRWA, in line with its resolution of 8 February 2018(10), in view of the worsening situation on the ground and the decision of the United States to withdraw its annual contribution to the agency; specifies that the proposed increase is exclusively dedicated to UNRWA in order to compensate the relevant loss;

63.  Is convinced of the potential of people-to-people contacts and youth mobility, also as one of the key strategies to enhance the impact of the Union external action and its visibility among the public of partner countries; decided therefore to reinforce the contributions from DCI, ENI, IPA II, and Partnership Instrument to Erasmus+;

64.  In line with the principle of conditionality, supports a reduction in the amount allocated to Turkey in all budget lines, in view of the continuing backsliding on the rule of law, democracy and human rights; at the same time, deems it necessary to further strengthen the direct support to civil society, as well as people-to-people contacts;

65.  Deems it necessary to increase appropriations for the Turkish Cypriot Community budget line for the purpose of contributing decisively to the continuation and intensification of the mission of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, the wellbeing of Maronites wishing to resettle and that of all enclaved persons as agreed in the 3rd Vienna Agreement, and of supporting the bicommunal Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage, thereby promoting trust and reconciliation between the two communities;

66.  Acknowledges the moderate increase in funding for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) proposed by the Commission, while noting that the CFSP budget is still under heavy pressure, also considering the expansion of a number of Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) missions risking to exacerbate the problem in 2019; reverses the reduction proposed by the Council for other crisis management measures and operations, which would result in less flexibility in dealing with unexpected crises;

67.  As a result, decides to reverse almost all of the Council’s cuts, to reinforce Heading 4 by EUR 425,4 million above the 2019 DB (excluding pilot projects and preparatory actions), while decreasing FRT and Turkey related lines and non restoring Council’s cuts with a total effect of EUR -1,24 billion, thereby resulting in a net difference of EUR -819,1 million below the 2019 DB in Heading 4;

Heading 5 - Administration; Other headings - administrative and research support expenditure

68.  Considers that Council’s cuts are unjustified and do not reflect the real needs; restores therefore the 2019 DB for all Commission administrative expenditure, including administrative and research support expenditure in Headings 1 to 4;

Decentralised Agencies

69.  Endorses, as a general rule, the Commission's estimates of the budgetary needs of agencies; considers, therefore, that any further cuts proposed by the Council would endanger the proper functioning of the agencies and would not allow them to fulfil the tasks they have been assigned; notes with particular irritation the arbitrary cut of merely EUR 10 000 to CEPOL and invites the Council to share with Parliament the substantial details on why it considers such cuts to be necessary and reasonable;

70.  Notes that the fee-financing of agencies reduces the burden to the Union budget by EUR 1 billion annually; underlines that public tasks such as in the area of health, environment, or security and justice should always remain within the Union budget; believes however that the Commission should continue to address the risk of conflicts of interest potentially arising in fee financed agencies and take adequate measures to avoid such conflicts;

71.  Recalls the importance for the Union of focusing on competitiveness for growth and jobs; considers, in that context, that additional appropriation and staff are needed for the European GNSS Agency (GSA) and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER); notes the creation of the European Labour Authority (ELA) and underlines the need to mobilise fresh resources for it; restores Council’s substantial cuts to the appropriations for the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs),while putting parts of their appropriations into reserve pending progress on the ESAs’ review;

72.  In the context of the challenges the Union is still facing in terms of security, and bearing in mind the necessity for a coordinated European response, decides to reinforce the appropriations for the EUROPOL, eu-LISA, CEPOL, EUROJUST, EPPO, and the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA);

73.  Expects the pressure on some Member States’ migration and asylum systems, as well as on their borders, to remain high in 2019 and possibly escalate; stresses that the future need of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) in terms of operational resources and staff will have to be closely monitored and possibly updated for the 2019 Budget; asks the Commission to provide an overview of the budgetary needs for the 2019 Budget for the proposed reforms of those agencies as soon as possible;

74.  Highlights the need for an adequate level of financial appropriations for agencies which will be dealing with new additional tasks;

75.  Reiterates its position that the 5 % staff reduction target has been successfully reached; expresses its intention to include a common statement by all institutions that confirms the end of that one-time exercise; considers that the new posts adopted in its position are needed to fulfil additional tasks due to new policy developments and new legislation;

76.  Recalls that the Inter-Institutional Working Group on Decentralised Agencies' Resources 2 concluded its work by adopting recommendations on lessons learned from the approach to achieving the 5 % staff reduction target, the treatment of new tasks, evaluations of agencies, the sharing of services, the evaluation of agencies with multiple locations and the model for fee-financing agencies; welcomes the ratification of those recommendations by the institutions; expresses its intention to continue scrutinizing the Commission work on those recommendations in the future;

Pilot projects and preparatory actions (PP-PAs)

77.  Recalls the importance of pilot projects and preparatory actions (PP-PAs) as tools for the formulation of political priorities and the introduction of new initiatives that have the potential to turn into standing Union activities and programmes; having carried out a careful analysis of all the proposals submitted and taking into account the Commission's assessment of their respect of legal requirements and implementability, decides to adopt a balanced package of PP-PAs that reflects Parliament’s political priorities;

78.  Welcomes the launch of Discover EU, the distribution of 15 000 InterRail tickets to 18-year-old Europeans in 2018, as well as the Commission proposal of EUR 700 million for the MFF 2021-2027, which fits well with the Union’s ambitions to promote learning mobility, active citizenship, social inclusion and solidarity among all young people; decides to continue the relevant preparatory action in 2019 and is determined to continue it also in 2020;

Special instruments

79.  Recalls the usefulness of special instruments to provide flexibility over and above the extremely tight ceilings of the current MFF and welcomes the improvements brought about by the mid-term revision of the MFF Regulation; calls for an extensive use of the Flexibility Instrument and the Global Margin for Commitments in the 2019 Budget in order to finance the wide range of new challenges and additional responsibilities that the Union budget is facing; recalls also the significance of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF), the Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) and the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF);

Payments

80.  Reiterates its concerns that, despite recent catching-up, under-execution in payments has reached record low in the past three years, notably in subheading 1b; regrets that such delays prevent Union priorities and projects from delivering their full potential to citizens in a timely manner; points to the fact that, as a result, the 2019 DB leaves an unprecedented margin of EUR 19,3 billion below the payment ceiling; reinforces payment appropriations on those lines which are amended in commitment appropriations;

Other Sections

Section I - European Parliament

81.  Maintains unchanged the overall level of its budget for 2019, in line with its abovementioned resolution on its estimates of revenue and expenditure adopted by the plenary on 19 April 2018, at EUR 1 999 144 000; incorporates budgetary-neutral technical adjustments to reflect updated information which was not available earlier this year;

82.  Notes that the level of estimates for 2019 corresponds to 18,53 %, which is lower than that achieved in 2018 (18,85 %) and the lowest part of Heading 5 in more than fifteen years;

83.  Notes that, due to the 2019 European Parliament elections, expenditure will be higher in some areas, in particular in respect of Members who are not re-elected and their assistants, whilst savings, albeit of a lesser magnitude, will be generated in other areas as a result of the reduction in the volume of parliamentary business in an election year;

84.  Welcomes the fact that the 2019 Budget will include further instalments of substantial investments started back in 2016 with a view to significantly improving Parliament's security; points out that those projects cover various domains, mainly relating to buildings, such as the security upgrade of the entrance, equipment and staff, as the iPACS Project, but also improvements in the field of cyber-security and communication security;

85.  Takes note of the Bureau decision to take into consideration two options for the PHS building: renovation or the rebuilding; urges the Secretary-General and the Bureau to provide the budgetary authority with a detailed budget for each of those options in addition to all technical specifications;

86.  Reduces the establishment plan of its General Secretariat for 2019 by 59 posts (1 % staff reduction target), in accordance with the agreement of 14 November 2015 reached with the Council on the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, in which Parliament's annual staff reduction measures are set to continue until 2019;

87.  Considers that in its resolution of 18 April 2018 on the Integrity Policy of the Commission, Parliament expressed its concerns with regard to the appointment procedures for its senior officials, reiterates its call on the Commission to review before the end of 2018 its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected within a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities;

88.  Notes the decision of the General Court of 25 September 2018 confirming Parliament’s refusal to grant access to documents relating to MEPs’ subsistence allowances, travel expenses and parliamentary assistance allowances (Judgment in Cases T-639/15 to T-666/15 Maria Psara and Others v Parliament and T-94/16 Gavin Sheridan v Parliament); reminds the Bureau that the plenary has appealed for greater transparency and an urgent need to audit the General Expenditure Allowance (GEA); welcomed, in this regard, the creation of an ad hoc working group for defining and publishing the rules concerning the use of the GEA; regrets, however, that the based on the report of its working group the Bureau could only agree on a non-exhaustive list of eligible expenses, and on the need for each Member of Parliament to have a separate bank account dedicated to funds received as part of the GEA; reiterates its call on the Bureau to make the following additional changes concerning the GEA:

89.  Recalls Article 62 of the Decision of the Bureau of 19 May and 9 July 2008 concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, which stipulates that "the sums paid", including the General Expenditure Allowance, "shall be reserved exclusively for the funding of activities linked to the exercise of a Member’s mandate and may not be used to cover personal expenses or to fund grants or donations of a political nature" and that "Members shall pay back any unused amounts to Parliament"; calls upon the Secretary-General and the Bureau of the European Parliament to ensure that those provisions are fully implemented and complied with;

90.  Recalls that on 23 October 1997, in its resolution on the general budget for 1998, Parliament called upon its Bureau to request the Court of Auditors to investigate Parliament’s voluntary pension scheme, which led to the issuance of the Court of Auditor’s opinion No 5/99 dated 16 June 1999 on the “Pension Fund and Scheme for Members of the European Parliament”; calls now on the Bureau to urgently request the Court of Auditors to produce another such opinion on the pension scheme and fund in 2019;

91.  Recalls that, in a note to the Bureau dated 8 March 2018, its Secretary-General accepted that the pension fund linked to the Members’ voluntary pension scheme “will exhaust its capital well before the end of the pension obligations and possibly already by 2024”; calls therefore upon the Secretary-General and the Bureau, while respecting fully the Statute for Members, to urgently establish with the pension fund a clear plan for the Parliament assuming and taking over its obligations and responsibilities for its Member’s voluntary pension scheme immediately after the 2019 elections;

92.  Demands additional Union support for the parliamentary dimension of the WTO, in particular by an increased financial and personnel support to the responsible secretariat;

93.  Calls for the upgrade of the European Science Media Hub, adopted in the 2018 Budget, and for cooperation with television stations, social media and further partners in order to establish training purposes for young journalists, especially in relation to new scientific and technological developments and to fact-based, peer-reviewed news;

94.  Demands, for the purpose of implementing the recommendations of Parliament’s resolution of 26 October 2017 on combating sexual harassment and abuse in the Union, further support to cover the cost of the external expertise needed to widen the external audit that has been implemented on the Advisory committee dealing with harassment complaints concerning Members, to the “Staff advisory committee for Parliament staff” on harassment prevention; also demands, for the same purpose, further support to cover the cost of additional staff competent to manage harassment cases within Parliament, gathering in a dedicated service staff with medical, psychological, legal, and human resources management background, and specific expertise in that field;

95.  Recalls the 2014 ECA analysis which estimated the costs of the geographic dispersion of the Parliament to be EUR 114 million per year; furthermore, notes the finding from its resolution of 20 November 2013 on the location of the seats of the European Union’s Institutions(11) that 78 % of all missions by Parliament statutory staff arise as a direct result of the Parliament's geographic dispersion; emphasises that the report also estimates the environmental impact of the geographic dispersion to be between 11 000 to 19 000 tonnes of CO2 emissions; reiterates the negative public perception caused by that dispersion and calls therefore for a roadmap to a single seat and a reduction in the relevant budget lines;

96.  Urges the Secretary-General to devise detailed arrangements for more sharing of back office functions and services between Parliament, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee;

Section IV - Court of Justice

97.  Restores the 2019 DB on all budget items cut by the Council, which are essential to the functioning of the Court, and restores the estimates for two budget items in order to enhance the Court’s ability to deal with increasingly high translation demands;

98.  Restores the 16 posts and the related appropriations cut by the Commission in the 2019 DB to prevent any bottleneck that might be detrimental to the productivity of the courts in the context of new activities taken up by the Court and of continuous increase of the workload; considers that the creation of 16 new permanent posts for the support services, initially proposed by the Court and rejected by the Commission, should be granted;

Section V - Court of Auditors

99.  Restores the 2019 DB on all items cut by Council, in order to implement the work programme of the Court of Auditors and to deliver the planned Audit Reports;

Section VI - European Economic and Social Committee

100.  Restores the 2019 DB on all items cut by the Council;

101.  Increases a number of lines above the 2019 DB in line with the European Economic and Social Committee’s own estimates;

Section VII - Committee of the Regions

102.  Restores the 2019 DB on all items cut by the Council;

103.  Increases a number of lines above the 2019 DB in line with the Committee of the Region’s own estimates;

Section VIII - European Ombudsman

104.  Maintains unchanged the overall level of the Ombudsman’s budget for 2019 as proposed by the Commission in the 2019 DB;

Section IX - European Data Protection Supervisor

105.  Decides not to restore the 2019 DB in the line cut by the Council, due to a high increase of the total budget as compared to the previous year;

Section X - European External Action Service

106.  Restores the 2019 DB on all lines cut by the Council;

107.  Increases a number of lines above the 2019 DB in line with EEAS own estimates;

108.  Reiterates Parliament’s support to the Strategic Communication Capacity and reinforces it to deliver a stronger coordinated Union response to the challenge of disinformation;

109.  Restores the 28 posts and related appropriations cut by the Council and adds a further five posts which constitute a moderate staff increase that is justified by the EEAS’s significant new responsibilities, in particular those connected to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union, namely the creation of a new Union delegation in London and a new unit in the headquarters, and the adoption of a number of initiatives in the field of security and defence in recent months;

o
o   o

110.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, together with the amendments to the draft general budget, to the Council, the Commission, the other institutions and bodies concerned and the national parliaments.

(1) OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 105. (2) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1. (3) OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1. (4) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884. (5) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1. (6) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0089. (7) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0182. (8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0311. (9) Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 247/2006 (OJ L 78, 20.3.2013, p. 23). (10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0042. (11) OJ C 436, 24.11.2016, p. 2.

1. European Parliament decision of 24 October 2018 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section II – European Council and Council (2017/2138(DEC))

P8_TA(2018)0405 A8-0300/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016(1),

–  having regard to the consolidated annual accounts of the European Union for the financial year 2016 (COM(2017)0365 – C8‑0249/2017)(2),

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ annual report on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2016, together with the institutions’ replies(3),

–  having regard to the statement of assurance(4) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2016, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to its decision of 18 April 2018(5) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2016, and the accompanying resolution(6),

–  having regard to Article 314(10) and Articles 317, 318 and 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(7), and in particular Articles 55, 99, 164, 165 and 166 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0300/2018),

1.  Refuses to grant the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Council and of the Council for the financial year 2016;

2.  Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this decision and the resolution forming an integral part of it to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Auditors, the European Ombudsman, the European Data Protection Supervisor and the European External Action Service, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2. European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2018 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section II – European Council and Council (2017/2138(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016, Section II – European Council and Council,

–  having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0300/2018),

A.  Whereas all Union institutions ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the citizens of the Union for the funds entrusted to them as Union institutions;

B.  Whereas Parliament's role in respect of the budget discharge is specified in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and in the Financial Regulation;

1.  Recalls that the Union institutions have administrative autonomy in matters relating to their respective operations and underlines the importance of them acting responsibly in the implementation of their budgets;

2.  Underlines the role of Parliament within the discharge procedure, as governed by the TFEU, the Financial Regulation and Parliament’s Rules of Procedure;

3.  Regrets that Council has not replied to the observations made by Parliament in its discharge resolution of 18 April 2018(8), following the trend from previous years;

4.  Deeply regrets that the recommendations of Parliament have not been followed up at all and that no reason or justification has been given; insists that Council implement the observations made in Parliament’s discharge resolution of 18 April 2018, in particular the observations below, and immediately react to the observations;

5.  Expresses support for the successful paradigm shift towards performance-based budgeting in the Commission’s budget planning introduced in September 2015 as part of the ‘EU Budget Focused on Results’ initiative; encourages the European Council and the Council to apply the method to their own budget-planning procedure;

Pending issues

6.  Regrets that the request for the budgets of the European Council and the Council to be separated, made by Parliament in previous discharge resolutions, has not been considered;

7.  Notes that Council is still working on a reply to the European Ombudsman’s strategic report on the ‘Transparency of the Council legislative process’ (OI/2/2017/TE), despite the fact that the European Ombudsman requested a reply to her recommendations and suggestions for improvements by 9 May 2018; acknowledges that Council is engaging in serious and thorough research in preparing its reply but nevertheless urges Council to respect the request of the Ombudsman; recalls that the European Ombudsman also sent her findings to Parliament and that two of its committees are currently working on a report on the findings for which reason Council is called upon to transmit its reply and findings to Parliament as soon as possible;

8.  Regrets that, despite the occasional exchange of information between the building departments of Parliament and Council, Council continues not to provide detailed information on its building policy in its annual financial report; regrets the lack of information on its buildings policy and related expenditures and asks for full public access to this information as a sign of transparency for Union citizens;

9.  Reiterates its call for progress reports on building projects and a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred to date; takes note of the publication of the Final Financial Statements 2017 – the Council of the European Union and the European Council, dated 12 June 2018, which puts the cost of the Europa building at EUR 312 143 710,53;

10.  Reiterates its call for an overview of human resources to be broken down by category, grade, gender, nationality and training;

11.  Welcomes the ongoing inter-institutional negotiations to strengthen the Union transparency register; reiterates its call for a successful outcome of the negotiations that will lead to Council joining the register;

12.  Reiterates its call on Council to clarify what measures it has taken to overcome the irregular nomination of a judge to the Court of Justice of the European Union(9);

13.  Takes note of the decision by the United Kingdom to withdraw from the Union; observes that at this point no predictions can be made about the financial, administrative, human and other consequences related to the withdrawal; asks the European Council and the Council to perform impact assessments and to inform Parliament of the results by the end of the year 2018;

State of play

14.  Welcomes the informal exchanges that took place between Parliament and Council in order to discuss solutions to the current impasse in respect of the discharge procedure; notes that Council replied to the Parliament proposal on the Council discharge exercise procedure on 2 May 2018 with an amended proposal, and that following an informal meeting between Parliament and Council on 10 July 2018 the Budgetary Control Committee sent its reaction to Council’s amended proposal on 21 July 2018; urges Council to react to the latest proposals from the Budgetary Control Committee swiftly, so that the new arrangements for the discharge exercise can be applied as soon as possible;

15.  Regrets the difficulties repeatedly encountered in the discharge procedures to date which were due to a lack of cooperation from Council; points out that Parliament refused to grant discharge to the Secretary-General of the Council in relation to the financial years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 for the reasons set out in its resolutions of 10 May 2011(10), 25 October 2011(11), 10 May 2012(12), 23 October 2012(13), 17 April 2013(14), 9 October 2013(15), 3 April 2014(16), 23 October 2014(17), 27 October 2015(18), 27 October 2016(19) and 25 October 2017(20) and postponed its decision on granting the Secretary-General of the Council discharge in relation to the financial year 2016 for the reasons set out in its resolution of 18 April 2018;

16.  Notes the Commission's view, expressed in January 2014, that all institutions are fully part of the follow-up process to the observations made by Parliament in the discharge exercise and that all institutions should cooperate to ensure the smooth functioning of the discharge procedure;

17.  Notes that the Commission has stated that it will not oversee the implementation of the budget of the other institutions and that giving a response to questions addressed to another institution would infringe on the autonomy of that institution to implement its own section of the budget;

18.  Regrets that Council continues to fail to provide answers to Parliament's questions;

19.  Insists that the expenditure of Council must be scrutinised in the same way as that of other institutions and that the fundamental elements of such scrutiny have been laid down in its discharge resolutions of the past years;

20.  Emphasises Parliament's prerogative to grant discharge pursuant to Articles 316, 317 and 319 TFEU, in line with current interpretation and practice, namely to grant discharge of each heading of the budget individually in order to maintain transparency and democratic accountability towards Union taxpayers.

(1) OJ L 48, 24.2.2016. (2) OJ C 323, 28.9.2017, p. 1. (3) OJ C 322, 28.9.2017, p. 1. (4) OJ C 322, 28.9.2017, p. 10. (5) OJ L 248, 3.10.2018, p. 23. (6) OJ L 248, 3.10.2018, p. 24. (7) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1. (8) OJ L 248, 3.10.2018, p. 24. (9) Judgment of the General Court (Appeal Chamber) of 23 January 2018, FV v Council of the European Union, T-639/16 P, ECLI:EU:T:2018:22. (10) OJ L 250, 27.9.2011, p. 25. (11) OJ L 313, 26.11.2011, p. 13. (12) OJ L 286, 17.10.2012, p. 23. (13) OJ L 350, 20.12.2012, p. 71. (14) OJ L 308, 16.11.2013, p. 22. (15) OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 97. (16) OJ L 266, 5.9.2014, p. 26. (17) OJ L 334, 21.11.2014, p. 95. (18) OJ L 314, 1.12.2015, p. 49. (19) OJ L 333, 8.12.2016, p. 50. (20) OJ L 318, 2.12.2017, p. 25.

1. European Parliament decision of 24 October 2018 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Asylum Support Office for the financial year 2016 (2017/2177(DEC))

P8_TA(2018)0406 A8-0299/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Asylum Support Office for the financial year 2016,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors’ report on the annual accounts of the European Asylum Support Office for the financial year 2016, together with the Office’s reply(1),

–  having regard to the statement of assurance(2) as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions provided by the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2016, pursuant to Article 287 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Council’s recommendation of 20 February 2018 on discharge to be given to the Office in respect of the implementation of the budget for the financial year 2016 (05941/2018 – C8‑0087/2018),

–  having regard to its decision of 18 April 2018(3) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2016, and the reply from the executive director of the European Asylum Support Office,

–  having regard to the actions taken up by Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs and the management board of the European Asylum Support Office following the Parliament’s decision of 18 April 2018 postponing the discharge that resulted in the resignation of Mr. José Carreira from the post of executive director of the European Asylum Support Office on 6 June 2018;

–  having regard to the hearing of 3 September 2018 and to the presented corrective measures already taken by the new ad interim executive director of the European Asylum Support Office since his appointment in June 2018;

–  having regard to Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(4), and in particular Article 208 thereof,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 439/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 establishing a European Asylum Support Office(5), in particular Article 36 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1271/2013 of 30 September 2013 on the framework financial regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 208 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council(6), and in particular Article 108 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0299/2018),

1.  Refuses to grant the Executive Director of the European Asylum Support Office discharge in respect of the implementation of the Office’s budget for the financial year 2016;

2.  Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this decision, and the resolution forming an integral part of it, to the Executive Director of the European Asylum Support Office, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2. European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2018 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Asylum Support Office for the financial year 2016 (2017/2177(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Asylum Support Office for the financial year 2016,

–  having regard to Rule 94 of and Annex IV to its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0299/2018),

A.  whereas all Union decentralised agencies ought to be transparent and fully accountable to the citizens of the Union for the funds entrusted to them as Union bodies;

B.  whereas Parliament's role in respect of the discharge is specified in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the Financial Regulation and in the Framework Financial Regulation;

1.  Underlines the importance of acting responsibly, in an accountable and transparent manner, and in accordance with all relevant rules and regulations, in the implementation of the Union budget;

2.  Recalls the role of Parliament within the discharge procedure, as governed by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Financial Regulation and its rules of procedure;

3.  Welcomes the fact that the initial decision of 18 April 2018 postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2016 led to the strong corrective measures taken by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, the management board of the European Asylum Support Office (the “Office”) and the Office’s new ad interim executive director;

4.  Recognises that, apart from the completion of the European Anti-Fraud Office’s (OLAF) investigation against the previous leadership of the Office, the corrective measures taken to date have partially responded to the reservations presented by Parliament in its decision of 18 April 2018 postponing the discharge;

The ongoing investigation of OLAF

5.  Recalls the fact that an OLAF investigation is currently ongoing concerning several former and current members of the Office occupying middle or senior management positions;

6.  Notes with appreciation the decision of the management board on 6 June 2018 to release the executive director from his duties with immediate effect; welcomes the designation of an ad interim executive director, not subject to the OLAF investigation; regrets, however, that the management board did not take this action on its own initiative much earlier in the process which would have avoided the delay in the discharge procedure;

7.  Welcomes the action already undertaken by the ad interim executive director in order to improve the governance structure of the Office, restore transparency and build trust; underlines the importance of counteracting the previously detected deficiencies in the legality and regularity of transactions; calls on the Office to prepare a comprehensive and detailed roadmap presenting the way forward; furthermore, calls on the Office in this respect to include in the roadmap a clear plan for restoring trust in management, especially bearing in mind that competent and effective management is key in view of the challenges the Office is facing in general, and, in particular, to make sure that the recruitment and training of the significant number of new staff foreseen for 2018 and 2019 is of such a level that the Office will have well-motivated and high quality personnel at its disposal and that there will be less turn-over of staff and its knowledge and experience are retained;

8.  Calls on OLAF to inform the discharge authority of the outcome of the investigation as soon as it is closed;

9.  Calls on Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control to integrate the findings from the OLAF report in the Office’s 2017 discharge report and, by doing so, to ensure that possible new recommendations to the Office are fully implemented;

Basis for the qualified opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions

10.  Recalls the material findings made by the Court of Auditors (the “Court”) in relation to two out of five significant procurement procedures from 2016 for which payments were incurred during that year, which demonstrate a lack of rigour in the Office’s procurement procedures;

11.  Expects all possible actions to be taken to recover irregular payments from the 2016 budget year: EUR 920 561 (procurement procedure for the provision of travel services) and EUR 592 273 (framework contract for interim services to support it in its response to the migration crisis);

12.  Remains concerned by the development of travel reimbursement costs; notes that reimbursements amounted to EUR 997 506 in 2014, EUR 987 515 in 2015 and EUR 1 012 147 in 2016; notes that attendees that fall into category A have specific tasks to fulfil during meetings; notes the decrease of category-A reimbursements, which dropped from 69 % in 2014 to 52 % in 2015 and 37 % in 2016; is concerned by the apparent discrepancy between an increased workload for the Office and less category-A attendees; underlines that the increase of travel cost reimbursements and the decrease of category-A attendees may indicate an arbitrary reimbursement scheme;

13.  Notes, again, that the Office’s work programme includes its operational support activities in “hotspots” in some Member States; underlines the importance of this activity and stresses the wider consequences for the entire Union if tasks are not duly planned, managed and executed; strongly urges the staff of the Office to properly assume their responsibilities regarding administrative matters and on-the-ground work;

14.  Regrets the harm caused to the Office’s image by the errors found in the aforementioned procurement procedures; reiterates that effective control can only be assured when there is full transparency in these procedures;

15.  Welcomes the action plans drawn up by the Office to remedy the issues identified by the Court, namely:

16.  Welcomes the measures taken by the Office to strengthen procurement procedures, in particular the addition of senior staff and additional support staff to the procurement sector;

o
o   o

17.  Refers, for other observations of a cross-cutting nature accompanying its decision on discharge, to its resolution of 18 April 2018(7) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

(1) OJ C 417, 6.12.2017, p. 79. (2) OJ C 417, 6.12.2017, p. 79. (3) OJ L 248, 3.10.2018, p. 195. (4) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1. (5) OJ L 132, 29.5.2010, p. 11. (6) OJ L 328, 7.12.2013, p. 42. (7) OJ L 248, 3.10.2018, p. 393.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 as regards support to structural reforms in Member States (COM(2017)0826 – C8-0432/2017 – 2017/0336(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0407 A8-0316/2018

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0826),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and the third paragraph of Article 175 and Article 177 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0432/2017),

–  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 14 March 2018(1),

–  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 and also the opinions of the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0316/2018),

1.  Rejects the Commission proposal;

2.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw its proposal;

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

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Ireland (11265/2018 – C8-0388/2018 – 2018/0808(CNS))

P8_TA(2018)0408 A8-0344/2018

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council draft (11265/2018),

–  having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0388/2018),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime(1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0344/2018),

1.  Approves the Council draft;

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

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

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

(1) OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to DNA data in Ireland (11282/2018 – C8-0389/2018 – 2018/0809(CNS))

P8_TA(2018)0409 A8-0343/2018

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council draft (11282/2018),

–  having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0389/2018),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime(1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0343/2018),

1.  Approves the Council draft;

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

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

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

(1) OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Croatia (11284/2018 – C8-0390/2018 – 2018/0810(CNS))

P8_TA(2018)0410 A8-0345/2018

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council draft (11284/2018),

–  having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0390/2018),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime(1), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0345/2018),

1.  Approves the Council draft;

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

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

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

(1) OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1.

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 24 October 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (COM(2018)0340 – C8-0218/2018 – 2018/0172(COD))(1)

P8_TA(2018)0411 A8-0317/2018

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 (1)  The high functionality and relatively low cost of plastic means that this material is increasingly ubiquitous in everyday life. Its growing use in short-lived applications, which are not designed for re-use or cost-effective recycling means that related production and consumption patterns have become increasingly inefficient and linear. Therefore, in the context of the Circular Economy Action Plan32, the Commission concluded in the European Strategy for Plastics33 that the steady increase in plastic waste generation and its leakage into our environment, in particular into the marine environment, must be tackled in order to achieve a truly circular lifecycle for plastics. (1)  The high functionality and relatively low cost of plastic means that this material is increasingly ubiquitous in everyday life. Global production of plastic has increased sharply and in 2017 reached 348 million tonnes. The European share of that production represented 18,5 % (64,4 million tonnes, up by 3,4 % compared to production in the previous year). Its growing use in short-lived applications, which are not designed for re-use or cost-effective recycling means that related production and consumption patterns have become increasingly inefficient and linear. Therefore, in the context of the Circular Economy Action Plan32, the Commission concluded in the European Strategy for Plastics33 that the steady increase in plastic waste generation and its leakage into our environment, in particular into the marine environment, must be tackled in order to achieve a truly circular lifecycle for plastics and to reduce overall quantity of plastic in the environment. The European Strategy for Plastics is a small first step in establishing a circular economy based on reducing, reusing and recycling all plastic products. __________________ __________________ 32 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy" (COM(2015)0614). 32 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy" (COM(2015)0614). 33 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy" (COM(2018)0028). 33 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy" (COM(2018)0028). Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Recital 1 a (new) (1a)  Plastic plays a useful role in the economy and provides essential applications in many sectors. In particular, plastic is used in packaging (40 %) and in the building and construction sector (20 %). There is also important use of plastic in the automotive, electrical and electronic equipment, food and agricultural sectors. Nevertheless, the significant negative environmental, health and economic impacts of certain plastic products call for the setting up of a legal framework to effectively reduce those significant negative effects, including through a restriction on the placing on the market of particular single-use products for which more circular alternatives are readily available. Amendment 3 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 (2)  Circular approaches that prioritise re-usable products and re-use systems will lead to a reduction of waste generated, and such prevention is at the pinnacle of the waste hierarchy enshrined in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.34 Such approaches are also in line with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 1235 to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. (2)  The measures laid down in this Directive should fully pursue circular approaches that prioritise safe, non-toxic re-usable products without any hazardous substances and re-use systems over any single-use product. All measures should, first and foremost, aim at a reduction of waste generated, and promote the prevention of waste as this is at the pinnacle of the waste hierarchy enshrined in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council.34 Since any single-use product is prone to have a negative impact on climate or the environment due its short life cycle, priority needs to be given to prevention and re-use of products which can deliver high savings of CO2 and of valuable raw materials. This Directive will contribute to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 1235 to ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns. __________________ __________________ 34 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3). 34 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3). 35 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015. 35 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Amendment 4 Proposal for a directive Recital 3 (3)  Marine litter is of a transboundary nature and is recognized as a global problem. Reducing marine litter is a key action for the achievement of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 which calls to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.36The Union must play its part in tackling marine litter and aim to be a standard setter for the world. In this context, the Union is working with partners in many international fora such as G20, G7 and United Nations to promote concerted action. This initiative is part of the Union efforts in this regard. (3)  Marine litter is of a transboundary nature and is recognised as a global problem. Increasing amounts of waste are reaching the oceans around the world and affecting the health of ecosystems, killing animals. Reducing marine litter is a key action for the achievement of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 which aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development.36 The Union must play its part in tackling marine litter, preventing the production of litter, and managing marine litter more effectively and aim to be a standard setter for the world. In this context, the Union is working with partners in many international fora such as the G20, G7 and United Nations to promote concerted action. This initiative is part of the Union efforts in this regard. _________________ _________________ 36 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015. 36 The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Amendment 5 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 (5)  In the Union, 80 to 85 % of marine litter, measured as beach litter counts, is plastic, with single-use plastic items representing 50 % and fishing-related items representing 27 %. Single-use plastics products include a diverse range of commonly used fast-moving consumer products that are discarded after having been used once for the purpose for which they were provided, are rarely recycled, and are prone to littering. A significant proportion of the fishing gear placed on the market is not collected for treatment. Single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic are therefore a particularly serious problem in the context of marine litter and pose a severe risk to marine ecosystems, biodiversity and, potentially, to human health and are damaging activities such as tourism, fisheries and shipping. (5)  In the Union, 80 to 85 % of marine litter, measured as beach litter counts, is plastic, with single-use plastic items representing 50 % and fishing-related items representing 27 %.Single-use plastics products include a diverse range of commonly used fast-moving consumer products that are discarded after having been used once for the purpose for which they were provided, are rarely recycled, and are prone to littering. A significant proportion of the fishing and aquaculture gear placed on the market is not collected for treatment. Single-use plastic products and fishing and aquaculture gear containing plastic, such as pots, traps, floats and buoys, nets, ropes, strings, cords and lines are therefore a particularly serious problem in the context of marine litter and pose a severe risk to marine ecosystems, biodiversity as well as to human and animal health, and are damaging activities such as tourism, fisheries and shipping. Amendment 6 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 a (new) (5a)  The Council, at its meeting of 25 June 2018, adopted conclusions on "Delivering on the EU Action Plan for the Circular Economy", clearly supporting the actions undertaken at a European and global level to restrict the use of microplastics intentionally added to products as well as the use of oxo-plastics in the Union and the actions envisaged in the Plastics Strategy concerning the reduction of microplastics from textiles, car tyres and leakage of pre-production pellets. The Union is already taking action as there is an ongoing process under REACH, whereby the Commission asked the European Chemicals Agency to develop an Annex XV restriction dossier concerning the use of intentionally added microplastic particles to consumer or professional use products of any kind. Amendment 7 Proposal for a directive Recital 5 b (new) (5b)  The Union should adopt a comprehensive approach to the problem of microplastics and should encourage all producers to strictly limit microplastics from their formulations, with particular attention to textile and tyre manufacturers since synthetic clothing and tyres contribute to 63 % of microplastics which end up directly in the aquatic environment. Amendment 8 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 (6)  Existing Union legislation40 and policy instruments provide some regulatory responses to address marine litter. In particular, plastic waste is subject to overall Union waste management measures and targets, such as the recycling target for plastic packaging waste41 and the recently adopted objective in the Plastics Strategy42 to ensure that all plastic packaging is recyclable by 2030. However, the impact of that legislation on marine litter is not sufficient and there are differences in the scope and the level of ambition amongst national measures to prevent and reduce marine litter. In addition, some of those measures, in particular marketing restrictions for single-use plastic products, may create barriers to trade and distort competition in the Union. (6)  Proper waste management remains essential for the prevention of (marine) litter. Existing Union legislation40 and policy instruments provide some regulatory responses to address marine litter. In particular, plastic waste is subject to overall Union waste management measures and targets, such as the recycling target for plastic packaging waste41 and the recently adopted objective in the Plastics Strategy42 to ensure that all plastic packaging is recyclable by 2030. However, the impact of that legislation on marine litter is not sufficient and there are differences in the scope and the level of ambition amongst national measures to prevent and reduce marine litter. In addition, some of those measures, in particular marketing restrictions for single-use plastic products, may create barriers to trade and distort competition in the Union. __________________ __________________ 40 Directive 2008/98/EC, Directive 2000/59/EC, Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive 2008/56/EC and Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1). 40 Directive 2008/98/EC, Directive 2000/59/EC, Directive 2000/60/EC, Directive 2008/56/EC and Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1). 41 Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10). 41 Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10). 42 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy" (COM(2018)0028). 42 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions "A European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy" (COM(2018)0028). Amendment 9 Proposal for a directive Recital 6 a (new) (6a)  Fostering research and innovation in the packaging sector is a key factor in order to promote a more sustainable value chain. In order to achieve that aim, it is necessary to strengthen the relevant funding mechanisms within the context of the European R&D programming tools, such as the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation (i.e. Horizon 2020), with a view to the forthcoming Strategic Research Innovation Agenda for Plastics. Amendment 10 Proposal for a directive Recital 7 (7)  To focus efforts where they are most needed, this Directive should only cover the most found single-use plastics products, which are estimated to represent around 86% of the single-use plastics found, in counts, on beaches in the Union. (7)  To focus efforts where they are most needed, this Directive should only cover the most found single-use plastics products as well as fishing gear. The single-use plastics products covered by measures under this Directive are estimated to represent around 86% of the single-use plastics found, in counts, on beaches in the Union. Amendment 11 Proposal for a directive Recital 7 a (new) (7a)  This Directive is without prejudice to the provisions established in Directive 94/62/EC regarding single-use plastic products that are considered packaging items as defined by Article 3(1) of Directive 94/62/EC. Amendment 12 Proposal for a directive Recital 7 b (new) (7b)  The review report of the Commission should indicate whether the scope can be broadened to single-use products in general. Amendment 13 Proposal for a directive Recital 7 c (new) (7c)   Terrestrial pollution and contamination of soil by larger items of plastic and resulting fragments or micro-plastics can be significant on local or regional scales. On a local scale that can be considerable due to intensive use of plastics in agriculture. To reduce the effects of plastic waste on the environment and on human and animal health, plastic pollution from agricultural land should be thoroughly investigated. Amendment 14 Proposal for a directive Recital 8 a (new) (8a)  Plastic products should be manufactured taking into account their entire lifespan. Eco-design of plastic products should always take into account production phase, recyclability and possibly also reusability of the product. Producers should be encouraged, where appropriate, to use single or compatible polymers for manufacturing their products in order to simplify sorting and enhance recyclability, especially in the case of plastic packaging Amendment 16 Proposal for a directive Recital 9 a (new) (9a)   By retaining the value of products and materials for as long as possible and generating less waste, the economy of the Union can become more competitive and more resilient, while reducing the pressure on precious resources and the environment. Amendment 17 Proposal for a directive Recital 10 (10)  The single-use plastic products should be addressed by one or several measures, depending on various factors, such as the availability of suitable and more sustainable alternatives, the feasibility to change consumption patterns, and the extent to which they are already covered by existing Union legislation. (10)  The single-use plastic products should be addressed by one or several measures, depending on various factors, such as the availability of suitable and more sustainable alternatives, taking into account life cycle principles, the feasibility to change consumption patterns, and the extent to which they are already covered by existing Union legislation. Amendment 18 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 (11)  For certain single-use plastic products, suitable and more sustainable alternatives are not yet readily available and the consumption of most such single-use plastic products is expected to increase. To reverse that trend and promote efforts towards more sustainable solutions Member States should be required to take the necessary measures to achieve a significant reduction in the consumption of those products, without compromising food hygiene or food safety, good hygiene practices, good manufacturing practices, consumer information, or traceability requirements set out in Union food legislation44. (11)  For certain single-use plastic products, suitable and more sustainable alternatives are not yet readily available and the consumption of most such single-use plastic products is expected to increase. To reverse that trend and promote efforts towards safe and sustainable solutions, Member States should be required to take the necessary measures to achieve an ambitious and sustained reduction in the consumption of those products, as is being done for plastic bags under Directive 94/62/EC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2015/720 of the European Parliament and of the Council43a, without compromising food hygiene or food safety, good hygiene practices, good manufacturing practices, consumer information, or traceability requirements set out in Union food legislation44. These measures should apply to containers for food fulfilling all of the following criteria: the food in question is intended for immediate consumption, it is intended for consumption without further preparation, and it is intended to be consumed from the receptacle. Member States should aim at the highest possible ambition for those measures, which should be proportionate to the seriousness of the littering risk of the various products and uses. Member States should adopt national targets to quantify the effects of the measures taken to achieve the ambitious and sustained reduction. Member States should encourage the use of products that are suitable for multiple use and that are, after having become waste, suitable for preparing for re-use and recycling, without compromising the free movement of goods in the internal market. Those measures should take into account the impact of products throughout their life cycle including when found in the marine environment and should respect the waste hierarchy. ___________________ ___________________ 43a Directive (EU) 2015/720 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 amending Directive 94/62/EC as regards reducing the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags (OJ L 115, 6.5.2015, p. 11). 44 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1), Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1), Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials intended to come into contact and other relevant legislation related to food safety, hygiene and labeling (OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 4). 44 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1), Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1), Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials intended to come into contact and other relevant legislation related to food safety, hygiene and labeling (OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 4). Amendment 19 Proposal for a directive Recital 11 a (new) (11a)  Tobacco product filters are the second most littered single-use plastic items. Although the market share of plant-derived cellulose filters for tobacco products appears to be increasing, the acceptability of the available alternatives is not clear. Furthermore, the huge impact on the environment of tobacco products with filters cannot be ignored as those filters may break into smaller plastic pieces. Used tobacco filters also contain numerous chemicals that are harmful for the environment, of which at least 50 are known human carcinogens, as well as heavy metals, which may leach from the filter and harm the surrounding land, air and marine environments. In order to address the environmental impact caused by post-consumption waste, a wide range of measures are necessary for tobacco products with filters, ranging from a reduction of single-use, disposable filters containing plastic to extended producer responsibility to ensure responsible disposal and to cover the costs of litter clean-up. In order to address the significant collection and sorting costs currently borne by taxpayers, the extended producer responsibility schemes should cover the costs of litter clean-up and the costs for appropriate waste collection infrastructures. As part of these measures, Member States could also create incentives for a cigarette butt recovery chain to clean cellulose acetate, the plastic material that makes up 60 % of the composition of cigarette filters, and then transform it into new plastic objects. Amendment 20 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 (12)  For other single-use plastic products, suitable and more sustainable alternatives that are also affordable are readily available. In order to limit the adverse impact of such products on the environment, Member States should be required to prohibit their placing on the Union market. By doing so, the use of those readily available and more sustainable alternatives as well as innovative solutions towards more sustainable business models, re-use alternatives and substitution of materials would be promoted. (12)  For other single-use plastic products, suitable and more sustainable alternatives that are also affordable are readily available. In order to limit the adverse impact of such products on the environment, Member States should be required to prohibit their placing on the Union market. By doing so, the use of those readily available and more sustainable alternatives that comply with existing standards and Union law as well as innovative solutions towards more sustainable business models, re-use alternatives and substitution of materials would be promoted, in line with the waste hierarchy as laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2008/98/EC. The marketing restrictions introduced in this Directive should also cover products made of oxo-degradable plastic, as this type of plastic does not properly biodegrade and thus contributes to microplastic pollution in the environment, is not compostable, negatively affects the recycling of conventional plastic and fails to deliver a proven environmental benefit. In view of the high prevalence of polystyrene litter in the marine environment and the availability of alternatives, single-use food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene should also be restricted. Amendment 21 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 a (new) (12a)  For plastic plates and cutlery, even if suitable and if more sustainable alternatives are also readily available, where duly justified and in order to avoid any risks in the continuity of the provision of certain social services, such as catering in educational establishments and health-care services, it is appropriate to come with a limited time extension for the implementation of prohibiting their placing on the Union market. Amendment 23 Proposal for a directive Recital 12 c (new) (12c)  The measures laid down in this Directive which promote the usage of non-plastic alternatives should under no circumstances cause an increase of detrimental effects to the environment and the climate, e.g. additional CO2 emissions or the exploitation of valuable resources. While many of the non-plastic alternatives are made out of natural resources and are expected to originate from the bio-economy, it is especially important to ensure the sustainability of these materials. In respect of the waste hierarchy, the measures laid down in this Directive and their implementation should always give priority to prevention or to the transition to re-usable products rather than to other single-use alternatives, even if they are made of non-plastic materials. Amendment 24 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 (13)  Caps and lids, with a significant part made of plastic, from beverage containers are among the most found single-use plastic items littered on Union beaches. Therefore, beverage containers that are single-use plastic products should only be allowed to be placed on the market if they fulfil specific product design requirements significantly reducing the leakage into the environment of beverage container caps and lids. For beverage containers that are single-use plastic products and packaging, this requirement is an addition to the essential requirements on the composition and the reusable and recoverable, including recyclable, nature of packaging set out in Annex II of Directive 94/62/EC. In order to facilitate conformity with the product design requirement and ensure a smooth functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to develop a harmonised standard adopted in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 and the compliance with that standard should allow presumption of conformity with those requirements. Sufficient time should be envisaged for the development of a harmonised standard and to allow the producers to adapt their production chains in relation to the implementation of the product design requirement. (13)  Caps and lids made of plastic, from beverage containers are among the most found single-use plastic items littered on Union beaches. Therefore, beverage containers that are single-use plastic products should only be allowed to be placed on the market if they fulfil specific product design requirements significantly reducing the leakage into the environment of beverage container caps and lids and increasing the quantities recycled. For beverage containers that are single-use plastic products and packaging, this requirement is an addition to the essential requirements on the composition and the reusable and recoverable, including recyclable, nature of packaging set out in Annex II of Directive 94/62/EC. In order to facilitate conformity with the product design requirement and ensure a smooth functioning of the internal market, it is necessary to develop a harmonised standard adopted in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council45 and the compliance with that standard should allow presumption of conformity with those requirements. Sufficient time should be envisaged for the development of a harmonised standard and to allow the producers to adapt their production chains in relation to the implementation of the product design requirement. In order to ensure the circular use of plastics, the market uptake of recycled materials needs to be safeguarded. It is therefore appropriate to introduce a requirement for a mandatory minimum content of recycled plastics in certain products. ___________________ ___________________ 45 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12). 45 Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12). Amendment 25 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 a (new) (13a)  In the context of the review to be undertaken pursuant to Article 9(5) of Directive 94/62/EC, the Commission should take into account the relative properties of different packaging materials, including composite materials, on the basis of life-cycle assessments, addressing in particular prevention and design for circularity. Amendment 26 Proposal for a directive Recital 13 b (new) (13b)  The presence of dangerous chemical substances in sanitary towels and tampons and tampon applicators should be avoided in the interests of women’s health. In the same way, the accessibility of multi-use and more economically sustainable solutions is vital in ensuring that women have full access to life in society. Amendment 27 Proposal for a directive Recital 14 (14)  Certain single-use plastic products end up in the environment as a result of inappropriate disposal through sewers or other inappropriate release into the environment. Therefore, single-use plastic products that are frequently disposed of through sewers otherwise inappropriately disposed of should be subject to marking requirements. The marking should inform consumers about appropriate waste disposal options and/or waste disposal options to be avoided and/or about the negative environmental impacts of litter as a result of inappropriate disposal. The Commission should be empowered to establish a harmonised format for the marking and when doing so should, where appropriate, test the perception of the proposed marking with representative groups of consumers to ensure that it is effective and clearly understandable. (14)  Certain single-use plastic products end up in the environment as a result of inappropriate disposal through sewers or other inappropriate release into the environment. Disposal through sewers may in addition cause substantial economic damage to sewer networks by clogging pumps and blocking pipes. For these products, there is frequently a significant lack of information about the material characteristics of these products and the appropriate waste disposal. Therefore, single-use plastic products that are frequently disposed of through sewers or otherwise inappropriately disposed of should be subject to marking requirements and awareness-raising measures. The marking should inform consumers about appropriate waste disposal options and/or waste disposal options to be avoided, about the negative environmental impacts of litter as a result of inappropriate disposal, the presence of plastics in the product and the recyclability of the product. The Commission should be empowered to establish a harmonised format for the marking and when doing so should, where appropriate, test the perception of the proposed marking with representative groups of consumers to ensure that it is effective, clearly understandable, and not misleading, and should also consider existing voluntary agreements. Amendment 28 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 (15)  With regard to single-use plastic products for which there are no readily available suitable and more sustainable alternatives, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, also introduce extended producer responsibility schemes to cover the costs of waste management and clean-up of litter as well as the costs of awareness-raising measures to prevent and reduce such litter. (15)  With regard to single-use plastic products for which there are no readily available suitable and more sustainable alternatives, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, also introduce extended producer responsibility schemes to cover the necessary costs of waste management and clean-up of litter, as well as the costs of awareness-raising measures to prevent and reduce such litter and to tackle consumer misbehaviour. These costs should not exceed the costs that are necessary to provide those services in a cost-efficient way and should be established in a transparent way between the actors concerned. Costs to clean up litter should be proportionate and should be based on clear objectives established in accordance with Article 8a(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC. These objectives should define the scope and scale of the clean-up activities covered by the extended producer responsibility scheme in line with relevant obligations concerning waste prevention and marine litter in Union law. Such activities should include for instance litter prevention and collection in streets, markets and other public spaces and during public events but should not include operations, including sea and ocean clean-up, for which public authorities are not responsible. Amendment 29 Proposal for a directive Recital 15 a (new) (15a)   Economic incentives are able to influence consumer choice, encourage or discourage specific consumer habits and can thus be used as an effective upstream tool for reducing the impact of certain plastics on the environment. Amendment 30 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 (16)  The large portion of plastic stemming from abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear containing plastic in marine litter indicates that the existing legal requirements46 do not provide sufficient incentives to return such fishing gear to shore for collection and treatment. The indirect fee system envisaged under Union law on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships takes away the incentive for ships to discharge their waste at sea, and ensures a right of delivery. That system should, however, be supplemented by further financial incentives for fishermen to bring their fishing gear waste on shore to avoid any potential increase in the indirect waste fee to be paid. As plastic components of fishing gear have a high recycling potential, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, introduce extended producer responsibility for fishing gear containing plastic to facilitate separate collection of waste fishing gear and to finance sound waste management of such fishing gear, in particular recycling. (16)  The large portion of plastic stemming from abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear containing plastic in marine litter indicates that the existing legal requirements46 do not provide sufficient incentives to return such fishing gear to shore for collection and treatment. Under Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, if lost fishing gear cannot be retrieved, the master of the vessel is required to inform the competent authority of its flag Member State. In order to ensure harmonised monitoring, the data on lost fishing gear should be collected and recorded by the Member States and forwarded annually to the Commission. The indirect fee system envisaged under Union law on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships takes away the incentive for ships to discharge their waste at sea, and ensures a right of delivery. That system should, however, be supplemented by further financial incentives for fishermen to bring their fishing gear waste on shore to avoid any potential increase in the indirect waste fee to be paid. As plastic components of fishing gear have a high recycling potential, Member States should, in line with the polluter pays principle, introduce extended producer responsibility for fishing gear containing plastic to facilitate separate collection of waste fishing gear and to finance sound waste management of such fishing gear, in particular recycling. Member States should adopt the measures required to ensure that financial contributions paid by producers of fishing gear containing plastic in fulfilment of their obligations deriving from producer responsibility are adjusted, in particular to take into account the durability, reparability, re-usability and recyclability of such fishing gear. ___________________ ___________________ 46 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Directive 2000/59/EC and Directive 2008/98/EC. 46 Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, Directive 2000/59/EC and Directive 2008/98/EC. Amendment 31 Proposal for a directive Recital 16 a (new) (16a)  In the framework of an extended producer responsibility for fishing gear containing plastic, Member States should monitor, assess, collect and recycle fishing gear in order to meet the quantitative targets for collection and recycling of fishing gear containing plastic laid down in this Directive. Amendment 32 Proposal for a directive Recital 17 a (new) (17a)   In the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Strategic Plans, the problem of agricultural plastic waste should be addressed and the Commission should, as appropriate, introduce a standard for good agricultural and environmental condition of land on plastic waste as a new element of enhanced conditionality in the mid-term, by 2023. Farmers would, under the new cross-compliance requirement, be bound to use an authorised waste management business to arrange collection and recycling of plastic, and keep evidence that plastic waste has been handled correctly. Amendment 33 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 (18)  In order to prevent littering and other inappropriate forms of disposal resulting in marine litter containing plastic, consumers need to be properly informed about the most appropriate waste disposal options available and/or waste disposal options to be avoided, best practices with regard to waste disposal and the environmental impact of bad disposal practices as well as about the plastic content in certain single-use plastic products and fishing gear. Therefore, Member States should be required to take awareness raising measures ensuring that such information is given to the consumers. The information should not contain any promotional content encouraging the use of the single-use plastic products. Member States should be able to choose the measures which are most appropriate based on the nature of the product or its use. Producers of single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic should cover the costs of the awareness raising measures as part of their extended producer responsibility obligation. (18)  In order to prevent littering and other inappropriate forms of disposal resulting in marine litter containing plastic, consumers need to be properly informed about the most appropriate waste disposal options available and/or waste disposal options to be avoided, best practices with regard to waste disposal and the environmental impact of bad disposal practices as well as about the plastic content in certain single-use plastic products and fishing gear, in order to incentivise responsible consumer behaviour in the correct disposal of waste. Therefore, Member States should be required to take awareness raising measures ensuring that such information is given to the consumers. This information should include the impact of inappropriate waste disposal on the sewer network. The information should not contain any promotional content encouraging the use of the single-use plastic products. Member States should be able to choose the measures which are most appropriate based on the nature of the product or its use. The fight against litter is a shared effort between competent authorities, producers and consumers. Producers of single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic should cover the costs of the awareness raising measures as part of their extended producer responsibility obligation. Producers should be encouraged to use their marketing power to promote and drive sustainable and circular consumption and use of products. Amendment 34 Proposal for a directive Recital 18 a (new) (18a)   In accordance with Union law, the Commission is required assist the Member States to produce strategies and plans for the reduction of the dispersal at sea of fishing gear, including through subsidies from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). The efforts may include awareness-raising campaigns and programmes on the impact of such waste on marine ecosystems, research on the feasibility of biodegradable/compostable fishing gear, educational projects for fishermen and specific public programmes for the removal of plastic and other items from the marine environment. Amendment 35 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 (20)  Beverage bottles that are single-use plastic products are one of the most found marine litter items on the beaches in the Union. This is due to ineffective separate collection systems and low participation in those systems by the consumers. It is necessary to promote more efficient separate collection systems and therefore, a minimum separate collection target should be established for beverage bottles that are single-use plastic products. Member States should be able to achieve that minimum target by setting separate collection targets for beverage bottles that are single-use plastic products in the framework of the extended producer responsibility schemes or by establishing deposit refund schemes or by any other measure that they find appropriate. This will have a direct, positive impact on the collection rate, the quality of the collected material and the quality of the recyclates, offering opportunities for the recycling business and the market for the recyclate. (20)  Beverage bottles (with caps and lids) that are single-use plastic products are one of the most found marine litter items on the beaches in the Union. This is due to ineffective separate collection systems and low participation in those systems by the consumers. It is necessary to promote more efficient separate collection systems and to increase the production from recycled content and therefore, a minimum separate collection target should be established for beverage bottles that are single-use plastic products. Member States should be able to achieve that minimum target by setting separate collection targets for beverage bottles that are single-use plastic products in the framework of the extended producer responsibility schemes or by establishing deposit refund schemes or any other measure that they find appropriate. This minimum collection target should be accompanied by a requirement for specific recycled content for plastic bottles, in order to ensure that the increase in plastic collected is reused or recycled and thus reintroduced into the circular economy. Those measures will have a direct, positive impact on the collection and recycling rate, the quality of the collected material and the quality of the recyclates, offering new opportunities for the recycling business and the market for the recyclate. When implementing the measures to achieve the minimum separate collection target, Member States should ensure that the sound operation of existing extended producer responsibility schemes is maintained. The Commission should lay down guidelines for the functioning of deposit-refund schemes for those Member States that choose to establish such schemes. Amendment 36 Proposal for a directive Recital 20 a (new) (20a)  Directive 2008/98/EC defines ‘separate collection’ as the collection where a waste stream is kept separately by type and nature so as to facilitate a specific treatment. Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a amending Directive 2008/98/EC notes that separate collection could be achieved through door-to-door collection, bring and reception systems or other collection arrangements. Point (a) of Article 10(3) of Directive 2008/98/EC allows for a derogation whereby it should be possible to collect certain types of waste together provided that this does not impede high-quality recycling or other recovery of waste, in line with the waste hierarchy, and results in output from those operations which is of comparable quality to that achieved through separate collection. That derogation should be available also in the implementation of this Directive. _____________ 1a Directive (EU) 2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 109). Amendment 37 Proposal for a directive Recital 22 (22)  Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201648, the Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Directive. That evaluation should be based on experience gathered and data collected during the implementation of this Directive and data collected under Directive 2008/56/EC or Directive 2008/98/EC. The evaluation should provide the basis for an assessment of possible further measures and an assessment whether, in view of monitoring of marine litter in the Union, the Annex listing single-use plastic products needs to be reviewed. The evaluation should also consider whether scientific and technical progress that has taken place in the meantime, including the development of biodegradable materials and the development of criteria or a standard for biodegradability of plastics in the marine environment, as foreseen in the European Plastics Strategy, allows the setting of a standard for biodegradation of certain single-use plastic products in the marine environment. That standard would include a standard to test if, as a result of physical and biological decomposition in the marine environment, plastics would fully decompose into carbon dioxide (CO2), biomass and water within a timescale short enough for the plastics not to be harmful for marine life and not lead to an accumulation of plastics in the environment. If that is the case, single-use plastic products that meet such a standard could be exempted from the prohibition on placing on the market. While the European Strategy for Plastics already envisages action in this area, it also recognises the challenges in relation to determining a regulatory framework for plastics with biodegradable properties due to different marine conditions across seas. (22)  Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making of 13 April 201648, the Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Directive. That evaluation should be based on experience gathered and data collected during the implementation of this Directive and data collected under Directive 2008/56/EC or Directive 2008/98/EC. The evaluation should provide the basis for an assessment of possible further measures, including the setting of Union-wide reduction targets for 2030 and beyond, and an assessment whether, in view of monitoring of marine litter in the Union, the Annex listing single-use plastic products needs to be reviewed. ___________________ ___________________ 48.  OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. 48.  OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. Amendment 38 Proposal for a directive Recital 23 (23)  Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. (23)  Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of this Directive and ensure that they are implemented. The penalties should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Consumers should also be incentivised or penalised for their behaviour, as appropriate. Amendment 39 Proposal for a directive Recital 25 (25)  Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to prevent and to reduce the impact of certain single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic on the environment, to promote the transition to a circular economy, including the fostering of innovative business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives, (25)  Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to prevent and to reduce the impact of certain single-use plastic products and fishing and aquaculture gear containing plastic on the environment and on human health, to promote the transition to a circular economy, including the fostering of innovative business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives, Amendment 40 Proposal for a directive Recital 25 a (new) (25a)  Since plastic marine litter is not limited to the marine environment surrounding the Union and since a huge amount of plastic marine litter can be detected in other parts of the world than the Union, Member States should ensure that exports of waste materials to third countries do not add to plastic marine litter elsewhere. Amendment 41 Proposal for a directive Recital 25 b (new) (25b)  Member States can also play an important role in curbing marine litter by sharing their knowledge and expertise in sustainable material management with third countries. Amendment 42 Proposal for a directive Recital 25 c (new) (25c)  Public authorities, including the Union institutions, should lead by example. Amendment 43 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 The objective of this Directive is to prevent and reduce the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, in particular the aquatic environment, and on human health as well as to promote the transition to a circular economy with innovative business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market. The objective of this Directive is to prevent and reduce the impact of certain plastic products on the environment, in particular on the aquatic life and environment, and on human health as well as to promote the transition to a circular economy with innovative and sustainable business models, products and materials, thus also contributing to the efficient functioning of the internal market. Amendment 44 Proposal for a directive Article 2 – paragraph 1 This Directive shall apply to the single-use plastic products listed in the Annex and to fishing gear containing plastic. This Directive shall apply to the single-use plastic products listed in the Annex and to fishing and aquaculture gear containing plastic. Amendment 45 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 1 (1)  'plastic' means a material consisting of a polymer within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, to which additives or other substances may have been added, and which can function as a main structural component of final products, with the exception of natural polymers that have not been chemically modified; (1)  'plastic' means a material consisting of a polymer within the meaning of Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, to which additives or other substances may have been added, and which functions or can function as a main structural component of final products, with the exception of natural polymers that have not been chemically modified; Amendment 47 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) (2a)  ‘very lightweight plastic carrier bags’ means lightweight plastic carrier bags as defined in Article 3(1c) of Directive 94/62/EC with a wall thickness below 15 microns; Amendment 48 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 3 (3)  ‘fishing gear’ means any item or piece of equipment that is used in fishing and aquaculture to target or capture marine biological resources or that is floating on the sea surface and is deployed with the objective of attracting and capturing such marine biological resources (3)  ‘fishing gear’ means any item or piece of equipment that is used in fishing and aquaculture to target, capture or retain for farming marine biological resources or that is floating on the sea surface and is deployed with the objective of attracting, capturing or retaining such marine biological resources; Amendment 49 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 4 (4)  'waste fishing gear' means any fishing gear covered by the definition of waste in Directive 2008/98/EC, including all separate components, substances or materials that were part of or attached to such fishing gear when it was discarded; (4)  'waste fishing gear' means any fishing gear covered by the definition of waste in Directive 2008/98/EC, including all separate components, substances or materials that were part of or attached to such fishing gear when it was discarded or lost; Amendment 50 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 10 (10)  'producer' means any natural or legal person that, irrespective of the selling technique used, including distance contracts within the meaning of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 201150, places on the market single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic except persons carrying out fishing activities as defined in Article 4(28) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council51; (10)  ‘producer’ means any natural or legal person that professionally develops, manufactures, processes, treats, sells or imports, irrespective of the selling technique used, including distance contracts within the meaning of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 201150, and in doing so, places on the market single-use plastic products and fishing gear containing plastic except persons carrying out fishing activities or aquaculture as defined in Article 4(25) and 4(28) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council 51; ___________________ ___________________ 50 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64). 50 Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC of and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 64) 51 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22). 51 Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22). Amendment 51 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 11 a (new) (11a)  ‘separate collection’ means separate collection as defined in Article 3(11) of Directive 2008/98/EC; Amendment 52 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new) (13a)  'Biodegradable plastic' means a plastic capable of undergoing physical, biological decomposition, such that it ultimately decomposes into carbon dioxide (CO2), biomass and water and in accordance with European standards for packaging recoverable through composting and anaerobic digestion; Amendment 53 Proposal for a directive Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point 14 a (new) (14a)  ‘tobacco products’ means tobacco products as defined in point (4) of Article 2 of Directive 2014/40/EU. Amendments 118, 54 and 119 Proposal for a directive Article 4 Article 4 Article 4 Consumption reduction Consumption reduction 1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve a significant reduction in the consumption of the single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex on their territory by … [six years after the end-date for transposition of this Directive]. 1.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve an ambitious and sustained reduction of at least 25 % by 2025 in the consumption of the single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex on their territory. Those measures may include national consumption reduction targets, measures ensuring that reusable alternatives to those products are made available at the point of sale to the final consumer, economic instruments such as ensuring that single-use plastic products are not provided free of charge at the point of sale to the final consumer. Those measures may vary depending on the environmental impact of the products referred to in the first subparagraph. Those measures may include measures ensuring that reusable alternatives to those products are made available at the point of sale to the final consumer, economic instruments such as ensuring that single-use plastic products are not provided free of charge at the point of sale to the final consumer. Those measures may vary depending on the environmental impact, of the products referred to in the first subparagraph over their life cycle, including when littered. Member States shall draw up national plans describing the measures adopted pursuant to this paragraph. Member States shall notify the Commission of the plans and shall update them where necessary. The Commission may issue recommendations on those plans. Member States shall set national quantitative reduction targets to attain the objective laid down in the first subparagraph of this paragraph. Those targets shall be adopted by … [end-date for transposition of this Directive]. Measures adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall be proportionate and non-discriminatory. Member States shall notify the Commission of those measures in accordance with Directive (EU) 2015/15351a where so required by that Directive. 2.  The Commission may adopt an implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the significant reduction in the consumption of the single-use plastic products referred to in paragraph 1. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). 2.  The Commission shall adopt an implementing act laying down the methodology for the calculation and verification of the ambitious and sustained reduction in the consumption of the single-use plastic products referred to in paragraph 1 by… [12 months after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). 2a.  Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve a sustained reduction of the environmental impact of waste from tobacco products, and in particular tobacco product filters containing plastic, by reducing post-consumption waste from tobacco product filters containing plastic as follows: 50 % by 2025 and 80 % by 2030, compared to the weighted average of plastic filters of tobacco products placed on the market between 2014 and 2016. _________________ 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 (codification) (OJ L 241, 17.9.2015, p. 1). Amendment 55 Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 1.  Member States shall ensure that single-use plastic products listed in Part C of the Annex that have caps and lids with a significant part made of plastic may be placed on the market only if the caps and lids remain attached to the container during the product’s intended use stage. 1.  Member States shall ensure that single-use plastic products listed in Part C of the Annex that have caps and lids made of plastic may be placed on the market only if the caps and lids remain attached to the container during the product’s intended use stage. Amendment 56 Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a.  Member States shall ensure that by 2025 beverage bottles listed in Part C of the Annex may be placed on the market only if they are made from at least 35 % recycled content and are recyclable. By 1 January 2022, the Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the methodology for the calculation of recycled content. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). Amendment 57 Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 2 2.  For the purposes of this Article metal caps or lids with plastic seals shall not be considered to have a significant part made of plastic. 2.  For the purposes of this Article metal caps or lids with plastic seals shall not be considered to be made of plastic. Glass and metal beverage containers that have caps and lids made of plastic shall not be covered by this Article. Amendment 58 Proposal for a directive Article 6 – paragraph 3 3.  The Commission shall request the European standardisation organisations to develop harmonised standards relating to the requirement referred to in paragraph 1. 3.  By ... [3 months after the date of entry into force of this Directive], the Commission shall request the European standardisation organisations to develop harmonised standards relating to the requirement referred to in paragraph 1. Those standards shall in particular address the need to ensure the necessary strength, reliability and safety of beverage container closures, including those for carbonated drinks. Amendments 59 and 140 Proposal for a directive Article 7 Article 7 Article 7 Marking requirements Marking requirements 1.  Member States shall ensure that each single-use plastic product listed in Part D of the Annex placed on the market bears a conspicuous, clearly legible and indelible marking informing consumers of one or more of the following: 1.  Member States shall ensure that each sales packaging of the single-use plastic products listed in Part D of the Annex placed on the market bears a conspicuous, clearly legible and indelible marking, both on packaging containing several units and on each separate unit, when packaged individually, informing consumers of the following: (a)  appropriate waste disposal options for the product or waste disposal means to be avoided for that product, (a)  appropriate waste disposal options for the product and/or waste disposal means to be avoided for that product, (b)  the negative environmental impacts of littering or other inappropriate waste disposal of the products, or (b)  the negative environmental impacts of littering or other inappropriate waste disposal of the products, (c)  the presence of plastics in the product. (c)  the presence of plastics in the product, and (ca)   the presence in the product of chemicals of concern, such as hazardous metals, phthalates, PFAS, bisphenols, as well as endocrine disruptors and other substances of very high concern (SVHC) under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. In addition, Member States shall ensure that each sales packaging of the single-use plastic products listed in Part D of the Annex, except tobacco products with filters and filters marketed for use in combination with tobacco products, placed on the market bears a conspicuous, clearly legible and indelible marking, both on packaging containing several units and on each separate unit, when packaged individually, informing consumers of the recyclability of the product. 2.  The Commission shall, by … [12 months before the end-date for transposition of this Directive] adopt an implementing act laying down the specifications for the marking referred to in paragraph 1. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). 2.  The Commission shall, by … [12 months before the end-date for transposition of this Directive] adopt an implementing act laying down the specifications for the marking referred to in paragraph 1 and in doing so shall consider existing sectorial voluntary agreements and shall pay particular attention to the need to avoid information that misleads consumers. That implementing act shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). Amendment 146 Proposal for a directive Article 7 a (new) Article 7a Provisions for Sanitary Items Member States shall prevent the use of hazardous chemicals in the composition of sanitary towels, tampons and tampon applicators listed in Part D of the Annex. Amendment 60 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 With regard to the schemes established pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the producers of the single-use plastic products listed in Part E of the Annex shall cover the costs of the collection of waste consisting of those single-use plastic products and its subsequent transport and treatment, including the costs to clean up litter and the costs of the awareness raising measures referred to in Article 10 regarding those products. With regard to the schemes established pursuant to paragraph 1, Member States shall ensure that the producers of the single-use plastic products listed in Part E of the Annex shall cover the costs of the collection of waste consisting of those single-use plastic products and its subsequent transport and treatment including the costs to clean up litter and the costs of the awareness raising measures referred to in Article 10 regarding those products. The financial contributions paid by the producers to comply with these obligations shall not exceed the costs that are necessary to provide those services in a cost-efficient way and shall be established in a transparent way between the actors concerned. Amendment 61 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) With regard to the costs to clean up litter referred to in the first subparagraph, Member States shall ensure that the financial contributions paid by the producers are established in a proportionate way and are modulated in accordance with Article 8a(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC, and take into account the costs of clean-up of individual products or product groups. The costs shall be limited to activities undertaken on a regular basis by public authorities or on their behalf, which shall include litter clean-up activities aiming to meet relevant obligations concerning waste prevention and environmental protection under legislative acts of the Union. Amendment 62 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 b (new) The Commission shall develop guidelines, in consultation with Member States, on the distribution of the costs to clean up litter covered by the extended producer responsibility schemes. Amendment 63 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a.  Member States shall ensure that extended producer responsibility schemes established pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article for tobacco product filters containing plastic contribute to the achievement of the environmental objective laid down in Article 4(2a), including by ensuring that producers of tobacco product filters containing plastic cover the costs of the collection of waste of those products and its subsequent transport and treatment including the costs to clean up litter and the costs of the awareness raising measures referred to in Article 10 regarding those products. In order to achieve that objective, Member states may inter alia require the extended producer responsibility schemes to establish collection systems or finance collection infrastructure for used filters, or promote the decontamination and recycling of used filters through the establishment of a waste recovery chain. Amendment 64 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 3 3.  Member States shall ensure that extended producer responsibility schemes are established for fishing gear containing plastic placed on the Union market, in accordance with the provisions on extended producer responsibility in Directive 2008/98/EC. 3.  Member States shall ensure that extended producer responsibility schemes are established for fishing gear containing plastic placed on the Union market, in accordance with the provisions on extended producer responsibility in Directive 2008/98/EC. Member States shall ensure on that basis that a minimum collection rate of fishing gear containing plastic is achieved annually. From 2025 the minimum collection rate shall be 50 % calculated on the basis of the total weight of fishing gear containing plastic in a given year in the Member State concerned, expressed as a percentage of the average weight of fishing gear containing plastic placed on the market in the three preceding years in that Member State. They shall also ensure that those extended producer responsibility schemes achieve a recycling target of at least 15 % for fishing gear containing plastic by 2025. In order to achieve that target, Member States may additionally require the schemes to inter alia: (a)  modulate financial contributions in accordance with Article 8a(4) of Directive 2008/98/EC, to promote the placing on the market of fishing gear designed for re-use and recycling; (b)  establish deposit-refund schemes to encourage the return of old, derelict or unusable fishing gear; (c)  include monitoring, tracking and reporting programmes. Amendment 65 Proposal for a directive Article 8 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 2 a (new) Without prejudice to technical measures laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 850/981a, the Commission shall request the European standardisation organisations to develop harmonised standards relating to the circular design of fishing gear to encourage preparation for re-use and facilitate recyclability at end of life. __________________ 1a Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1). Amendment 66 Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – introductory part Member States shall take the necessary measures to collect separately, by 2025, an amount of waste single-use plastic products listed in Part F of the Annex equal to 90% of such single-use plastic products placed on the market in a given year by weight. In order to achieve that objective Member States may inter alia: Member States shall take the necessary measures to collect separately, by 2025, an amount of waste single-use plastic products listed in Part F of the Annex equal to 90% of such single-use plastic products placed on the market in a given year by weight and ensure their subsequent recycling. In order to achieve that objective Member States may inter alia: Amendment 67 Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1a (new) The first subparagraph shall apply without prejudice to Article 10(3)(a) of Directive 2008/98/EC. Amendment 68 Proposal for a directive Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new) The Commission shall develop guidelines, in consultation with Member States, on the functioning of deposit-refund schemes. Amendment 69 Proposal for a directive Article 10 Article 10 Article 10 Awareness raising measures Awareness raising measures 1.  Member States shall take measures to inform consumers of the single-use plastic products listed in Part G of the Annex and fishing gear containing plastic about the following: 1.  Member States shall take measures to inform as well as incentivise responsible behaviour from consumers of the single-use plastic products listed in Part G of the Annex and fishing gear containing plastic about the following: (a)  the available re-use systems and waste management options for those products and fishing gear containing plastic as well as best practices in sound waste management carried out in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC; (a)  the availability of reusable alternatives, re-use systems and waste management options for those products and fishing gear containing plastic as well as best practices in sound waste management carried out in accordance with Article 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC (b)  the impact of littering and other inappropriate waste disposal of those products and fishing gear containing plastic on the environment, and in particular on the marine environment. (b)  the impact of littering and other inappropriate waste disposal of those products and fishing gear containing plastic on the environment, and in particular on the marine environment; (ba)  the impact on the sewer network of inappropriate waste disposal of those products. Amendment 70 Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 2 The measures that Member States take to transpose and implement Articles 4 to 9 shall comply with Union food law to ensure that food hygiene and food safety are not compromised. The measures that Member States take to transpose and implement Articles 4 to 9 shall comply with Union food law to ensure that food hygiene and food safety are not compromised and with Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. Member States shall encourage the use of sustainable, safer alternatives to plastic where possible for materials in contact with food. ________________ 1a Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (OJ L 338, 13.11.2004, p. 4). Amendment 71 Proposal for a directive Article 11 – paragraph 2 a (new) Member States shall ensure that exports of waste materials to third countries do not add to plastic marine litter elsewhere. Amendment 72 Proposal for a directive Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1.  Member States shall ensure that natural or legal persons or their associations, organisations or groups, in accordance with national legislation or practice, have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, actions or omissions related to the implementation of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 when one of the following conditions is fulfilled: 1.  Member States shall ensure that natural or legal persons or their associations, organisations or groups, in accordance with national legislation or practice, have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions, actions or omissions related to the implementation of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 when one of the following conditions is fulfilled: Amendment 73 Proposal for a directive Article 13 Article 13 Article 13 Information on monitoring of implementation Information on monitoring of implementation 1.  Without prejudice to Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council52 and Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53, Member States, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall set up a data set containing: 1.  Without prejudice to Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council52 and Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council53, Member States, assisted by the European Environment Agency, shall set up a data set containing: (a)  the data on single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex that have been placed on the Union market each year, to demonstrate the consumption reduction in accordance with Article 4(1); (a)  the data on single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex that have been placed on the Union market each year, to demonstrate the consumption reduction in accordance with Article 4(1); (aa)  the data on the placing on the market and separate collection of products listed in Part F of the Annex, to demonstrate the progress towards the achievement of the target set out in Article 9; (ab)  the data on single-use plastic products listed in Part G of the Annex that are placed on the Union market each year in order to monitor their consumption in the Union; (ac)  data on fishing gear containing plastic placed on the market and on waste fishing gear collected and treated; (b)  information on the measures taken by Member States for the purposes of Article 4(1). (b)  information on the plans and measures taken by Member States for the purposes of Article 4(1); (ba)  data on marine litter, in particular that originating in products covered by this Directive in order to monitor the effects of the measures taken. The data referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall be updated annually within 12 months from the end of the reference year for which it is collected. Where possible, spatial data services as defined in Article 3(4) of Directive 2007/2/EC shall be used to present those data sets. The data referred to in point (a) of the first subparagraph shall be reported for the first time by… [12 months after the entry into force of this Directive]. The data referred to in points (a) to (ac) shall be updated annually within 12 months from the end of the reference year for which it is collected. Where possible, spatial data services as defined in Article 3(4) of Directive 2007/2/EC shall be used to present those data sets. 2.  Member States shall ensure that the Commission and the European Environment Agency have access to the data sets established in accordance with paragraph 1. 2.  Member States shall ensure that the Commission and the European Environment Agency have access to the data sets established in accordance with paragraph 1. 3.  The European Environment Agency shall publish and update a Union-wide overview on the basis of the data collected by the Member States, on a regular basis. The Union-wide overview shall include, as appropriate, indicators for outputs, results and impacts of this Directive, Union-wide overview maps and Member State overview reports. 3.  The European Environment Agency shall publish and update a Union-wide overview on the basis of the data collected by the Member States, on a regular basis. The Union-wide overview shall include, as appropriate, indicators for outputs, results and impacts of this Directive, Union-wide overview maps and Member State overview reports. 4.  The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down the format for the data set, information and data referred to in paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). 4.  The Commission shall adopt implementing acts laying down the format for the data set, information and data referred to in paragraph 1. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16(2). ___________________ ___________________ 52 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26). 52 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, 14.2.2003, p. 26). 53 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1). 53 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1). Amendments 74 and 150 Proposal for a directive Article 15 Article 15 Article 15 Evaluation and review Evaluation and review 1.  The Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Directive by … [6 years after the end-date for transposition of this Directive]. The evaluation shall be based on the information available in accordance with Article 13. Member States shall provide the Commission with any additional information necessary for the purposes of the evaluation and the preparation of the report referred to in paragraph 2. 1.  The Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Directive by … [5 years after the end-date for transposition of this Directive]. The evaluation shall be based on the information available in accordance with Article 13. Member States shall provide the Commission with any additional information necessary for the purposes of the evaluation and the preparation of the report referred to in paragraph 2. 2.  The Commission shall submit a report on the main findings of the evaluation carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. 2.  The Commission shall submit a report on the main findings of the evaluation carried out in accordance with paragraph 1 to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee. The report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal, if appropriate. That proposal shall, if appropriate, set binding quantitative consumption reduction targets at Union level for the products listed in Part A of the Annex. 2a.  The Commission and the Member States shall set up, at the latest by 31 July 2020, a Union-wide programme for cleaning up plastic waste in the oceans and shall promote this initiative at international level. 3.  That report shall also indicate whether: 3.  That report shall include: (a)  the Annex listing single-use plastic products needs to be reviewed; (a)   an assessment of the need to review the Annex listing single-use plastic products; (b)  it is feasible to establish binding quantitative Union targets for the consumption reduction of, in particular, single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex; (b)   a study of the feasibility of establishing binding quantitative Union targets for the consumption reduction of, in particular, single-use plastic products listed in Part A of the Annex; in this regard the report shall assess the setting of targets expressed in absolute numbers taking into account consumption levels and already achieved reductions in Member States; (ba)  an assessment of the change in materials used in, and innovation in new delivery systems for reusable alternatives of, the products covered by this Directive; this shall include an overall environmental life-cycle analysis of these materials and the resulting alternatives; (c)  sufficient scientific and technical progress has been made, and criteria or a standard for biodegradability in the marine environment applicable to single-use plastic products within the scope of this directive and their single-use substitutes have been developed, in order to determine which products no longer need to be subject to the restrictions on placing on the market, where appropriate. Amendment 75 Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a (new) By way of derogation from the first subparagraph of this paragraph, Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the reporting obligations contained in point (a) of Article 13(1) by ... [12 months after the date of entry into force of this Directive]. Amendment 76 Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 However, the Member States shall apply the measures necessary to comply with Articles 5 and 7(1) from … [2 years after entry into force of this Directive] and with Article 6(1) from …[3 years after entry into force of this Directive]. However, the Member States shall apply the measures necessary to comply with Articles 5 and 7(1) from … [2 years after entry into force of this Directive] and with Article 6(1) from …[3 years after entry into force of this Directive], with the exception of the measures necessary to comply with the requirement referred to in Article 6(1) in relation to beverage containers for carbonated drinks, which Member States shall apply from …[5 years after entry into force of this Directive]. Amendment 77 Proposal for a directive Article 17 – paragraph 2 2.  Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 2.  Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. The Commission shall verify that those provisions do not place any unjustified obstacles on the functioning of the single market. Amendments 78 and 124/rev Proposal for a directive Annex I – part A Single-use plastic products covered by Article 4 on consumption reduction Single-use plastic products covered by Article 4 on consumption reduction –  Cups for beverages, including their covers and lids –  Food containers, i.e. receptacles such as boxes, with or without a cover, used to contain food that is intended for immediate consumption from the receptacle either on-the-spot or take-away without any further preparation, such as food containers used for fast food, except beverage containers, plates and packets and wrappers containing food –  Food containers, i.e. receptacles such as boxes, with or without a cover, used to contain food that is intended for immediate consumption from the receptacle either on-the-spot or take-away without any further preparation, such as food containers used for fast food, except beverage containers, plates and packets and wrappers containing food The sale of food in a one-person portion size container, or in a container provided with cutlery, is an indication that the food in question is intended to be consumed immediately from the food container. The concept of further preparation includes activities such as heating, adding boiling water, washing, slicing and cutting. Examples of single-use plastic food containers covered by parts A, E and G of this Annex: –  Fast-food containers such as meal boxes and salad boxes with food for cold consumption –  Fast-food containers such as meal boxes and salad boxes with food for hot consumption, except where the food needs to undergo heating by the consumer after the purchase of the product –  Burger boxes, sandwich boxes, wrap boxes –  One-person portion sized food containers of fresh or processed food that does not need further preparation, such as fruits, vegetables, desserts or ice-creams, sold by single unit Examples of containers that are not single-use plastic food containers covered by parts A, E and G of this Annex: –  Food containers with dried food or food sold cold that requires further preparation –  Containers containing food in more than one-person portion size quantities –  One-person portion sized food containers sold in more than one unit –  Cups for beverages Amendment 79 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part B – indent 2 —  Cutlery (forks, knives, spoons, chopsticks) —  Cutlery (forks, knives, spoons, chopsticks) except, until 2023, cutlery supplied to educational establishments or health care institutions under public supply contracts1a as defined in point 8 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/24/EU that were awarded before 31 December 2018. ___________________ 1a ‘public supply contracts’ means public contracts having as their object the purchase, lease, rental or hire-purchase, with or without an option to buy, of products. A public supply contract may include, as an incidental matter, siting and installation operations. Amendment 80 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part B – indent 3 —  Plates —  Plates, except, until 2023, plates supplied to educational establishments or health care institutions under public supply contracts1a as defined in point 8 of Article 2 of Directive 2014/24/EU that were awarded before 31 December 2018. ___________________ 1a ‘public supply contracts’ means public contracts having as their object the purchase, lease, rental or hire-purchase, with or without an option to buy, of products. A public supply contract may include, as an incidental matter, siting and installation operations. Amendment 81 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part B – indent 6 —  Sticks to be attached to and to support balloons, except balloons for industrial or other professional uses and applications that are not distributed to consumers, including the mechanisms of such sticks —  Sticks to be attached to and to support balloons, except balloons for industrial or other professional uses and applications that are not distributed to consumers, excluding the mechanisms of such sticks Amendments 83 and 117 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part B – indent 6 a (new) —   Products made of oxo-degradable plastic Amendment 84 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part B – indent 6 b (new) —  Food and beverage containers made of expanded polystyrene, used to contain food that is intended for immediate consumption from the receptacle either on-the-spot or take-away without further preparation. Amendment 85 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part C – indent 1 —  Beverage containers, i.e. receptacles used to contain liquid such as beverage bottles including their caps and lids —  Beverage containers, i.e. receptacles used to contain liquid such as beverage bottles including their caps and lids, except containers intended and used for food for special medical purposes in liquid form as defined in point (g) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 Amendment 125 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part D – indent 3 —  Balloons, except balloons for industrial or other professional uses and applications, that are not distributed to consumers deleted Amendment 86 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part D – indent 3 a (new) –  Tobacco products with filters and filters marketed for use in combination with tobacco products Amendment 87 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part D – indent 3 b (new) –  Packets and wrappers made from flexible material containing food that is intended for immediate consumption from the packet or wrapper without any further preparation Amendment 88 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part D – indent 3 c (new) –  Cups for beverages Amendment 89 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part E – indent 4 –  Cups for beverages –  Cups for beverages including their covers and lids Amendment 90 Proposal for a directive Annex I – part F – indent 1 —  Beverage bottles —  Beverage bottles, including their caps and lids

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A8-0317/2018).

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 (COM(2016)0882 – C8-0533/2016 – 2016/0408(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0412 A8-0347/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0882),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 77(2)(b) and (d) and 79(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0533/2016),

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

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 69f(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 19 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 the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0347/2017),

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 24 October 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/1861.)

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU (COM(2016)0883 – C8-0530/2016 – 2016/0409(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0413 A8-0349/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0883),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 82(1), second subparagraph, point (d), 85(1), 87(2)(a) and 88(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0530/2016),

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

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 69f(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 19 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 (A8-0349/2017),

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 24 October 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending and repealing Council Decision 2007/533/JHA, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/1862.)

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (COM(2016)0881 – C8-0532/2016 – 2016/0407(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0414 A8-0348/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0881),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 79(2)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0532/2016),

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

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 69f(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 19 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 the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0348/2017),

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

2.  Approves the joint statement by Parliament and the Council annexed to this resolution;

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 24 October 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/1860.)

ANNEX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

Statement by the European Parliament and the Council (on Ireland/Return)

The European Parliament and the Council invite the Commission, without prejudice to its right of initiative, once Ireland participates in Directive 2008/115/EC to assess the legal situation in accordance with the Treaties and the relevant Protocols and, as required, to present a legislative proposal to enable that cooperation on return between Ireland and the other Member States may be carried out through the SIS.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 October 2018 on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (COM(2018)0334 – C8-0269/2018 – 2018/0173(CNS))

P8_TA(2018)0415 A8-0307/2018

(Special legislative procedure – consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2018)0334),

–  having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0269/2018),

–  having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0307/2018),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

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

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

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

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

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a directive Recital 2 a (new) (2a)   In its judgment of 17 May 2018 in Case C-30/17 Kompania Piwowarska1a the Court of Justice ruled on the calculation of the degree Plato. ____________ 1a Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 May 2018, Kompania Piwowarska, C-30/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:325. Amendment 2 Proposal for a directive Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Directive 92/83/EEC Article 3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 a All the ingredients of the beer, including those added after fermentation, shall be taken into account for the purposes of measuring the degree Plato.; All the ingredients of the beer, with the exception of those added after the completion of fermentation, shall be taken into account for the purposes of measuring the degree Plato.

European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D058360/01 – 2018/2872(RSP))

P8_TA(2018)0416 B8-0490/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810 (MON-ØØ6Ø3-6 × MON-ØØ81Ø-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D058360/01),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(1), and in particular Articles 11(3) and 23(3) thereof,

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 11 September 2018, at which no opinion was delivered,

–  having regard to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers(2),

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 24 January 2018 and published on 26 February 2018(3),

–  having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2017)0085, COD(2017)0035),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms(4),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

–  having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas, on 20 October 2016, Monsanto Europe N.V./S.A. submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the renewal of the authorisation of genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810 for food and feed uses;

B.  whereas, on 24 January 2018, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion(5) in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, in which it concluded that the renewal application did not contain evidence for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810, adopted by EFSA in 2005(6);

C.  whereas EFSA, according to its scientific opinion, did not perform a systematic literature search of its own, but simply assessed the literature search carried out by the applicant, and on that basis concluded that no new publication had been identified which would raise a safety concern;

D.  whereas EFSA adopted its opinion under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the two events in genetically modified maize NK603 x MON 810 is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed events; whereas the applicant has not provided any data supporting that hypothesis;

E.  whereas genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810 expresses a protein that confers tolerance to glyphosate herbicides; whereas on 20 March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer – the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organisation – classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans(7);

F.  whereas authorising the import of genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810 into the Union is supposed to lead to an increase in its cultivation elsewhere, such as in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa and Uruguay, and to a corresponding increase in the use of glyphosate containing herbicides;

G.  whereas genetically modified maize NK603 x MON 810 expresses the Cry1Ab protein, which is a Bt protein (derived from Bacillus thuringiensis) conferring resistance to certain lepidopteran insect pests (Ostrinia nubilalis, Sesamia spp.);

H.  whereas genetically modified Bt plants express the insecticidal toxin in every cell throughout their life, including in the parts eaten by humans and animals; whereas animal feeding experiments show that genetically modified Bt plants may have toxic effects(8); whereas it has been shown that the Bt toxin in genetically modified plants differs significantly from that of the naturally occurring Bt toxin(9);

I.  whereas concerns remain regarding a possible evolution of resistance to the Cry1Ab protein in lepidopteran target pests, which may lead to altered pest control practices in the countries where it is cultivated;

J.  whereas many critical comments were submitted by Member States during the three-month consultation period; whereas those comments refer to, inter alia: lacking information with regard to lines currently used; missing data, e.g. regarding the potential for horizontal gene transfer of the events MON 810 and NK603; a deficient literature review; a partly outdated data generation; and a fragmentary environmental monitoring approach, including the fact that the persistence of Cry proteins released to the environment was not monitored, no analysis of exposure of the environment to the Cry toxin had been conducted and that the occurrence of teosinte as a wild relative of maize in Europe had been ignored(10);

K.  whereas despite those concerns, a post-market monitoring plan was not required; whereas case-specific post-market environmental monitoring was also not considered necessary;

L.  whereas the vote on 11 September 2018 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion; whereas 13 Member States voted against, while only 11 voted in favour, and four abstained;

M.  whereas, both in the explanatory memorandum of its legislative proposal presented on 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory and in the explanatory memorandum of the legislative proposal presented on 14 February 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission deplored the fact that, since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, authorisation decisions have been adopted by the Commission without the support of the Member States’ committee opinion and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas that practice has, on several occasions, been deplored by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker as not being democratic(11);

N.  whereas on 28 October 2015 Parliament rejected at first reading(12) the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

1.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(13), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests in relation to genetically modified food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision;

4.  Calls on the Commission to suspend any implementing decision regarding applications for authorisation of genetically modified organisms until the authorisation procedure has been revised in such a way so as to address the shortcomings of the current procedure, which has proven inadequate;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) Scientific opinion on an application by Monsanto (application EFSA-GMO-RX-007) – Assessment of genetically modified maize NK603 x MON810 for renewal of authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-007). EFSA Journal 2018;16(2):5163: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5163 (4) ––––––––––––––––––––––––– – Resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests (OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 110).Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 108).Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4) (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 111).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 76).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 80).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 70).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 73).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 83).Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 34).Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 71).Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 67).Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 54).Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 55).Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 60).Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 122).Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40-3-2 (DP-3Ø5423-1 × MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 127).Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified oilseed rapes MON 88302 × Ms8 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8 × ACS-BNØØ3-6), MON 88302 × Ms8 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8) and MON 88302 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACS-BNØØ3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 133).Resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122 (DAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0051).Resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 (MON-87427-7 × MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and genetically modified maize combining two of the events MON 87427, MON 89034 and NK603, and repealing Decision 2010/420/EU (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0052).Resolution of 3 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of food and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet H7-1 (KM-ØØØH71-4) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0197).Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0221).Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 × 59122 × MON 810 × NK603, and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, 59122, MON 810 and NK603, and repealing Decisions 2009/815/EC, 2010/428/EU and 2010/432/EU pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0222). (5) Scientific opinion on assessment of genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810 for renewal of authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-007). EFSA Journal 2018;16(2):5163: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5163 (6) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on an application (Reference EFSA-GMO-UK-2004-01) for the placing on the market of glyphosate-tolerant and insect-resistant genetically modified maize NK603 × MON 810, for food and feed uses under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto. EFSA Journal (2005) 309, 1-22: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2005.309 (7) IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides, 20 March 2015: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112.pdf (8) See, for example, El-Shamei Z.S., Gab-Alla A.A., Shatta A.A., Moussa E.A., Rayan A.M., Histopathological Changes in Some Organs of Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb Y.G.). Journal of American Science, 2012, 8(9), pp. 1117-1123: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235256452_Histopathological_Changes_in_Some_Organs_of_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG (9) Székács A., Darvas B., Comparative aspects of Cry Toxin Usage in Insect Control, in: Ishaaya I., Palli S.R., Horowitz A.R. (eds), Advanced Technologies for Managing Insect Pests, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer, 2012, pp. 195-230: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4497-4_10 (10) See EFSA Register of Questions, Annex G to Question Number EFSA-Q-2017-00028 - available online at: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/ListOfQuestionsNoLogin?1&panel=ALL (11) For example, in the Opening Statement at the European Parliament plenary session included in the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission (Strasbourg, 15 July 2014) or in the State of the Union Address 2016 (Strasbourg, 14 September 2016). (12) OJ C 355, 20.10.2017, p. 165. (13) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 24 October 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (D058361/01 – 2018/2873(RSP))

P8_TA(2018)0417 B8-0491/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (D058361/01),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(1), and in particular Articles 7(3) and 19(3) thereof,

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 11 September 2018, at which no opinion was delivered,

–  having regard to Article 11 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers(2),

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 28 June 2017 and published on 1 August 2017(3),

–  having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2017)0085, COD(2017)0035),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms(4),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

–  having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas, on 26 November 2013, Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V. submitted, on behalf of Monsanto Company, an application, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 (‘the application’) to the national competent authority of Belgium; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas, in addition, the application covered the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from 25 sub-combinations of the single transformation events constituting genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122; whereas 12 of these sub-combinations are already authorised; whereas the Commission implementing decision authorising the maize covers 14 sub-combinations;

C.  whereas Monsanto Europe S.A./N.V., the authorisation holder for one of the 12 sub-combinations already authorised, sub-combination MON 89034 × MON 88017, requested that the Commission repeal Decision 2011/366/EU and incorporate this Decision into the scope of the Commission Decision; whereas this request was granted; whereas the legitimacy of such an approach is questionable;

D.  whereas, on 28 June 2017, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003(5), related to the five-event stack maize, the previously assessed sub-combinations and the remaining sub-combinations;

E.  whereas EFSA acknowledges that no specific data have been submitted for any of the 14 sub-combinations; whereas many of them have not even been created yet; whereas EFSA nevertheless concludes that all sub-combinations are ‘expected to be as safe as the five-event stack maize’;

F.  whereas no toxicology testing has been performed, and no animal studies with food/feed derived from genetically modified maize MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122, or any of the sub-combinations, were provided(6);

G.  whereas two of the maize varieties involved express proteins which confer tolerance to the glufosinate-ammonium herbicide(7); whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction and thus falls under the exclusion criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; whereas the approval of glufosinate expired on 31 July 2018(8);

H.  whereas two of the maize varieties involved express proteins which confer tolerance to glyphosate herbicides; whereas, on 20 March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer – the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organisation – classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans(9);

I.  whereas authorising the import of genetically modified maize MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 into the Union is supposed to lead to an increase in its cultivation elsewhere, such as in Mexico and South Korea, and to a corresponding increase in the use of glufosinate ammonium or glyphosate containing herbicides;

J.  whereas four of the maize varieties involved express Cry proteins, which are Bt proteins (derived from Bacillus thuringiensis) conferring resistance to certain lepidopteran and coleopteran pests respectively;

K.  whereas genetically modified Bt plants express the insecticidal toxin in every cell throughout their life, including in the parts eaten by humans and animals; whereas animal feeding experiments show that genetically modified Bt plants may have toxic effects(10); whereas it has been shown that the Bt toxin in genetically modified plants differs significantly from that of the naturally occurring Bt toxin(11);

L.  whereas concerns remain regarding a possible evolution of resistances to the Cry proteins in the target pests, which may lead to altered pest control practices in the countries where it is cultivated;

M.  whereas many critical comments were submitted by Member States during the three-month consultation period; whereas those comments refer to, inter alia: poor test designs, missing tests, e.g. as regards nutritional assessment, or the lack of any 90-day feeding study in rodents; missing or insufficient data, e.g. regarding unintended effects associated with the combination of the events, or regarding potential interactions of the eight proteins, which might lead to unintended effects; wrong assumptions by the applicant, e.g. as regards degradation of orally ingested DNA during its passage through the gastrointestinal tract; a partly missing environmental risk assessment, and an insufficient environmental monitoring plan(12);

N.  whereas independent research also raises concerns about major gaps in the comparative assessment, serious gaps as regards the missing toxicology assessment, about the inconclusive assessment with regard to allergenicity, the lack of consideration of combinatorial effects, and a flawed environmental risk assessment(13);

O.  whereas, in spite of all of these concerns, EFSA did not consider any post-market monitoring of food/feed derived from genetically modified maize MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and its sub-combinations to be necessary;

P.  whereas the vote on 11 September 2018 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion; whereas 14 Member States voted against, while only 11 voted in favour, and three abstained;

Q.  whereas, both in the explanatory memorandum of its legislative proposal presented on 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 as regards the possibility for the Member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed on their territory and in the explanatory memorandum of the legislative proposal presented on 14 February 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission deplored the fact that, since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, authorisation decisions have been adopted by the Commission without the support of the Member States’ committee opinion and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas that practice has, on several occasions, been deplored by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker as not being democratic(14);

R.  whereas on 28 October 2015 Parliament rejected at first reading(15) the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

1.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(16), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests in relation to genetically modified food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3.  Considers, more specifically, that the draft Commission implementing decision runs contrary to the principles of the general food law, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, to approve varieties for which no safety data have been provided, which have not even been tested, or which have not even been created yet;

4.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision;

5.  Calls on the Commission to suspend any implementing decision regarding applications for authorisation of genetically modified organisms until the authorisation procedure has been revised in such a way so as to address the shortcomings of the current procedure, which has proven inadequate;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) Scientific opinion on application EFSA‐GMO‐BE‐2013‐118 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Company, EFSA Journal Volume 15, Issue 8: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4921 (4) ––––––––––––––––––––––––– – Resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests (OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 110).Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 108).Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4) (OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 111).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 76).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 80).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 70).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 73).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 83).Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 34).Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 71).Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ C 307, 30.8.2018, p. 67).Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 54).Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 55).Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 60).Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 122).Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40-3-2 (DP-3Ø5423-1 × MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 127).Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified oilseed rapes MON 88302 × Ms8 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8 × ACS-BNØØ3-6), MON 88302 × Ms8 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8) and MON 88302 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACS-BNØØ3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (OJ C 346, 27.9.2018, p. 133).Resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122 (DAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0051).Resolution of 1 March 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 (MON-87427-7 × MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and genetically modified maize combining two of the events MON 87427, MON 89034 and NK603, and repealing Decision 2010/420/EU (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0052).Resolution of 3 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of food and feed produced from genetically modified sugar beet H7-1 (KM-ØØØH71-4) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0197).Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize GA21 (MON-ØØØ21-9) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0221).Resolution of 30 May 2018 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 × 59122 × MON 810 × NK603, and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, 59122, MON 810 and NK603, and repealing Decisions 2009/815/EC, 2010/428/EU and 2010/432/EU pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0222). (5) EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2017. Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2013-118 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 and subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Company. EFSA Journal 2017;15(8):4921, pp. 32: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4921 (6) As confirmed in the EFSA opinion referred to above (EFSA Journal 2017;15(8):4921). (7) MON-87427-7 maize expresses the CP4 EPSPS protein, which confers tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicides; MON-89Ø34-3 maize expresses the Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins, which confer protection against certain lepidopteran pests; DAS-Ø15Ø7-1 maize expresses the Cry1F protein, which confers protection against certain lepidopteran pests, and the PAT protein, which confers tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-based herbicides; MON-88Ø17-3 maize expresses a modified Cry3Bb1 protein, which provides protection to certain coleopteran pests, and the CP4 EPSPS protein, which confers tolerance to glyphosate-based herbicides; DAS-59122-7 maize expresses Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins, which confer protection against certain coleopteran pests, and the PAT protein, which confers tolerance to glufosinate-ammonium-based herbicides. (8) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=activesubstance.detail&language=EN&selectedID=1436 (9) IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides, 20 March 2015: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112.pdf (10) See, for example, El-Shamei Z.S., Gab-Alla A.A., Shatta A.A., Moussa E.A., Rayan A.M., Histopathological Changes in Some Organs of Male Rats Fed on Genetically Modified Corn (Ajeeb YG), Journal of American Science, 2012; 8(9), pp. 1117-1123: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235256452_Histopathological_Changes_in_Some_Organs_of_Male_Rats_Fed_on_Genetically_Modified_Corn_Ajeeb_YG (11) Székács A., Darvas B.., Comparative aspects of Cry Toxin Usage in Insect Control, in: Ishaaya I., Palli S.R., Horowitz A.R. (eds.), Advanced Technologies for Managing Insect Pests, Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer, 2012; pp. 195-230: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4497-4_10 (12) See EFSA Register of Questions, Annex G to Question Number EFSA-Q-2013-00926 available online at: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/ListOfQuestionsNoLogin?1 (13) Bauer-Panskus, A, Then, C, Testbiotech comment on ‘Scientific Opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2013-118 for authorisation of genetically modified maize MON 87427 x MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122 and subcombinations independently of their origin, for food and feed uses, import and processing submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 by Monsanto Company’, available at: https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Comment_Maize%20MON%2087427%20x%20MON%2089034%20x%201507%20x%20MON%2088017%20x%2059122.pdf (14) For example in the Opening Statement at the European Parliament plenary session included in the Political Guidelines for the next European Commission (Strasbourg, 15 July 2014) or in the State of the Union Address 2016 (Strasbourg, 14 September 2016). (15) OJ C 355, 20.10.2017, p. 165. (16) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.